User talk:Becky Sayles/Archive 4

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Please comment on Talk:John Wood (Room to Read)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:John Wood (Room to Read). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Becky Sayles (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Orphan Message

Hi Becky Sayles,

Thanks for accepting the article Lily Thomas. I have already linked the article with two other articles CNN-IBN Indian of the Year and Disqualification of convicted representatives in India. Please remove the orphan message on the article page.

Thanks. Work2win (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Becky Sayles (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Becky Sayles/Archive 4. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Chamith (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Hello Becky Sayles. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:John Wood (Room to Read)

I started a page move request; join in. --George Ho (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Touch the Wall, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tugg and David Marsh. 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) 11:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


Help needed

I'm trying to write article but every time some one else deletes my article with reason. Now a article named Asim you removed out. Can I know what the hell is going on ? This is 5th article that has deleted with no reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asim Aslam (talk • contribs) 18:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@Asim Aslam: Please read Wikipedia:Contributing_to_Wikipedia#Article_creation_and_notability before continuing to edit Wikipedia. If you continue to add the same information to wikipedia, your account will likely be blocked, preventing you from editing wikipedia. Becky Sayles (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

How can article be approved

How can article be approved on Wikipedia ? --Asim Aslam (talk) 19:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Asim Aslam ([[User talk:Asim Aslam|Asim Aslam])

@Asim Aslam: Wikipedia:Your_first_article may also be helpful. Becky Sayles (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@Asim Aslam: Multiple, independent, reliable sources showing notability would be a good start. Meters (talk) 19:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

19:40:46, 25 December 2014 review of submission by Peter Anderson, ASC


Peter Anderson, ASC (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Becky Sayles,

Merry Christmas.

Thank you for your rapid response.

It's been recommended by my industry associates that I should have a Wikipedia presence. And I needed to start somewhere to implement it. So this submission is my establishing dialogue.

The core of my submitted copy was derived from a recent American Cinematographer Magazine article. And it included the magazine's publication dates regarding previous articles on my work. But having edited and supplemented this, it wouldn't be proper to enclose this in quotations.

The six references I had submitted were to Wikipedia articles that included references to myself.

Submitting too much at this point for review seemed to be counterproductive. But once established, there is more that myself and others can then contribute.

Perhaps I could hire a writer to help, but this feels to me to be rather pretentious.

Thanks for you involvement.

I would appreciate your recommendations.

Best regards, Peter

@Peter Anderson, ASC: Hiring a writer probably is not necessary (see Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy)). The content of your draft seemed fine, but there are various requirements for writing articles, and in particular for ones about living people. Please see Wikipedia:Your first article, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. You can probably work this out by changing your citations. Instead of citing the wikipedia article about a film that you worked on, cite the imdb page. Becky Sayles (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Mark Parsons (banker)

Thanks for your comments on the AfC for Draft:Mark Parsons (banker). I will have a look through and see if I can expand per your comments. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

"The draft currently relies too much on primary sources"?

regarding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Filip_Albrecht Hello Becky Sayles, what exactly do you mean by "The draft currently relies too much on primary sources"? The draft relies to several well known newspapers and radio stations (Czech Radio, like BBC), newspaper DIE ZEIT (like The New York Times) or Denik (like Daily Mirror). Is it necessary to put more references and/or translate from the german and/or czech Wikipedia article? Thanks for answering and have a nice day.

@37.188.238.195: [1][2][3][4]/7 appear to be interviews with the subject. More importantly, please see Wikipedia:Notability_(people). Becky Sayles (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Igor Janev

Igor Janev should be classified under WP:NPOL person, since he was Special Advisor of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Macedonia (Advisor of State (in Macedonian: Državen Sovetnik)) in 2002. See more from data base Macedonian Emigration Agency (national government source)) in Macedonian [5] [6].183.86.209.161 (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@183.86.209.161: I'm not sure why you have identified WP:NPOL. The reasons the draft submission was declined appear on Draft:Igor Janev. "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms, that are designed to promote or show-off the subject." Becky Sayles (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
In any country Special Advisor to the MFA is WP:NPOL by definition of Wikipedia. See Special Adviser status.183.86.209.161 (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I'm not sure why you are telling me this. Becky Sayles (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Because, Article on the Senior diplomat should be accepted183.86.209.161 (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Please read the information on the draft and in my response above. The declined submission is not related to WP:NPOL.Becky Sayles (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi,
You recently rejected that draft article, saying it "does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources".
It's got quite decent sourcing; the language is a bit non-neutral but still...
I feel that, if it were a live article, it'd probably survive AFD.
That means it can be easily fixed, instead of rejected.
Please reconsider, and maybe just make it live, so it can fight it out for itself in the wiki world.
See also: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Happy Holydays and the New Year 2015!
Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
@Igor the facetious xmas bunny: Thank your for your comments. Since I declined the submission, it's been declined again. As I've previously stated, and you have quoted, my reasons for declining were related to the writing and not the sources. Having seen no change in the draft in that regard, I cannot accept the submission. Surviving AFD is not the criteria I am required to use in reviewing articles, and I don't believe the draft as it is now could be easily fixed, at least not by me. You are certainly free to make changes and resubmit. Becky Sayles (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Peter C. Bjarkman

Hi Becky, Thanks for accepting the Peter C. Bjarkman page. I'm a true newbie at this but I am ready to learn more about editing. I have not found what I've needed in the articles I've read from the links on that page. Can you help me understand what you mean by problems with the layout (other than adding Categories, I think I can do that)? And is the neutrality issue related to the sources only being his and interviews with him? Or is there some claim being made that I'm not seeing? Thanks for your help. Rbwilbur (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)--Rbwilbur (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Rbwilbur: Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists_of_works. The current Works section appears to be out of order. As for neutrality, the use of interviews was not my issue, but is generally okay if used for limited purposes. I felt some of the language used tended toward the promotional. For example "widely recognized commentator", which may be accurate, is not directly supported by the citation provided. On a separate note, you may find Help:Wiki_markup useful. Things like creating section headings on talk pages, internal links, and indentation are often ways to make communication more efficient on wikipedia. Becky Sayles (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Rbwilbur (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)