User talk:A412/Archive 1

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The International Man

Hello, A412. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Crispy Beef (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at your talk page. User:A412 (Talk * C) 23:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Giuseppe D.

I've moved this article back into AfC space, it's not ready to go live yet. Pol430 talk to me 00:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, thought it was. A412 (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have serious reservations about the quality of the sources, the excessive number of external links listed and external links in the body text. Based on the referencing I'm not convinced the subject is notable enough. I see you're quite new to editing Wikipedia. Firstly, welcome! :) Secondly, thanks for volunteering to help out AfC we are always backlogged there. I've checked the articles you have created and in general you are doing a great job, but it might be an idea to look for some mentoring from a more experienced editor in 'the ways of AfC'. Just until you know your way around all the policies and guidelines a bit better. I'd be happy to help you if you would like? Pol430 talk to me 00:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was wondering a bit about that one. I have a few questions about AfC:

1) Generally, are the guidelines for notability similar to those for keeping at AfD?

2) If a submission is declined, can I help the user edit the page a bit to make it conform to WP:V and WP:N? A412 (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) The notability guideline applies to the whole of Wikipedia. It includes the general notability guideline or WP:GNG which is the basic standard articles should conform to. We also have additional notability guidelines for various different subjects, there is a box on the right hand side of the main notability page that links to the various different ones. Everything written in an article should be verifiable; verifiability is achieved by placing inline citations that link to reliable sources. WP:VRS is a good page to point new editors to, in order to give them a basic understanding of what constitutes a reliable source. The full guide to reliable sources can be found at WP:RS. 2) Absolutely, nobody WP:OWNs Wikipedia pages, anyone can edit them (although it is generally considered bad form to randomly edit of peoples user pages--unless its their talk page). Sometimes when you are reviewing a submission at AfC the content and sources are good but the layout or styling is not quite right, in these cases it's always a good idea just to fix it yourself and then publish it--if it's up to scratch. Obviously, if the submission needs a mountain of work then it's best to decline it and tell the author what the problems are. A submission can be resubmitted as many times as it needs to be to get it right.

So there is a bit of Wikipedia 101, I need to get some sleep now, but if you have any more questions or want advice just ask away. I'm monitoring this page so i'll see any messages you leave when I'm back tomorrow evening. Pol430 talk to me 01:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I accepted the page Regina Louise from AfC. I thought it was okay before noticing it was copied from her website, so I fixed the copyvio. My question though, is, how is it on notability? There are quite a few news sources which I added inline cites to. A412 (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a few changes, you can see what in the edit history. In terms of notability, she just about makes it as she has been featured in two major regional newspapers. The blue link to her book goes to the wrong place so I have de-linked it. All in all a good job :) Pol430 talk to me 18:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jaap van Ginneken

Hello, The article Jaap van Ginneken was declined, i understand because of lack of notability. Maybe you can give me some details how i can improve the article in that point, maybe by removing some parts.--Joost26 (talk) 08:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC) You ask to provide more information on why the subject is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia:[reply]

• It is true that a majority of those links is in Dutch or links to Dutch sites. I have refrained from including these in the proposed English Wikipedia item, as they may only be of limited use for an Anglophone searching information.
• But i have chosen to propose an English-language rather than a Dutch-language item. Dutch speakers can easily find the information. For Anglophones, it is much more complicated to find the basic facts.
• Studies and books by the person in question have been published by a number of noteworthy Anglophone publishers: Avon/ Hearst, Cambridge University Press, Erlbaum, Pelican/ Penguin, Rowman & Littlefield, Sage (as well as in Japanese, Chinese, Italian, etc. next to Dutch), chapters by Blackwell, Springer etc.

My question is: Do i have to look for more Anglophone sources and should i mention the Anglophone publishers next to the isbn numbers?--Joost26 (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with some of these sources is that they are what he writes, rather than about him. If you want to prove notability (also see Guidelines on biographies and Guidelines on notability). Generally what we want is third-party, substantial media coverage. For example, coverage in newspapers is usually a pretty good criterion. If most of the sources are in Dutch, can you point them out so that it can be shown that there is substantial media coverage? Thanks! A412 (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment--Joost26 (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sexposition

Hi, can you explain why you consider the sources used in the article are not "substantial use and press coverage". I did not add any "Links to sites specifically intended to promote the neologism itself", so I have no idea why you said so. Could you please reply here? My IP keeps changing so I will never notice if you reply on the IP talkpage.131.180.34.199 (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, neologisms are not included in Wikipedia unless they have substantial use and media coverage of them. (See WP:NEO#Neologisms) That article has only 2 references of its use, which is generally not enough to be mainstream. Could it fit better at wiktionary:sexposition? (Wiktionary usually has less strict criteria on these definitions) A412 (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chris Tomic

Hello,

This person has been on german tv www.voxnow.de and www.bild.de and is the inventor of the first mobile content. The clicks are premium content and cannot be posted. I posted links of the german vanity fair article and hi society magazine.

let me know if anything else is needed, Maik Rekon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maik Rekon (talk • contribs) 13:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the submission again, the references are not about him, but about his company. To show that he is notable, there must be media coverage about him specifically. Secondly, if a source cannot be posted, unfortunately Wikipedia cannot accept it as verifiable, per the verifiability policy. See the verifiable sources policy and the notability policy. User:A412 (Talk * C) 15:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Here I send you 2 more sources http://vanityfairhomme.wordpress.com/ and www.christomic.com please let me know if this is enough.

regards, Maik Rekon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maik Rekon (talk • contribs) 18:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, neither of those are reliable third-party sources. They seem to be personal sites or blogs, which are not reliable as per WP:VRS. User:A412 (Talk * C) 23:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Data Visualization (Software)

Dear reviewer,

the article rejection reason for the "Data Visualization (Software)" is not really clear to me.

Important topics:

• the tool is not made by an organization, but by a group of friends spread in more than one country and all driven by the same intention of realizing a free tool which might be useful for everybody;
• the tool described is free and public as it can be read from the article itself and from all the mentioned public "External links";
• the tool has been downloaded for free more than 6000 times and rated by over 200 users (as it can be read from the Softpedia page mentioned in the "External links" section).

Where's the issue in this article? How can I improve it?

Please let me know, thanks in advance.

Tervonen (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After rereading your submission, one of the main problems is that it is less of an article about the software and more about what it does. According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. If you could edit the article to include your reasons above as to why it is notable, that would be great, and you could resubmit it. Also take a quick look at WP:GNG. Thanks! User:A412 (Talk * C) 15:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear A412,

if I have properly understood this article can be accepted to be published if specific parts of the article itself are changed in a specific way. Would it be possible for you to review it now that I have done some changes and let me know if it's fine now?

Thank you very much in adavance, Tervonen (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The Rosetta Barnstar
		For your translation work in the Dimitrios Vergos article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Delcan

Delcan Corportion is a large firm has been mentioned in connection with the inspection of the Champlain Bridge in Montreal and the Johnson Street Bridge in Victoria, British Columbia so some digging in the "archives" of the Montreal Gazette and the Victoria Times Colonist should give the needed info. It also designed a number of large bridges, please see what is linked to it. Besides I called it a {{stub}} Peter Horn User talk 02:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 02:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please actually mention/cite these in these article. In its current form, it unfortunately fails to explain why it is notable. Additionally, the designing of bridges is not quoted in the article. If you could include these and resubmit, that would be great! Also see WP:CORP User:A412 (Talk * C) 02:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User talk:Peter Horn#Your article has been moved to AfC space from User:Peter Horn/Delcan. User:ArticlesForCreationBot did us no favour by moving this from my user space. Lets just move it back to where I started it originally and where it should have stayed. That way I can work on it and in due time resubmit it. In fact I'll attempt the move myself. Peter Horn User talk 02:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you can edit the article in AfC space too, the same way you can in your userspace. But I know that you have a personal preference for this, and that's fine too. User:A412 (Talk * C) 02:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, but in my user space it is less likely to be deleted and it gives me the time I need to find the third party references etc. The problem with the The Gazette (Montreal) is that it deletes its on line editions after 30 days. Peter Horn User talk 03:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter where the submission is! If you don't do any bad copyright violation (copy 'n paste texts from other sites) then your draft won't be deleted normally. And since you submitted your draft for a review - so how should we/the bot guess that you didn't wanted the submission moved? mabdul 00:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Xiangqi in English

Thank you for reviewing my article about a website "Xiangqi in English". You challenged notability of the subject.

I agree with you, that the notability is not obvious for people, who aren't associated with the mindsport of Chinese Chess. At least Xiangqi itself is notable and included in Wikipedia.

The website under question grants for the first time access to many chinese sources in a western language. That's its importance. The amount of material presented is encyclopedia like. That's its significance. And it's unique in the topic. What else is required to be notable?

Maybe you can give me some details how I can improve the article further, because these facts are included in the article already. Thank you.

Kiebitz21 (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the subject may be notable, Wikipedia is based on verifiability. Thus, you need substantial, third-party, non-trivial coverage of the subject. See the guideline on sourcing. You might want to look at the existing articles for other websites to see the outside references they should have. Try searching Google News to find sources, and read WP:WEB.

User:A412 (Talk * C) 23:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will work on it. Kiebitz21 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a 3rd party coverage of the site in German. I added it to the reference list. Kiebitz21 (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Driver

Hi, I see that you tagged Callum Driver for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4. G4 states "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy ... of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies ...". In this case the article was both improved (substantial additional content, with references) and one of the reasons for deletion certainly no longer applied: his appearance for Burton Albion F.C. on 6 January 2012, mentioned in the article, is sufficient to satisfy WP:NFOOTY no. 2. This is because Burton Albion play in Football League Two, which is listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#List of fully professional leagues under "England". As to whether WP:GNG still applies, that is a much more subjective matter. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may also wish to comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 12#Callum Driver. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I think what happened was that I had the page open for a while, and in the meantime it was being updated, and then I didn't look at the updated version before nominating. A412 (Talk * C) 15:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article had no edits in the 24 hours prior to your {{db-repost}}. The version as recreated at 20:14, 6 January 2012 by Egghead06 (talk · contribs) had the professional debut with Burton Albion, and was reliably referenced (BBC Sport). Your {{db-repost}} was over five days later, 23:58, 11 January 2012. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was probably an honest mistake on my part then. Sorry for the trouble with the deletion. A412 (Talk * C) 23:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation Appeal

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 the are 1911 submissions waiting to be reviewed. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you autoconfirmed? 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.

Talkback

Hello, A412. You have new messages at Pol430's talk page.
Message added 17:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Pol430 talk to me 17:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

some WP:AFC problems

So finally I'm able to talk to you. Please use the JS helper tool you can find at User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js. (You have to add this to your JS file under the preferences - if you need help, leave a talkback at my talkpage)

Why to use that? This is rather simply to explain: the submitter gets a notification, it adds our project template if you accept it, it updates the recent page if you accept it, it blanks the submissions and mark it for deletion if you decline it as a copyvio, etc. All automated with a simple click!

I also reverted your decline at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daydreaming With... James Lavelle after a discussion our IRC chat with the submitter: If you check the duplication detector, then you will notice that there are really small overlapping text passages with the proposed link: http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/duplicationdetector/compare.php?url1=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWikipedia_talk%3AArticles_for_creation%2FDaydreaming_With..._James_Lavelle&url2=http%3A%2F%2Fartczar.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F02 The helpee in the wikipedia IRC help channel (#wikipedia-en-help ^connect) explained also that this page copy and pasted their press release. I understand that this submission is way not ready for mainspace, but it is not OK to decline a submission with a wrong reason - how should the submitter then improve the draft if he doesn't know what to improve? mabdul 11:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, I'm sorry, I never saw that tool before, I'll use it from now on for AFC.

As for the decline, sorry about that, it looked a bit like the blog post, and the other commenter had mentioned CV, so I didn't look terribly thoroughly. Why the "finally able to talk to you" though? A412 (Talk * C) 15:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions/concerns though-

1) That tool isn't linked/or it's extremely difficult to find from the AFC project page. It should be easier to find so that people newer to AFC know that it exists.

2) What exactly does "If you check the duplication detector, then you will notice that there are really small overlapping text passages with the proposed link:" and then "The helpee in the wikipedia IRC help channel (#wikipedia-en-help ^connect) explained also that this page copy and pasted their press release." mean? A412 (Talk * C) 15:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to tell you about the helper tool earlier (I have your talk page open in a separated tab since a week or maybe even longer - I'm "stalking" sometimes the AFC related edits in the AFC IRC channel (#wikipedia-en-afc-feed ^connect) and because of your edit summary I saw that you don't use the helper tool.

Yes, the tool is not that easy to find, but there is a complete section in the reviewing instructions Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions#Script and thus should be easy to find...

Check the link above: the text is not a really copyright violation since there is only a small sentence which is identical - too less to delete the draft. Better remove this one and explain the situation in an additional comment!

You found a blog post which is a copyright violation - "they" (the blogger) posted (copied and pasted) a published press release (not online accessible). Hope it is now clearer.

mabdul 21:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Throop Higby Richardson - Marin County Pioneer.

Thank you for the review(s)! these are my first tries, I appreciate your patience and helpful responses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkewin (talk • contribs) 20:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your awesome work in WP:AFC.(I wish I got one too. I did review a lot lately.) Ankit Maity ^Talk | contribs 16:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/SABIO-Reaction_Kinetics_Database

I understand that the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/SABIO-Reaction_Kinetics_Database was declined because of the lack of reliable, third-party sources in the article.
In order to address this obstacle

• I added 8 third-party references, all of them citable by doi and / or PMID (references 4-11)
• the SABIOR-RK database is already cited by several articles in WP including

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

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

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

• of course there are additional publications citing SABIO-RK e.g.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3261705/?tool=pubmed

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21824972

• in the meantime, the German version of this article passed the review process:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/SABIO-Reaction_Kinetics_Database

Please let me know if anything else is needed. HITSter SabioRK (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good; are all the refs from the German version on the English version? I'll accept it if they are. A412 (Talk * C) 20:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in contrast to the English version there are only 3 references provided in the German version.

• the first German ref corresponds to the English version ref [1]
• the second German ref corresponds to the English version ref [3]
• the third German ref is now newly added to the English version as ref [4]. This ref was not included before because the publication is written in German in contrast to all the other cited references

Thank you for your comments. I hope that the article is now ready for acceptance, HITSter SabioRK (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Created at SABIO-Reaction Kinetics Database! A412 (Talk * C) 21:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Thanks for touching up my submissions Amazonas Philharmonic and Rusty Malinoski.  Never checked that before, but I will now. :- ) DCS 00:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Edward Ulloa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Attorney, Orange County and Pandering

Browning Double Automatic Shotgun (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Choke

Forced Rayleigh scattering (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Thermal diffusion

Orange County Employees Association (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Orange County

Sofa.com (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sofa

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		In honor of your rewriting of Seawater desalination in Australia, saving it from possible deletion. Paris1127 (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Type1DiabetesAwareness.org

Hello, for my article I have listed reliable sources. One is the JDRF, one is the American Diabetes Association, and one is the CDC which is a .gov page. These are all reliable sources and not blogs. They can all be verified. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Type1DiabetesAwareness.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toneda (talk • contribs) 15:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the article is that these articles talk about diabetes, not the website. To establish notability, there need to be reliable sources about the site itself.A412 (Talk * C) 23:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I read the comments but what I don't understand is the site itself IS about diabetes but you are saying that the site must reference diabetes? I'm confused, can you please give me an example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.99.76 (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that other website must reference type1diabetesawareness.org? Toneda (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so your article is about type1diabetesawareness.org . To show that this website needs an article, there needs to be a source about type1diabetesawareness.org . Understand? A412 (Talk * C) 04:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source, the website address is listed near the bottom. http://www.facebook.com/Type1DiabetesAwareness Toneda (talk) 07:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:V and WP:RS (also maybe WP:VRS) That is the Facebook page created by Type1DiabetesAwareness (it doesn't count). Use independent sources, please. I know this may sound rather arbitrary to you, but we need these to make sure the article can be verified and is encyclopedic. A412 (Talk * C) 15:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Psychology of disenfranchisement (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Alienation and Poll

Daniel Snowman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Broadcaster

Raichak On Ganges (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hooghly

Seawater desalination in Australia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Perth

University of Dreams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to COO

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

NanoLumens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Norcross and Georgia

Secular liberalism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Equality and Freedom

Matt Thornton (martial artist) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Black belt

Office camera (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Form factor

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere I Have Never Traveled

Hey A412,

Thanks for your good faith efforts on the above article, by adding the Chinese Language template.  However, there are basically two different written forms of the Chinese Language.  Due to political thingies, Chinese(zh or cn) refers to Simplified Chinese used primarily in the PRC.  Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macau use the Traditional form of the language.  They are not easily substituted for each other, i.e., a person who only knows one, can only comprehend a character here and there if trying to read the other.  Any traditional template would probably be fine, but just to be exact, I changed them to {{zh-tw}}.

Thanks for all your work. :- ) DCS 21:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, I didn't know that. Thanks! :) A412 (Talk * C) 22:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For your hard work and dedication

		CharlieEchoTango's Articles for Creation Barnstar
		A412, thanks in no small part to your hard work providing helpful and timely answers to many requests, the articles for creation help desk is off to a solid start. Thank you for your commitment and dedication to WikiProject Articles for creation. :-) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 00:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding AFC

Thanks,

Sorry about that.  Just never thought about it.  :- ) DCS 02:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

The Others (R&B band) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Queen

Volume solid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Substrate

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

mail

hey a412 you have mail at walter55024s talk page reply.--Walter55024 (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Any Video Converter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to PCWorld

Trisha Torrey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to O Magazine

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing of AKG Article

Given previous editing by others I was surprised that you made significant changes to this article, and wording that had been carefully constructed, without raising any prior questions. Your changes, most of which I believe should be 'undone', have not only introduced formatting errors (eg "<most of his working life"), but have reduced the readability of this article and made statements that are at least misleading and perhaps are factually incorrect. Furthermore, you have removed two photos that represent significant aspects of AKG's life (eg he became Head of the Court in Cieszyn so it would not seem unreasonable to show a picture here of the place that became his 'second home'). However, before undoing or correcting your changes, I thought I should contact you first to avoid both of us spending unnecessary further time on this. Thank you for your advice and please let me know if you wish me to go through the changes I believe to be incorrect, either via this forum or via email or other forum\medium you deem appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanisław Grodyński (talk • contribs) 02:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I did is listed as follows-

1. Used standard templates in the infobox.
2. Removing italics from words (such as names) which are improper.
3. Removing infoboxes (If you want to have pictures, just insert the picture, not an infobox, these are for full articles)

I have fixed any mistakes I see. What in particular do you have an issue with? A412 (Talk • C) 03:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without going back through every detail, it is understandable that generally an editor would wish to follow the same format applied to other 'people articles', but because Andrzej changed his surname and it is not known at this time exactly when (suspect 1891-1893?) and why (discovery of natural father??), then info such as his birth-place, and perhaps even the date, are not certain as I have not yet managed to trace clear evidence of these. Therefore relevant info was carefully worded accordingly and the sense of uncertainty in some of this has been lost with the new wording. More specifically, outside of some of these personal details, using double sets of parnetheses does not assist readability and the reference to the first editorial was of Londzin not Andrzej. Was not aware that 'info boxes' could not be used to provide further photos in a consistent format, perhaps along with some pertinent additional info, but am naturally keen to stick within Wiki specifications. StanG 06:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanisław Grodyński (talk • contribs)

PS As past editorial changes were made by 'Darwinek', who had reviewed the article prior to your edits (and on a number of occasions previously), if possible I would also like to avoid repeated changes due to different views or understandings of different editors (while of course wishing to maintain the accuracy of the article).--StanG 06:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanisław Grodyński (talk • contribs)

I realize that you may have had wording before to create ambiguity in some of these statements. However, there were many English grammar errors, including run-on sentences and comma splices. Actually, regarding Darwinek's edits, they were primarily actually formatting changes, as opposed to editorial changes.

Regarding the content, if you are unsure about it, it should not be in the infobox, as information in an infobox should only be uncontested, unambiguous information. If you are going to have more doubt it the article than in the infobox about some of that data, it either should be clarified in the article (such as his date and place of birth), or removed from the infobox. I believe I have fixed all the instances of ambiguity, however. Can you point out a specific one?

Quick question- what is his actual name, "Andrzej Kusionowicz Grodyński" or "Andrzej Kusionowicz" or "Andrzej Grodyński"? I'm assuming it's the first one. A412 (Talk • C) 15:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You will see from the references that I have quoted that through his early life his name was "Andrzej Kusionowicz" but between 1891-93 there are references in the literature to "Andrzej Kusionowicz Grodyński" before he is generally referred to as "Andrzej Grodyński", both in legal matters and socially. In other words your assumption was correct, but the sentence 'Grodyński was born in Gdów, Galicia, Poland on 22 October 1861 according to his school records.' still appears misleading and might be better phrased along the following lines: 'According to school records, Andrzej was born in Gdów, Galicia, Poland.' [Note that school records indicate the year of birth, but not the date, however the date is provided in his obituaries.] "In his first editorial, he made no direct reference ..." would be more accurate with text along the lines of " On 14 June 1890 fr Józef Londzin, in his first editorial, Londzin made no direct reference ..." [This comment, and the source, are important in understanding local events in the context of the evolving political situation within Poland at the time. For your own reference, I am hoping that further investigations of records in Cieszyn, Katowice or Krakow will reveal exactly when and why Andrzej changed his name, and that pertinent information can be added to this article.] Thank you for your advice and assistance.--StanG 20:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanisław Grodyński (talk • contribs)

Frankly, the sentence "On 14 June 1890 fr Józef Londzin, in his first editorial, Londzin made no direct reference" makes no sense to me. What does it mean? It could probably be phrased better. A412 (Talk • C) 23:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about "On 14 June 1890 fr Józef Londzin, in his first editorial on taking over from Kusionowicz, made no direct reference ..."? Is the clarification I proposed regarding his birth OK? What is the 'convention' on using the doctor prefix - I thought 'dr' was consistent with other articles I had viewed, as well as other prefixes used in this article and some literature references, but see you have used 'Dr.'with Jan Michejda? Thanks again.--101.118.99.223 (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That works, but what does "fr" mean? Generally in English language conventions, the "doctor" prefix is used as "Dr." A412 (Talk • C) 23:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fr is for 'father' as in priest or pastor. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 23:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be "Fr.", right? A412 (Talk • C) 23:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like Dr. or Mr. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 23:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the difficulty here may be that I am attempting to adhere as closely as possible to what appears to be a 'Polish convention' while trying to satisfy English grammatical rules. The title dr, with or without the stop, often seems to be used in Polish articles\literature of the period that I have viewed, as is ks (equivalent of fr for Father), and it appears that Polish reviewers conversant in English have accepted this. To me personally I am happy with this form as these are 'Polish titles' as opposed to 'English titles' so it seems reasonable to follow the 'Polish convention' and thus draw a reasonable distinction in perhaps a more marginal application of English grammatical rules. However, I can accept a decision that Dr and Fr, or Dr. and Fr. (which are perhaps now being used less regularly in English text), be used throughout the article, if that is what you decide is needed to meet Wiki guidelines. Thanks again for taking the time to consider what might appear to be a relatively minor issue!--StanG 13:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanisław Grodyński (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aziz Shavershian

There was absolutely no reason to make your own "note to closing administrator" thing in the same vein as I had done. Doing so is pretty much a WP:POINT violation or some sort of way to mock me in a disparaging manner.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that your message here is incredibly rude and in blatant violation of WP:AGF. Why should you get the final say in a "note to closing admin" with the viewpoints of only one side in this discussion? A412 (Talk • C) 05:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've refactored that aspect. However, I still see it as some sort of jab considering our vehemently opposite viewpoints on the matter of the notability of "Zyzz".—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. When you recently edited MTV, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scream (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your warning

Hi, I don't understand your warning. I was updating the redirect to point the correct article. A bot has already corrected your (incorrect) revert. Please check that STiki tool you use. Snappy (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator intervention against vandalism report

You are doing excellent anti-vandalism work. However, rather ironically, you have been reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. As you can see here, the report was rejected, as of course it was bound to be, but I just thought you might like to know what accusations are being made against you. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having written that, I looked at the edit by Snappy referred to in the message above, and saw that he/she is quite right. Yes, as I said above, you are doing excellent work, but when using automated tools such as STiki it is very easy to make mistakes. The solution is to spend a little time checking that what you are dealing with really is vandalism before taking action. In the AIV message that I linked to, Reaper Eternal said "anybody can make 10+ edits a minute using semiautomated tools", but it is questionable whether it is wise to do so, rather than spend just a little longer checking that you are getting it right. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I had thought that the original target was a legitimate article rather than a redirect, and the new target looked completely foreign to the redirect. I'll pay more attention to redirects next time. :) A412 (Talk • C) 22:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helpdesk edit

I really don't think you should have struck through my response, in fact it was borderline disingenuous to do so. If you felt I had responded incorrectly then you could have contacted me at my talk page or simply left your comment without strikethrough. The editor in question was asking for help with their assignment, not proposing a valid article title. Wikipedia is not really an appropriate venue for such matters, I felt if anyone could offer assistance, it would be the reference desk. Pol430 talk to me 00:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm terribly sorry about that. Upon reading carefully, I see you were right. I've undone my edit. A412 (Talk • C) 02:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks, all is forgiven :) Pol430 talk to me 15:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An AFD you participated in has been started again

I'm contacting everyone that participated in the last one, which ended earlier this month, to inform them of the new one. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aziz Shavershian (2nd nomination) Dream Focus 13:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for rollback

Hi A412. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Salvio ^Let's talk about it! 12:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STiki: A new version and a thank you!

Greetings A412. As the developer of the STiki anti-vandal tool, I would like to thank you for recent and non-trivial use of my software. Whether you just tried out the tool briefly or have been a long-term participant, I appreciate your efforts (as I am sure does the entire Wikipedia community)!

I write to inform you of a new version of the software (link goes to list of new features). This version addresses multiple long-term issues that I am happy to put behind us. Try it out! Provide some feedback!

The STiki project is also always seeking collaborators. In particular, we are seeking non-technical colleagues. Tasks like publicity, talk-page maintenance, advertisement, and barn-star distribution are a burden to technical development. If you are interested, write me at my talk page or STiki's talk page.

As STiki approaches two significant thresholds: (1) 100,000 revert actions and (2) 400 unique users -- I hope to have your support in continuing the efficient fight against unconstructive editing. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Huw & Tony Williams

I am a little bemused at how I go about providing references for a biographical piece I have submitted on two living musicians. The guys were a duo from the early 80's until 2001, when they staged their farewell tour. Inevitably, with just over 10 years since that happened, people are re-discovering their music and want to know more about them. So the intention of posting in Wikipedia is to have a 'definitive' article that can be referenced by anyone who falls into this category, but also people who were familiar with their music from the first time around.

I have some experience of editing and adding citations, but in the absence of a page to add to, I have submitted my own, with most of the content provided by one of the duo. So my main question is - 'if he is still alive, and I am in contact with him, can he somehow vouch for the content so far submitted?'

The article is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Huw_%26_Tony_Williams N1geD (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• First, the number of references in the current version is good, except- do not cite Wikipedia. Second, as this is technically a biography of a living person, almost all material should be referenced. Some non-referenced (other than internal wikilinks) parts include "They became widely known when their songs were covered by many other artists in Europe and the USA and their close association with the likes of Ralph McTell and Fairport Convention, both of whom championed their music. They developed a very large fan base and toured theatres and festivals throughout the 1990s before performing one final tour in 2001." and "Some of their well-known songs include ‘The Summer Before the War’, ’Rosemary’s Sister’ and ‘I can Jump Puddles’. (The last of these is based on a book by Alan Marshall.)"

Yes, he can "vouch for the content", as long as it is done in a way that uniquely identifies it as him and can be verified, i.e. is verifiable. Wikipedia's verifiability policy is for readers, not editors, so that they can independently verify content. If he has an official website/blog/et cetera, he could make a release out of this information. Judging by the standards of most Wikipedians, however, what you really want are third-party references that are reliable. A412 (Talk • C) 14:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Huw & Tony Williams

I have taken the article on considerably since the reference to Huw Williams was made - although the two references to the sentence accredited to him (Huw) are now internal references to Wiki articles on Ralph McTell and Fairport Convention.

Is the advice to *not* cross-refer to Wiki articles - or to structure them differently? If the latter, I have received some advice on how to change this.N1geD (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, you should not have other Wikipedia articles in the reference section as a secondary source- see WP:RS. However, a common way to fix this problem is to find that article's references for the particular piece of information you want and use them in your article. A412 (Talk • C) 14:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Huw & Tony Williams.
• 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 help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the reviewer's talk page

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Sarah (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thanks for helping me out on this article. I really appreciate it. fyi...I just resubmitted it after making the suggested changes. I hope that it is approved this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audradavis (talk • contribs) 19:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thanks for helping me out on this article. I really appreciate it. fyi...I just resubmitted it after making the suggested changes. I hope that it is approved this time. Audradavis (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell S. Freeman/April 26

Hi,
Please do the following modifications to your article.

• Correct the reference syntax.
• Divide the article in to sections thereby wikifying the existing article.
  

Thanks,
tausif 05:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You realize that I didn't write this, Audradavis did, and in any case the decline reason is incorrect, right? A412 (Talk • C) 05:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse me. My bad, I wrongly presumed you wrote the article and just saw Audradavis's message too. But yes, the reason for declining was wrong. My sincere aplogies.

tausif 05:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Appeal

Articles for Creation is backlogged and needs YOUR help! Articles for Creation is desperately in need of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors and administrators alike, to help us clear a record backlog of pending submissions. There is currently a significant backlog of 1911 submissions waiting to be reviewed. These submissions are generally from new editors who have never edited Wikipedia before. A prompt, constructive review of submissions could significantly editor retention. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you (at least) autoconfirmed? 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. Click here to review to a random submissionArticle selected by erwin85's random article script on toolserver. We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 1 or 2 reviews, would be extremely beneficial. On behalf of the Articles for Creation project, AndrewN ^talk 23:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 1911 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you autoconfirmed? 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

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 26 August 2012 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 1911 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? 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 04 Aug 2012 – Parental brain (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Carina1205 (t · c); see discussion 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

• Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject:Articles for Creation October - November 2012 Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 22, 2012 – November 21, 2012.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

EdwardsBot (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

USA Technologies Inc.

Good work on USA Technologies Inc., but this article still has too much of a promotional tone. Also, there is nothing about the proxy fight at the annual meeting in 2012. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

USA Technologies Inc. (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to PIN and FOB

Janagaraj (actor) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Vikram

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DJ DX

Look in google DJ DX is very popular and famous, could you please review his article and help to submit him into the site ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankpellagrino (talk • contribs) 22:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, he might be famous. However, you need to provide veritable independent sources showing that. If you need help with citing sources, then reply and show me some of these URLs for articles demonstrating his fame. A412 (Talk • C) 23:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Bob Hunter (Los Angeles sportswriter)

Hi, A412. Thanks for the information on my user talk page in regard to the article that I submitted on Bob Hunter (Los Angeles sportswriter).

I looked at your user contributions page. I admire your productivity. :-) Doug4 06:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug4 (talk • contribs)

Reviewer

Hello, following a review of your contributions, I have enabled reviewer rights on your account. This gives you the ability to:

• Accept changes on pages undergoing pending changes,
• Have your changes automatically accepted on pending changes level 2 protected pages, and
• Administrate article feedback.

Please remember that this user right:

• Can be removed at any time for misuse, and
• Does not grant you any special status above other editors.

You should probably also read WP:PROTECT, since this user privilege deals largely with page protection. As the requirements for this privilege are still in a state of flux, I would encourage you to keep up to date on the WP:REVIEWER page. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions! Happy editing! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Submission: Global Media Post

Hi A412, In regards to declining the article for Global Media Post I am at a bit of a loss as to how to get reliable sources for this website. As it is a news aggregator it generally does not have other sites reviewing it since it is mostly sourced material itself. I have followed the general layout and sources for the World News Network page. Is there anything else you can suggest I do to have the article accepted? Many thanks. --JG13 (talk) 06:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it, as you say, "does not have other sites reviewing it", then it unfortunately does not fulfill notability criteria, and does not belong in the encyclopedia. A412 (Talk • C) 01:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply to your feedback

Hi A412, thank you for reviewing my article. I'm sorry, as I'm new to Wikipedia and this is my first attempt of writing an English article here I would be pleased to get some help from you. Could you please tell me what exactly I need to edit in my article. I've added the references but I'm confused now what else I must add/change so that you accept my article. [[1]] [[2]]

--Viv1112 (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The issue with the article is that there are no independent sources. (Independent being not affiliated with the subject) Although he seems notable, this needs to be verifiable. Go read the golden rule to see what kind of references you need. A412 (Talk • C) 20:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1999 Indiana Hoosiers Men's Soccer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chicago Fire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Date templates

Please do not remove date templates from infoboxes, as you did at Guy McCrone. As the infobox documentation explains, they are necessary from the correct emission of metadata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 27

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation 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 1911 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our help desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? 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. Plus, reviewing is easy when you use our new semi-automated reviewing script! Thanks in advance, Nathan2055^talk - contribs

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation at 22:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC). If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.

Case for "Children with Special Healthcare Needs in the United States"

Unlike previous viewers suggest, I contend that this Wikipedia article should be put back up. The article on "Children with Special Healthcare Needs in the United States" should not stay down. It reads well and is incredibly comprehensive in scope. Moreover, I disagree in that, in fact, it does not read like an essay, but instead like an encyclopedic entry. Rather, it is very balanced and remains neutral. It provides important information that pertains to children's health care needs in terms of their capabilities in life. This type of article is not as prevalent in the body of Wikipedia articles, and thus is extremely valuable to the Wikipedia community. This article can be linked to a number of existing Wikipedia entries to deepen the wealth of information. This being said, the article should be put back up, and additional information can be added to deepen the scope of information. I have gone through the article to make a few minor technical edits, though it looks very polished. Again, this article should be put back up because extensive work has been put into the article to make it as neutral, balanced, and encyclopedic in tone as possible, and it adds important knowledge to the body of Wikipedia articles. Heidimkahle (talk) 06:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOT. The issue is that the article reads more like a case study than an encyclopedia entry. Try making it less of an analysis and more explanatory. Thank you. A412 (Talk • C) 06:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MMA Invite

Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on Wikipedia better! In November 97 people made a total of 899 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you haven't listed yourself on the WikiProject Mixed martial arts Participants page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the talk page. Kevlar (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Articles for creation newsletter

Delivered 01:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC) by EdwardsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the spamlist.

Disambiguation link notification for December 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Physical media, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Submarine cable (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) 11:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for improving my article! Cmckain14 (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Articles for creation Needs You!

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of Wikiproject Articles for Creation at 13:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]