Jump to content

User talk:Nouniquenames/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/LQP-79

Hi Nouniquenames, just to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/LQP-79 was 'double-tagged' meaning that it still shows as a pending submission even after your decline. This usually happens when authors resubmit and copy and paste stuff where they shouldn't. I've removed the duplicate text and the duplicate tag, just thought I'd mention it incase you come across the same thing again. Good work reviewing by the way, thanks for helping out :) Pol430 talk to me 22:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC) {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

CSD G5

Filling a template is not necesserily a good reason to keep an article and empty or unnecessary templates are not sacred. The articles and pages I nominated to be deleted were created by a banned user whose contributions are not welcome on Wikipedia. Usefulness and utility are not a consideration in deciding whether to keep them. By removing the csd templates you are taking personal responsibility for each and every undeleted revision from the banned user. Please can you confirm that you are prepared to take on this responsibility? Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 15:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Creation of an article by a banned user can be used as a justification for deletion, but if the article is useful, then it need not be deleted. Every article (absent copyvio) must be evaluated based on usefulness and utility. I am not removing the CSD from articles that do not seem useful, but some of the articles have even been edited by others (contraindicating the utilized CSD). Filling of red links is a goal on Wikipedia as I understand it (see Wikipedia:Most wanted articles as an example). It seemed to me like too big of a hammer was being used, and some articles received collateral damage unnecessarily. --Nouniquenames (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
That wasn't my point. Not everyone agrees with G5 but if you want to remove the speedy you are taking responsibility for the content. Please can you confirm that you are willing to do this? Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 16:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I will take responsibility for the content of the articles as I left them when I removed the CSD. --Nouniquenames (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Spartaz Humbug! 17:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Reverted many of my changes, as I cannot in good faith accept the liability that those unsourced articles pose. A few were salvageable. --Nouniquenames (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I came here to ask about this with regard to ASEAN member state, which seems totally harmless to me (I agree with your first edit summary). Was there any specific reason for your change of heart in this case? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see the above discussion. I don't have a problem with it, but I don't know enough about it to take the CSD tag away and assume liability for it. You are welcome to change it (as it seems you have), but in doing so, to quote Spartaz, "you are taking personal responsibility for each and every undeleted revision" (in this case, the redirect's creation). It seems trivial to me in this case, but the risk is yours to take... --Nouniquenames (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, in this case I think the redirect's obviously harmless so that isn't a problem. Thanks. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.

Could you please help me to resolve the issue

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunila kumari (talk • contribs) 05:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Huon posted a good response at the help desk. --Nouniquenames (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

PROD of Windows CE *.0

I know it was automatic through TW, but you notified the wrong editor when nominating those 3 articles. User:Ryan Norton created it as a redirect, but it was User:WinEuro who stubified and re-stubified it (after I reverted). -- KTC (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixing it now. Thanks for letting me know!
I've done it already, it's alright. :) KTC (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

2012–13 First League of the Republika Srpska

Hey, I was just wondering about your prodding of 2012–13 First League of the Republika Srpska. My understanding is that the closest thing to a relevant policy is WP:NSEASONS, but that's only concerned with seasons played by individual teams rather than articles dealing with whole leagues. Have I misunderstood or missed the relevant policy? I thought I'd better check before deprodding. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I based it more on WP:SPORT, and prodded it since it wasn't about the top tier in the country. It can safely be deprodded if you wish. Thanks! --Nouniquenames (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh, okay. I find the whole sport notability policy structure pretty confusing to be honest. I'll deprod it though, feel free to take it to AfD. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Richmond Fire Department

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Richmond Fire Department, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that the deletion of this article may be controversial. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! KTC (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

AFD started --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Lists of publications

Please see Talk:Dorothy Bohm. NB I'm talking there about books, not mere magazine appearances and the like -- but even magazine appearances can at times be noteworthy (a good example is the devotion of most/all of the May 1977 issue of Creative Camera to recent work by Chris Killip; this is mentioned in relevant histories). -- Hoary (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Spoken (over there) like a gentleman, Sir. Thank you. (Incidentally, my "at times" immediately above should be "on occasion".) -- Hoary (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

EcoVillage at Ithaca

Aloha,

My recent submission on EcoVillage at Ithaca was declined. Can you provide me with a concrete example of what you are looking for in terms of editing this article. I thought I provided a variety of sources for the information, which is entirely factual.

Thank you, Lcopman (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Lcopman

I declined the submission here. Perhaps a better reasoning would have been the advertisement decline that SwisterTwister used before. I apologize if I caused you confusion in that. Sources 3 and 4 do seem proper for establishing notability. (Note that sources 1 and 2 can only be used for noncontroversial information about EVI as they are self published.) The article would do well broken into sections, if possible (not sure how you would do that right now, but that's ok). It's important that you use inline citations. Please read the guide at WP:IC. It will be difficult to get the article approved without inline citations (as it is difficult to easily tell which reference supports what). I made the web addresses at the bottom human readable. The {{reflist}} tag will populate your references in once you put inline citations in place, so you won't have to have them listed at the bottom. It looks like you could have a good article soon. Feel free to let me know if you need more help. --Nouniquenames (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation/List of NASA Special Publications

Hello,

You recently declined my submission, but weren't specific as to why. From the link provided, I am lead to assume it is the linklist issue. This is my first Wikipedia page, if I understand correctly, I can rectify the issue by either deleting the offsite links or by replacing them with a link to a separate page for each NASA SP. Is this correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.81.218 (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for not being specific. My rational was that the article seems to fall under WP:NOT as a directory. It would be an improvement if the titles were not all external links. At a glance, I might recommend removing the search queries altogether and putting a link to the NASA search interface as an external link at the bottom. The empty categories should be removed (for now, as you can put them back in when there is content to flesh them out). The rest could be added under External Links or as a reference. Inline citations would be a good idea, too. --Nouniquenames (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Time in Alabama

At this edit of Time in Alabama, can you clarify the reason ("bad ref cleared") for removal? I believe I cited it after using it to confirm the info (or perhaps to avoid re-citing the sources from that article). I probably wrote and cited both of them.

Also, at this edit, you changed "and a 10–15 mile area surrounding it" to "and an area surrounding it". As I recall, the more specific radius I used was directly from one of the sources, though they said it was an estimate, but described reasonably how they came to it (I think). My impression was that it was within 50% of being accurate, and so would be better than the non-specific "an".

Thanks! —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 04:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The bad ref was a reference citing another Wikipedia article, which is not considered a reliable source. The other edit decreased specificity (though I would argue only marginally), but I did not see the 10-15 mile radius mentioned in the source. --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Windows CE 1.0 (and Windows CE 2.0)

At the time of Windows CE 1.0's nomination for deletion, it didn't cite any references. However, later, some have been added by Millermk.

Also, Windows CE 2.0 has been nominated. It has also been improved. These discussions must be closed.

WinEuro (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion will be closed in due time. That's how AfD works. --Nouniquenames (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Quelitu (computer operating system) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Quelitu (computer operating system) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. - Ahunt (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

CYGNSS

Hello,

My recent stub on CYGNSS was declined. The reason is that Wikipedia is not crystal ball, meaning that the information must be verifiable. In addition, I realize that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, this subject matter is very new, and very little is known to the public. It will no doubt grow over time as more is known, and I expect the growth of this article will peak around 3 years from now.

Please contact me at davidchen1@hotmail.com with additional comments. Would you know if the decision can be appealed?

Respectfully, David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidch12 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Once it (the program) is in place, it may gain widespread coverage and notability. Until notability is established, it is not likely to be approved. (P.S. I do not make it a practice to contact Wikipedia editors via email. On the up side, you and anyone else can see my conversations here. The only exception I could forsee in my capacity as an editor would be if I needed to request oversight.) --Nouniquenames (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that CYGNSS is not notable until launch. SMAP is at least 3 years from launch and most people would agree that it is notable. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_Moisture_Active_Passive — Preceding unsigned comment added by (IP Blanked) 04:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC) The previous message is posted by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidch12 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

SMAP has significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I will ask other contributors to look at the submission in case I am in err. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention. I will let you know of any further updates or comments. Davidch12 (talk) 02:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Sources

I stumbled on this on DGG's Talk page thinking the discussion was on a company article. Looks like a lot of sources just came out.

  • Clark, Stephen (June 21, 2012). "NASA funds satellite mission to measure hurricane winds". SpaceflightNow. Retrieved June 22, 2012.

User:King4057 01:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Ithink these areenough, though some of them are essentially dups of the AP.Put them in the article, and I will take another look. DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I posted the sources into the AFC post[1], but I'll wait and see if the AfC submitter picks it up. User:King4057 01:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks King4057 for the references. I'll do my best to revise the article and resubmit for consideration. Thanks DGG for your detailed answer to my question.Davidch12 (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on hurricanes, so I'd appreciate any help. Thanks,DavidDavidch12 (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I made some tweaks and recommendations to avoid the crystal ball issue. I'll keep an eye on and chip in now and then. User:King4057 14:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I added a few more edits.Davidch12 (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Also, I noticed you did not include the NASA webpage as a reference (I just added it). (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/jun/HQ_12-203_Earth_Venture_Space_System_CYGNSS.html) Was there a reason for this - something to do with not being an independent source..?
Just overlooked it. --Nouniquenames (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Please let me know if further action on my part is needed. This is my first time submitting an article so please let me know if the ball is still in my court. Thanks.Davidch12 (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Go ahead and resubmit. As I recall, it should be ready. --Nouniquenames (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Nice work. I just bumped in and made some moderate edits for the crystal ball issue. It's natural for crystal ball to be problematic for an article on a system that doesn't exist yet, but I did what I could to use words like "plan", "intended to", "is developing" and so on, so we can focus on what has happened (past tense) which are the plans, alliances and funding, without saying that it will do one thing or another. Hope this helps. User:King4057 04:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks!Davidch12 (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

San Jose Group

SAN JOSE GROUP WIKI - Hello, wondering why this page is being removed. It said the page already exsists and I am unsure what that means given that I searched it and could not find it. I think I am just confused why it is being taken down and how/if I can get the page I created to be the only San Jose Group page. Please help, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessiesmithh (talk • contribs) 14:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You appear to have created an article and created an identical AfC submission. The submission, which was declined, can be viewed at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/San_Jose_Group. The article can be viewed at The San Jose Group and is very similar. Note that an article by this name was deleted through an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The San Jose Group. The current article has some significant issues. (I may work to fix it somewhat if I get around to it.) You are welcome to edit the existing article to improve it. --Nouniquenames (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I fixed some of the issues with the article. --Nouniquenames (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand why you keep deleting segements of this page. For example, our past and present clients. These are legitimate clients that the company has worked with. Similar competitor websites, for example Ogilvy and Mather, have clients listed and not referenced so why can't this page have the same? Jessiesmithh (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, the sections about SJ PR and San Jose Consulting were deleted. Not sure why? These are also legitamate sectors of this company? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessiesmithh (talk • contribs) 19:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The sections on PR and San Jose Consulting were completely unreferenced. The clients I removed were also unreferenced. For what it's worth, I also rectified the issue with Ogilvy and Mather. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I apologize for being presumptuous or speculative, but Jessie, do you work for The San Jose Group or their PR agency? If so, there may be some useful advice here and here. Both are relatively new and I'm interested in seeing if they "work." In any case, if you don't have a conflict of interest, just ignore me. :-D User:King4057 04:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh I see, the article is on a PR agency. Hey Noun, would you be interested in helping over here? This PR agency has been on the Talk page for 2 years. It's clear they don't have the Wiki-skills to get anything done, but I feel companies shouldn't have to hire a Wikipedia consultant to lobby for basic neutrality issues. One of the frequent infractions I find in controversies is using op-eds and sources with extreme POVs in an effort to sensationalize and support a negative POV. I don't have a COI really, but the reasons for me not editing is probably obvious. All that still needs to be done is some discussion on the controversial content. I wasn't going to write a big article for them, but just the basic cleanup. User:King4057 13:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I cleared the request list on the talk page at H&K as best I could. Have a look. Let me know if I can be of any more assistance. --Nouniquenames (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
How about this:
Extended content

In 1990, H&K led over 20 other American PR firms in a foreign-funded domestic campaign.[1] H&K earned over $10.8 million for their work, paid by "Citizens for a Free Kuwait," an organization heavily funded by the Kuwaiti government.[1] One controversial maneuver event was the arrangement of the testimony of “Nurse Nayirah” to the Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990. Nayirah falsely testified that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers killing hundreds of premature babies at the al-Addan hospital in Kuwait City.[2] H&K faxed the details of her speech to newsroom across the country, which took off quickly.[3] The public was told her identity was concealed to protect her family, but it was discovered that she was the daughter to the Kuwait ambassador. This made the public suspicious of her testimony. She changed her statement to saying that she was only repeating what she heard from a friend. Additionally human rights groups withdrew their support of her statements.

This liepotentially false testimony had an enormous emotional impact on the public's support decision in US-American politics and public to supportof the war against Iraq.[4] It was mentioned several times by president George H.W. Bush and other war-supporting people to manipulate the public opinion.[5][6] (op-ed is not an appropriate source for this)

My rational is that the op-ed is not a good source for this and as far as I can tell there is no evidence that (a) the testimony was falsified and (b) that H&K knew the testimony was false. My personal opinion is that it's pretty obvious the girl lied, but I have no way of even gandering a guess how much H&K knew. We should let the reader decide, even in potentially obvious situations. User:King4057 21:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently someone else disagrees with using an op-ed as a source, but I don't have the energy to pursue it. I did some obvious advert cleanup for the SJ Group folks as well. Thanks for chipping in. User:King4057 19:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Richmond Fire Department

Hi, you may want to take another look at Richmond Fire Department as I have began rescuing it and now it has independent sources including some unambiguous in depth coverage of one of the many environmental catastrophes that occur in Richmond and that this department in particular is notorious for dealing with. I have found more sources and will be adding them, thanks for giving it a second look and if you have any input or could help expand, copyedit, or trim the article in any way please be my guest. Thank you. -Troy.LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

List of Twitter users

Have a pie.

Is there a particular reason you reverted my edit to List of Twitter users, in which I removed an article which was deleted, and added an article that existed? --kelapstick(bainuu) 04:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for the misunderstanding. I restored your edits. --Nouniquenames (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
No worries, here, have a pie. :) --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Calvin Harris (album)

I have nominationed Calvin Harris (album) for deletion at Articles for deletion as it was the article creator Coldplayfan5550 who removed the original PROD tag when removing my CSD tag, rather than me when adding the CSD tag. As such, it counts as PROD contest, which means the article no longer qualify for PROD. Thanks! KTC (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I actually just realised this article never qualified for PROD given the existence of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cavin Harris's third studio album. KTC (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! --Nouniquenames (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Please remove tag

Two reliable sources have been added to the Cher Chevalier page. Please kindly remove the tag & also advise if the page needs any additional reliable sources. Thank you LTLeo Truelove (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not certain as to what it is to which you are referring. While the page at Cher Chevalier has a references section with content, I cannot ascertain what verifiable, reliable sources are being used, nor what those sources are to support. Please see WP:IC for proper use of inline citations and {{reflist}} to fix the article. --Nouniquenames (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Never mind, it's fixed now. --Nouniquenames (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We'll Be Coming Back

Glad it worked out. Afraid I was asleep so couldn't help at the time. Do feel free to ask if you have any other question in the future. I'll try to help to the best of my ability. KTC (talk) 10:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Cher Chevalier page

Thank you for assisting & fixing the issues. Please let me know if any other additional information is needed or if the page is now 'safe' so to speak. Thanks again Leo Truelove (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It's better than it was, but if you look at the article's talk page, there are still some issues that could lead to it's future deletion nomination. Essentially, the more reliable sources and claims to notability you can add, the better. --Nouniquenames (talk) 11:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I am so grateful for your help. Each time I add information it seems to have a tag placed on for deletion. It is confusing. Articles are surely reliable sources? Any further help would be most appreciated. Thanks again :) Leo Truelove (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not currently up for deletion. The discussion on the talk page concerns it likely being nominated for deletion in the future (which may or may not happen, and is not guaranteed to succeed if it does). Articles on Wikipedia are not considered reliable, nor is anything published by Ms. Chevalier (such as on her web site, as there is no editorial oversight). Amazon.com and anyone else interested in selling her book would not be a reliable source since they have a vested financial interest. Forums and blogs are not reliable sources because there is no editorial oversight. Articles in mainstream newspapers and the like are reliable sources and do support notability. Finding more of these would be helpful. Also, fleshing out more of what she has done / is doing might be a good idea (although the sources are the best thing for improving the article right now). If I can be of any further assistance, (or if that didn't make sense,) please let me know. --Nouniquenames (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much, you have been the most, rather the only helpful person I have communicated with on Wiki! Have a great day! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo Truelove (talk • contribs) 12:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thomas A. Giovine

Since you declined the AfC on this fellow, I thought you might wish to consider taking this to AfD. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 20:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It's up for a BLP PROD at the moment. I'll wait and see how that goes (or if it gets nominated in the mean time). Thank you for the heads up! --Nouniquenames (talk) 03:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
It was CSD'd in the mean time under G11 as unambiguous advertising. --Nouniquenames (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Site ban/topic ban

Hello, I noticed you commented on the debate on whether or not to ban me. What would you suggest that I do in order to persuade the wikipedia community to not decide to site ban me or topic ban me?--RJR3333 (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, there is probably very little you could do now. The best would probably be to apologise and agree to voluntarily stay away from Flyer22, and to avoid mentioning the user at all on any page. It's not much of a recommendation, but it's all I can give you. --Nouniquenames (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, don't sockpuppet. That will get you faster than most things. Note that multiple accounts does not necessarily constitute socking, it depends on how they interact. If you are not socking, only have multiple accounts, then don't claim an account as your sockpuppet. If you are puppeting, there's nothing anyone can do to save you for now. If they give you standard offer, you might want to consider it. Then play by the rules. --Nouniquenames (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Charitybuzz Page

Thank you for pointing out some issues with this page. I added in relevant categories and linked to the page from other articles that already mentioned the company. I've also qualified all language with links to unbiased, credible media sources that echo the wording. Is it ok if I remove the "Orphan" issue and "Neutrality" issue you listed? Still learning Wikipedia etiquette. Goodwork84 (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

With those issues, if you fix the issue you can remove the tag. As for the other tags, I'm not sure that the "Celebrity Participants" or "Top Auction Items" sections should be there, and I would limit "Charity Partners" to notable organizations (ones with, or likely to have an article). That is why I put the undue weight tag in. I was concerned by your username that you may have a conflict of interest on this page. If that's not the case, feel free to remove the COI tag. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks so much for the feedback! Really appreciate it. Goodwork84 (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Cameron Cosentino

I have declined the delete for this page. It is unclear why it should be deleted as you have not made it clear that there is any copyright infringement. There are several references in it, poorly presented though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It was not blanked for any copyright infringement. It was blanked as an unreferenced BLP (per Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions). I did not realize that the script now added a CSD tag. I should have double checked the end result after I declined. My apologies for the confusion. --Nouniquenames (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that the v decline should have done, but there are references near the end with newspaper and story titles, that are incomplete references. Use blp for a page that slanders or libels the person. Then it is worth deleting. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
That makes sense. Thank you! --Nouniquenames (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's Go

Just to let you know that I erased the tag of merge you added on Let's Go (Calvin Harris song) because I believe the article only needs expansion. Besides, I went on Calvin Harris's talk page and did not a see a discussion about that subject while per Template:Merge to#Notes, you should at least start the discussion and provide arguments when you put such a tag on a page.

works for me. Thanks for letting me know. --Nouniquenames (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have made changes by adding better references to my article. Can you please check and help me submit if accepted? Thanks.

This was added by Paul Raglan User talk:Paul Raglan, apparently concerning Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Raglan Housing
The external links in the text should be removed or listed at the bottom under an External links heading. The article should be wikified. All quotes must be cited (e.g. the quote following the heading "Santosh Asian Women's Refuge"). {{Reflist}} will list the references automatically for you. Instead of listing them manually at the bottom, use proper reference tags and nice inline citations will result. There is still a lot of original reasearch (material that is not shown with a source). That should give you something to work on. --Nouniquenames (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Nouniquenames. Please advise on the Capt. Bayerle article. Thanks.

I've modified the citations in the Capt. Bayerle article - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Capt. Martin Bayerle - by providing inline citations per your suggestion (including citing additional publications). I've also removed references to the upcoming books (biographical non-fiction) in order to better fit Wikipedia's range of "suitable content." I feel the page is more than appropriate given its international media following, interviews, and personal story (which has even affected state legislative history), to be considered suitable content for an individual article page. This also correlates to other preexisting biographical Wikipedia pages for notable treasure hunters. Please advise and thank you for your efforts!

I am concerned that the Early Life and Early Career segments appear unsourced. The youtube reference isn't really a good thing, but it shouldn't kill the article given that it only supports a small, uncontroversial segment. (It would be good if there was a second source to back it, but if there isn't such a source handy, I wouldn't worry over it). Good improvement! --Nouniquenames (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

July Copyeditors Drive

{claps and cheers} Hurrah for a first post. (no, really!) Queenmomcat (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, do I post when I start working on an article, when I finish it, or is there an automagic function somewhere that handles everything? --Nouniquenames (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Post on the Copyeditors' Drive Page, you mean? No, we post the articles ourselves on the drive page and the numbers in the leaderboard if you've got enough to qualify. No gnomes, alas. You can post a "Working" line in your totals on the drive page (and a GOCE in use tag on the page itself if you think it's going to take a while) but I think most people post a "Completed" line in their section when they've finished an article, whether that's from the requests or the 'articles needing copyedit' page.
Thank you! --Nouniquenames (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome! (shyly) I'm glad to be in a position to encourage others as previously others encouraged me. We all bring something to editing. Queenmomcat (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Request edits

Thanks so much for your help!!!

Since I have a COI with the subject of COI, I wonder if you could fulfill my request edit here and the corresponding suggestion at the bottom of the Talk page here, or do you think templates are ok as a non-COI edit? Not really sure how to treat it honestly.

User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 16:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It's sloppy, but I just did a copy/paste of all the sub-templates. I'll let someone get angry about it if there's a problem. You can see all the templates here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:King4057#Testing_new_templates
I have one question. I don't want COIs to be able to remove the decline template - they need to re-submit so reviewers can see the feedback given previously. Does AfC have any way to avoid people removing prior review tags? User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 02:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
No. The only thing we have is looking at the history. I've never seen it a problem there, though. --Nouniquenames (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Awesome, I also got a bot guy to create a table that can be sorted by date so we can address request edits in order [2], although I should move it to project page. I also suggested some ideas on how to get more people to use edit requests over here. Thanks for helping!! User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 01:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/addisoning

It's identifying enough to the people who created it, and they can then go to the person they're attacking and can say, "Look, there's an article about you on Wikipedia." 69.62.243.48 (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not an article. Articles are not kept in namespace "Wikipedia talk." It was a proposed article that was declined. It could refer to anyone named or called "Addison," possibly including the author (as a vanity page). That is why I declined your CSD and cleared the warning. --Nouniquenames (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
BLP applies to every space in Wikipedia. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The templates

Hey Noun.

I noticed when I changed my request edit to the new template here, the new template doesn't put the request edit into the request edit category, so it doesn't show up on the COIN board or our fancy new list over here.

Do you have any idea how to make it so these (see below) will also show up in the queue with other regular request edits? {{tl:request edit | R}}

User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 02:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Oversight on my part. It should be fixed now. --Nouniquenames (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, one more thing (sorry I keep bugging you). The template:request edit page itself shows up in the category for requested edits. Do you know how to fix? BTW, I made some suggestions on the village pump here and one of the ideas that resonated was using a template or edit notice on company articles to encourage COIs to use {{request edit}}. I think that would give us a huge boost in the number of COIs that use the templates, as well as solicit more caution and watchfulness from the general editorial community.
 User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 23:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I tried changing {{tl}} to <nowiki></nowiki> to no result. I have posted to VPT for help. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Rihanna singles

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Rihanna singles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Babel

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Babel. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Google searches and numbers

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Google searches and numbers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Relaxation Therapy

This is barbarageorge (username) and I want to thank you for your review of my piece on Dr. Mulry's Relaxation Therapy. I would like to provide additional information regarding reliable sources. For example, Dr. Mulry has the original copyright form completed for the Library of Congress registered in 1976. I also have a photo of the original audiocassette listing the title and the date of 1976. Additionally all of Dr. Mulry's publications which included usage of the Relaxation Therapy audiocassette have ISBN numbers. Some of these documents are in storage and can be made available upon request. Please advise if there are additional sources requiring further definition. Thank you, Barbara George [email redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbarageorge (talk • contribs) 15:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

A better decline explanation might have been that the sources are insufficient to establish notability. The issue here is that all of the sources are primary sources. Anything published by Dr. Mulry is a primary source, so it does not help with notability and cannot back up controversial claims. The same can be said of anything published by Dr. Edmund Jacobson or Dr. Herbert Benson. If there were peer-review (such as in a reputable journal), works by these authors could be used more freely (but only the peer-reviewed works, and it may be hard to justify notability based solely on that). My apologies for the confusion. --Nouniquenames (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Barbarageorge (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Good day, I am responding to the above request. The Relaxation Therapy was marketed/advertised by Mosby Times Mirror and I have the ads in picture format. Also the Queens Medical Center in Hawaii purchased the rights to use Dr. Mulry's program with Relaxation Therapy and I have the marketing piece for that in picture format as well. In addition Dr. Mulry publishe articles on Relaxation Therapy and Pregnancy for use by a group of Minnesota Nursing Homes and I have a picture of the article. Please advise. Barbara Barbarageorge (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Back Again with more supporting evidence. . . In 1980 LA Magazine did an article on Dr. Mulry, he lived in Idyllwild, CA (Southern California in the mountains at the time) and it spoke of him as the Guru of Relaxation and spoke about Relaxation Therapy. I have a pic of the magazine article as we scanned it. I am trying my best to give you the information you need. Please let me know if all of this is the supporting works you need to publish the article. Thank you, Barbara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbarageorge (talk • contribs) 17:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ads are not reliable sources. Dr. Mulry's publications (unless in a peer-reviewed journal or the like) are primary sources. (Please look at WP:PSTS for more information on primary source issues.) The newspaper articles may help. It would also help if you could find the articles online (although that is not strictly needed, it just makes evaluation easier). PS. Press releases are better than marketing material if you have the option. --Nouniquenames (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of my submission. It might be helpful for you to know Dr. Mulry copyrighted Relaxation Therapy in the form of an audiocassette product in 1976. Dr. Mulry has the original copyright document. I took a look at Dr. Jacobsen and Dr. Benson's wikipedia entries and it seems we have included everything they did. We are confident we could respond to any challange to any of the information we have included. We would appreciate, if possible, to proceed with the documentation as currently presented. Thank you, Barbara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbarageorge (talk • contribs) 22:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Additional Information: Responding to your interest in professional sources, it should be noted Dr. Mulry made invited presentations to the National Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons(1979) and the Canadian Academy of Dentistry in (1981) both focused on the application of his Relaxation Therapy within their treatment environments. In 1978, Dr. Mulry presented to the Palm Springs Academy of Medicine and the Education Departments of Desert Hospital and the Eisenhower Medical Center, again featuring the work in question. In 1979, Dr. Mulry presented to the American Heart Association and the Eisenhower Medical Center Symposium on Coronary Heart Disease emphasising Relaxation Therapy as a key element of holistic treatment. In 1986, Dr. Mulry presented to the Risk Insurance Management Society, again featuring Relaxation Therapy. In 1999, Dr. Mulry was sponsored by the Virginia Reciprocal Group to offer 6 one-day workshops throughout the states of Viginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas and Mississippi once again presenting Relaxation Therapy as a key component of Back Injury Prevention and Rehabilitation. In 1991, sponsored by the International Association of Industrial Accidents and Commission, Dr. Mulry presented Relaxation Therapy in relation to containing strains and sprains costs. There are more entries. Most importantly, Dr. Mulry published a number of professional articles on the subject including the following articles: "An Holistic Approach to Back Injury Prevention," published in Safety Guide for Medical Offices by the American Medical Association in 2002. "Back School and Pregnancy" published in Insight (1982), Vol 2, No. 4. Minneapolis, MN. In 1981, Dr. Mulry published two articles in the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons Symposium on the Lumbar Spine, edited by F.W. Brown, MD, published by C.V. Mosby Times Mirror that included information on the use of Relaxation Therapy within their Clinical environments. In 1999, Dr. Mulry working with PrimeMedia in Carrollton, Texas, broadcast two 1/2 hour T.V. programs to 2,000 Law Enforcement Agencies nationwide, again, a key element to the presentaions was Relaxation Therapy. Hope the above provides sufficient documentation for publishing my article. Thanks, Barbara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbarageorge (talk • contribs) 22:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Point by point (as best I can)
  • That he copyrighted something doesn't help with notability
  • Herbert Benson's article includes two independent (from the subject and each other) references, satisfying WP:GNG.
  • Edmund Jacobson's article has multiple issues and may not fare well if brought to a deletion discussion. If I have the time, I may investigate that further. Also, please see WP:WAX (in essence, that another article exists in similar form is not justification to add or keep an article).
  • At the moment, it is the notability of the subject, not necessarily that challenged material can be sourced and verified. Understand, the references currently in the article are primary sources and cannot be used to support claims in case of a challenge.
  • Your use of "we" is troubling. WP:NOSHARE shows that an account is to be for only one person. On the other hand, you could have just been using a turn of phrase (at which point, feel free to ignore this point)
  • His presentations are interesting, and may be something to include, but (absent significant, third-party coverage of his participation in the events) does not help notability.
  • With the assumption that the articles were written in journals that are peer reviewed (checked for accuracy), articles such as the American Medical Association-published article are exactly what you need. Note that I would question the Insight (magazine) publication based on its reputation, and I don't know anything about the C.V. Mosby Times Mirror (it sounds somewhat like a local publication, which would count against it, but I could be wrong). Definitely incorporate these sorts of references. That is the way to get an acceptable article (for notability).
  • The broadcast is another primary source. Interesting, perhaps, but it doesn't help notability.
To emphasize, the articles seem the best way to go. Incorporate them (preferably with online links, preferably with inline citations). That is how I recommend you proceed. --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

catching copyvio

I just removed as copyvio a resubmission of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Raglan Housing, which you had previously declined as "not notable", which was certainly true. Apparently you had not noticed it was entirely or almost entirely copied from their web site.

Removing copyvios is one of the most essential things we need to do at AfC , almost as important as removing vandalism or libel--copyvio is considerably worse than promotionalism or lack of notability. Any apparently well-written article about an organization or person who is likely to have a web site needs to be checked against it--and it's even easier, when the web site is listed at the bottom of the article. I've learned to always check. And then I usually tell the user (as I did here) not to try to give permission, because it would be too promotional to keep in any case. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Thanks! --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox software

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox software. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

AFC Backlog

Articles for Creation urgently needs YOUR help!

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1022 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk.

Do you have what it takes?
  1. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
  2. Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
  3. Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
  4. Are you autoconfirmed?
  5. Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions.

PS: we have a great AFC helper script at User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js which helps in reviewing in just few edits easily!

We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 2 or 3 reviews, it would be extremely beneficial.
On behalf of the Articles for Creation project,
TheSpecialUser TSU

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Teahouse

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Teahouse. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Recombination Hypothesis

From Hardy1956. Thank you for the review and comments. To find sources - Is another wilkapedia article a good source? Is a wikia on the TV series a good source? How about the television network website? Also, since the main portion of the article is the story told from the episode, that is more a work of fiction describing the events rather than a summation of facts that can be verified. Does that require a source or should I cite the originial date I saw the episode with my username attached? Thank you again. Hardy1956

What you need are reliable sources. Another Wikipedia article is never a reliable source. (It may be helpful, though, to look at the sources cited in a related article. You may be able to use some of the same sources.) A wikia is never a good source. The reasoning behind that is simply that anyone can edit, and there is the potential for inaccurate information to be present. The network's web site is a good source. You are not a source (unless you wrote something and got it published, but that's another can of pasta).
You should try to follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. That's a long document, so let me point out a few spots to make life easier.
Be careful to use Real world perspective, not in universe perspective.
You will almost certainly need to use the show as a primary source. WP:PASI You will still need secondary sources.
At this point, the plot portion is by far the longest section. That is not necessarily a good thing, so it may be of benefit to pare it back. If there is more that is notable for other sections, you could include that in the article, too. --Nouniquenames (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Question

Is this the correct page to add messages and questions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholarlyarticles (talk • contribs) 21:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. --Nouniquenames (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox company

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox company. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Education Program extension

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Education Program extension. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP issues and sources

re your edit [3]

The source says that "Richmond" NOT "Rosemond" made the request. While it is probably a typo in such a serious BLP situations We cannot correct the source. In addition, we cannot simply use a statement/claim/charge by one person to claim that another living person instigated such a serious crime. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I just looked at your follow-up edits. My apologies for missing that. It looks good now. Thanks! --Nouniquenames (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Memento

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Memento. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Signatures

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Orfur

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Orfur. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Request edit

Hi Noun. Thanks for helping us build out the request edit system! I have been tweaking with it constantly, based on discussions with other editors, observing it in action, etc.

My question is, is it possible to create a switch for accepts like we have for declines? Right now it's considered a decline when the reviewing editor asks the COI to make the edits themselves with {{request edit | D | A}}. I think this should be an accept, but it needs to be different, because it shouldn't contain the usual accept language saying the edits have been implemented. User:King4057 16:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It can certainly be done. The easiest way would be to have a different letter for it (instead of a D for decline). We should be able to put a switch in to maintain the current functionality instead, so nothing is broken. We just need a new sub template, perhaps {{Request edit/please do it yourself}}. Then we make {{request edit}} grab the new template when appropriate. --Nouniquenames (talk) 23:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I created it at Template:Request_edit/proceed. P is already taken, so I added it as "G" for "go ahead." I just couldn't figure out how to do the linking. User:King4057 01:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Cool. I updated the master tag a little. Play with it and see how it works. Note that {{request edit|G}} and {{request edit|D|A}} should work identically. --Nouniquenames (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Perfect!!!
Ok - it works with one flaw. Now all the "go ahead" request edits are still showing up as active request edits under the Request Edit category. User:King4057 19:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have checked that. I think I fixed it. --Nouniquenames (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Because you were a participating member of the Deletion review for Category:Gay Wikipedians, I've contacted you to let you (and all others involved) know about and participate in the current category discussion. Thanks for your participation! Ncboy2010 (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Automatic archival

I was not aware of the possibility of automatic archival. I will check it out. Thank you! --Jdemarcos (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

May I ask you one thing? Now that the COI issue is solved, I would like to remove the personal attacks that were written against me in the Talk:Michael Servetus page. The Talk pages are not a place for making such blatant accusations against users, even less when they have been proven wrong. I would do it myself, but I am afraid that my action would cause reverts and further angry accusations from the original poster of the COI accusation and his group of supporters. If you think it is appropiate, could you do the cleaning up of the page? I hope this would finally settle this issue for good. --Jdemarcos (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
It is done. I'm debating with myself over filing a SPI check with some of the accounts. It will have to be soon if it is done, before the information goes stale. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the cleaning up. As for SPI, my impression (and it is just that, because I have no tools to investigate it fully) is that this group could be a mixture of sock and meat, being socks probably those with fewer edits or who conveniently jump out of the blue in support of user Belousov by repeating the same arguments (even with the same words and syntax). But there may be some who honestly agree with his views. It can be difficult to sort it out but it would be a way that this group stops rewriting articles according to their own views and harassing those who disagree. By the way, it may be a coincidence but a similar conflict took place in the Spanish WP's Michael Servetus page about a year ago, as shown in this long discussion in the Talk page in which I took part but not so prominently because there were other regular editors involved. A small and organized group of supporters of the fringe theory (using different nicknames such as "Melgarath", "MariaBizancio", "Marco Aurelio", "SusanSontag", "RalphVaughanWilliams", mostly IPs without a username) also tried to rewrite the article according to their views, although their tone was not so aggressive as here. The final result was first a temporary and then a permanent block against the leader of that group (Melgarath). And this ended the discussion, so I guess that the other "editors" were actually Melgarath's socks. --Jdemarcos (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination)

Hi Nouniquenames. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User page breaching wikipedia policies, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, i come across many reference links that land on external pages that are of poor quality and or have no relevance to the wikipedia page. Do i just add the dead link text to these or is there other text that can be added, or do i just leave them? Thanks for your time. --Jonhope123 (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

{{Dead link}} refers to a link that goes to a page that does not exist or an error page. If you can fix a link, go ahead. If a link is purely spam, go ahead and remove it. If in doubt, it may be best to ask on the article's talk page. --Nouniquenames (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. --Jonhope123 (talk) 07:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:In the news

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:In the news. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hip hop rivalry

Hi. Just to let you know I took the copyedit tag off Hip hop rivalry to avoid the risk that another copy editor might pick it up. (This happened a couple of times on the last drive.) I'm not sure how active Coren Search Bot is at present, as it seems not to have actioned a manual request since August 3rd. Best, --Stfg (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I hadn't thought of that with leaving the tag on. I left a message for Coren about the bot. --Nouniquenames 05:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/City population templates

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/City population templates. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

4 Keys to Christian Theological Progression (approx. 400–1300)

I notice you deprodded 4 Keys to Christian Theological Progression (approx. 400–1300). I have started a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4 Keys to Christian Theological Progression (approx. 400–1300). StAnselm (talk) 07:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. --Nouniquenames 16:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hip hop rivalry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Against All Odds (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Analytics

Hey Noun. I have a far-fetched question.

I read an academic paper a while back about the potential application of analytics to address vandalism problems on Wikipedia. I also recently read how a few academics used algorithms to identify complex political astroturfing schemes on Twitter.

Do you think it is technologically achievable to use some very rudimentary analytics to the problem of COI? For example:

  • Section blanks of sections like "Controversy" or "Lawsuits" can be pulled out and put into a queue for watching based on keywords in the sub-section that was blanked.
  • Blatant promotionalism can be automatically tagged based on keywords like "best of breed" and "industry leading."
  • Articles that should be considered for AfD can be automatically detected (maybe)
  • COI editors can be caught early and directed to the right way of doing things. For example, the editor that added "industry leading" is almost certainly COI Corporate Minion 05:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
From the looks of your suggestion, it looks like some of this may be possible with a bot. (It's difficult to direct editors with a bot, of course.) I would imagine a bot could look through recent changes for the first two points, and results could be written to a page for editors to look through. It may also be possible to have an edit filter set up to tag these edits, and then something like Lupin's tool to watch real-time (although that may be the less desirable route, being more labor intensive to set up and requiring monitoring to be of use). --Nouniquenames 18:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm.... I imagine it would need some form of human intervention. For example "industry leading" could just be "his industry. Leading the effort was" with a missing period. We can't outright ban the words project-wide, but picture how happy (or overwhelmed) AfD would be to get literally thousands of articles put together in a list that only cite social media websites as sources and are overtly promotional. Or if the COIN board had a list of un-reverted Controversy section blanks.
BTW - I've been puppyguarding The San Jose Group article. I was just realizing I originally got involved in the article on your Talk page. Corporate Minion 03:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I would envision that the bot would simply output anything new to a list (most likely at regular intervals). Then editors could check list entries manually. As for trawling existing articles for relying only on bad sources, That could probably be done by a bot from a dump (possibly at the toolserver). Then, once existing articles are checked, we can potentially look at just new articles and currently unsourced articles.
I'm glad to hear you've been managing things over there. That article needed someone to keep an eye on it. It looks much better now. --Nouniquenames 04:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the brainstorm. I'm always looking at COI through the lens of a carrot & stick. The request edit process is the carrot - it provides incentive to provide high-quality Talk page contributions with the knowledge that good contributions can be made in a non-confrontational, consistent and timely process. (eventually)
The stick is more difficult. It relies on (a) detection and (b) prevention. Prevention occurs when companies realize there are repercussions and risks associated with unethical participation, so unethical edits are never made in the first place. Detection occurs when we thwart the effectiveness when poor edits are made anyway. I think prevention belongs in the real-world, while detection is an on-Wiki issue, which leads us to some form of analytics to "detect" them. Corporate Minion 20:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2008 Manhattan construction crane collapse

I've nominated the related articles separately as it wasn't clear whether a consensus had been reached for these: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York Crane & Equipment and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Favelle Favco Group. You may want to clarify whether your comment also applied to these articles. Peter James (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Finger slipped?

Hello, Nouniquenames. You recently used Twinkle to place dated PROD templates on a number of biographical articles such as Walter Hubchick, each time giving the deletion rationale, "Essentially a dicdef". I assume this was a mistake, since the articles all appear to be biographical rather than lexicographical. On the other hand, none of them that I looked at seem particularly notable, either, so I'm not planning to remove the PROD tags. Cnilep (talk) 06:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Citation needed

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Citation needed. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1022 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk.

Do you have what it takes?
  1. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
  2. Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
  3. Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
  4. Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions.

PS: we have a great AFC helper script at WP:AFCH!

News

Good article nominee AFCH script improvements
  • 1.16 to 1.17
    • Batman still works!

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation. If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.
Happy reviewing! TheSpecialUser TSU

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Syntax differentiation in editing window

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Syntax differentiation in editing window. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Stauber, John; Rampton, Sheldon (1995). "How PR Sold the War in the Persian Gulf". Toxic Sludge Is Good For You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry. Common Courage Press. ISBN 1-56751-060-4.
  2. ^ "Deception on Capitol Hill" (New York ed.). New York Times. January 15, 1992.
  3. ^ "When contemplating war, beware of babies in incubators". Christian Science Monitor. September 6, 2002.
  4. ^ "When contemplating war, beware of babies in incubators". Christian Science Monitor. September 6, 2002.
  5. ^ John R. MacArthur, "Remember Nayirah, Witness for Kuwait?", Op-Ed, New York Times, A17, January 6, 1992.
  6. ^ Knightley, Phillip (October 4, 2001). "The disinformation campaign". London: Guardian.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nouniquenames/Archive_1&oldid=1148820902"