User talk:Hasteur/Archive 5

Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Happy Easter!!!

Happy Easter!

So a print encyclopedia, a strawberry shortcake, and a sycamore walk into a bar - wait, have you heard this one? (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jose Antonio Vargas". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 10 April 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 00:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

DRN organisers

Hello. I am just letting you know that I've made a proposal to create a rotating DRN organiser-style role that would help with the day-to-day running of DRN. As you are a listed volunteer at DRN, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, and the other open proposals at DRN. You can read more about it here. Thanks! Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 00:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Minor item

Hi there. Just a quick note on this infobox: It should say "This user has been dragged to the Administration Noticeboards N times," an experience which should only happen when drugged. Jokestress (talk) 05:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Updated 25/4 - Question about declined AfC on Nick Grey

Hi Hasteur,

I've now made more amends to the page - I commented after your comment but was unsure if that was the right thing to do, apologies if I should've just come back here... Are you okay to have another look?

Thanks...

PREVIOUS MESSAGE:

Thanks for checking the AfC on Nick Grey from Gtech.

I saw you had declined the submission as the prose apparently reads like bulletpoints in a corporate bio.

I believe this is possibly the result of my succinct manner. I have revisited the text.

However, aside from turning otherwise curteously short sentences into promotional, gushing blurb by adding adjectives to make it read less like bulletpoints, I am unsure what else can be done to change this copy.

I have read numerous other "people" entries and this is very much in line with the style and 'dryness' of those pages, which all read like corporate bios.

I am happy to make amends, of course, but am not very sure, from your comment, what would need to be done to make this less "bulletpointy" without breaching other guidelines: ie, it'd turn into unambiguous promotion, and an uncited advert for the person/company/products.

Can you please advise on how to improve this?

Or at least re-look at the article, and see if you can spot any genuinely "corporate" words - ie advertising words, promotional language, adjectives or any uncited claims - as there aren't any?

Thank you and best wishes,

Ali 46.31.87.177 (talk) 09:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Decline

This thread no longer interests me. Advice about what to do has been provided. If JoshBlitz doesn't want to take that advice, they don't have to, but I am done with this. Hasteur (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, I am the author of the Pirates of the Caribbean timeline article, and I am offended by what you said. Columbus is never mentioned in the movies. Anyway, you obviously didn't read the notes section where it says:

"Some dates are historicaly accurate, such as the death of Bartholomew "Black Bart" Roberts, and are important to the storyline in one of the movies or books, such as Blackbeard's birth in 1680 as he becomes the main antoganist in On Strangers Tides, or Juan Ponce de León's discovery of Florida, and the Fountain of Youth as Sparrow and Barbossa search for his ship also in On Strangers Tides."

Having seen that I realy encourage you to look back into my article. Cheers. JoshBlitz (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)JoshBlitz

And obviously you missed the Reductio ad absurdum of mentioning Columbus and trying to point out that your timeline is so meticulously over detailed that it does not belong here. Hasteur (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That is not true. The article tells the timeline of events showcased in the series and books. Now the Beatles have a timeline and it is the exact same thing. It says details such as when George Martin was born, John and Cynthia wedding, and when a record was released. My article is no different. So please relook into it now. Cheers. JoshBlitz (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)JoshBlitz

WP:OTHERSTUFF. The Beatles has a very obvious and definite timeline and membership in the band. In addition your "timeline" claims in the title to only follow the movies, yet you include the births of characters only mentioned (Hernando Cortez is not in any of the films but is mentioned in description) or characters that are not even talked about in the movies (Ben Franklin for example). I'm not going to give your article a pass at this time because it is not up to the standards and quality of a article (or list). Please take my (and Drmies) advise and walk away for a while. I observe that you've submitted a great many articles for creation with very few of them actually passing. Perhaps it's time to go back to square one and consider if perhaps your understanding of the best practices (Rules/Guidelines/MoS/etc.) is not in line with the community consensus. And if you try to make another end run play such as removing the declined AfC submissions and trying to get a different reviewer, I will be asking the AfC volunteer team as a whole what steps we should take to prevent further disruption from you. Hasteur (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes that was an accident, after I made the title I thought to myself, "Crap," and I tried to change the title but I couldn't find out how. Anyhoo, you again didn't read the notes section. Ben Franklin's birth was not mentioned, and Hernando Cortez is mentioned in the BOOK SERIES!! Yes, I know it says "...(Movie Series)" I mad a mistake, I tried to change it but I couldn't! Also, the Beatles DID NOT have a difinitive timeline. I am still working on a Beatles article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The History of The Beatles, witch is an article about their history, (also i'd love some feedback for it), and it includes people who were members, not just, Paul, John, George, and Ringo, but Tommy Moore, Ivan Vaughan, Bill Smith, Eric Griffiths, Colin Hanton, and Norman Chapman. People you probably have never heard of but, consequently have all been in the Beatles before... JoshBlitz (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)JoshBlitz

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ASBIS

Dear Hasteur, thank you for your reviewing the article about ASBISC Enterprises PLC. We have previously worked at it with Nimuaq and developed it with his kind assistance. Could you please, specify what did you mean by decline reasoning “the high prevelance of PR blurb”? Perhaps you can give your competent recommendations and more detailed instruction of how to improve the article to get approved then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASBIS.cmg (talk • contribs) 12:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a high concentration of 1st person sources (ASBIS itself, or press releases from ASBIS) that significantly disqualify the article (in my mind) as being appropriate for mainspace. In addition your user name coupled with the article you're trying to get submitted suggests a significant conflict of interest. I looked at your interaction with Nimuaq, and it was nothing more than basic information (just as I'm giving) and not significant assistance. Hasteur (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for_creation/Aradhna_Krishna

HI,

many thanks for your review about this page (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aradhna Krishna). It was much appreciated!!!

I am trying to edit the page following your suggestions. Could you help me please in understanding what criteria to use to delete the references that you think are unnecessary? I have written a message to the live chat, but the people there suggested me to contact you directly.

Many thanks again, Alfa privativo (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:OVERREF and try to pick the best ones for the clusters you have. Also the people who staffed the live chat were obviously mistaken as it's very obvious as to the meaning. Hasteur (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks Hasteur!! Alfa privativo (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ben Corday

Your reasons for declining my submission are vague. While I will continue to work on improving this short article, I would much appreciate an elaboration on what you meant by "Narrative composition is confused. Chronology within a section is not consistent." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richiesullivan (talk • contribs) 21:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Read the block of description. It talks about his death, then about the flash that he sold. Consider breaking his biography out from his impact. Hasteur (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I thought that's what you were getting at, but wasn't sure. I will edit accordingly and resubmit.--Richiesullivan (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tropical Depression01W (2010)

Hi! I am the one creating this article and I waited for a long time for someone to review it and thankfully you are there when you reviewed it. I am asking in a friendly matter, I did not understand your comment there so will you tell me what is the problem of my article? Procyclone (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  1. WebCite makes the original source of the references impossible to determine. From my spot check, it appears all the sources was the Illonois Weather Listserv.
    1. If this is the case your article will give the "Article depends on a single source" problem which means you're going to be declined on that argument
  2. There are many more important named tropical storms that don't have articles on Wikipedia, so a pre-determined pattern of naming for a single year's storm is unlikely to be significantly notable.
  3. The fact that the storm's existance was a total of 3 days suggests that there wasn't any significant notability to the storm. That only 2 people died and there was under 500k in damages also suggests that there isn't a great claim of significance in this storm.
For these reasons I've declined the article. Hasteur (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
If I can edit it to replace sources, do you think it will be accepted? Procyclone (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The sources aren't going to help it. It still suffers from the "non-named tropical storms" problem and the "low impact" problem. Hasteur (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
So you mean it is not notable even if it has 3 deaths and $245,000 (I am not sure)?Procyclone (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm saying that in my mind with only 3 deaths and such a minimal amount of monetary losses, it's not notable. Hasteur (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sherry Lynn

Hasteur, thank you for reviewing my article on Sherry Lynn. I did read the criteria for Musicians on Wiki and also researched other musicians that do have articles published. And I see no reason for Sherry Lynn who had a single chart on the Billboard Charts in 2012 and is about to release her 2nd studio CD not be included here. Here upcoming single which is slated for release in the next few weeks is a duet with Crystal Gayle. She has been published in multiple country music publications both here and abroad. Compared to a few other artists published here she definitely has the credentials to appear in Wikipedia. Sammi8170 (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Sammi8170 moved here from misplaced category page edit Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The Billboard listing is not cited, therefore it can't count to the notability tracker. That she placed so low on the chart that it's questionable as if the charting is qualified. Please be aware that the Charting requirement is being considered for removal based on the fact that below the top ~30 it's not as easy to determine notability. Hasteur (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If that requirement is removed then that would be in our favor? Since she does fit a majority of the rest of them. And as I said there are other artists who have published articles that do not fit all the criteria listed.Sammi8170 (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Sammi8170

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Woodpecker Wooliams

Hello Hasteur-

You've recently declined the Woodpecker Wooliams article due to multiple submissions following my recent rewriting of it; please would you advise me how to either delete or merge the articles as you've requested; the fact that there are several submissions comes from me struggling to submit the rewritten article / to navigate around the wikipedia pages.

Your help is much appreciated. DC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dv8create (talk • contribs) 21:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the edit text of the entire page, and either delete or copy together the content. Read through the creation afterwords to make sure there's only 1 references block, 1 external links block, and 1 categories block. I speedy failed the submission because it's difficult to evaluate the article's relative density of references when looking at a double submission. Previously i would have chopped the older text, but I've been counseled that this is not always the best solution to this issue, and to let the submitter choose which version they want to keep. Hasteur (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Hasteur- Thank you for the advice. I think this is completed now- as far as I can tell there is just one version / one set of references... etc. I can't see how to resubmit for review though and I think that's where things went wrong before and duplicate entries were made... is there anything else i need to do now (can you see?) in order for it to be reconsidered? many thanks, DC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dv8create (talk • contribs) 21:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Film at 11 Talkback

Hello, Hasteur. You have new messages at Film at 11's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

We'll have the full story... at 11! 18:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Dv8create

Hello Hasteur-

Thank you for the advice. I think this is completed now- as far as I can tell there is just one version / one set of references... etc. I can't see how to resubmit for review though and I think that's where things went wrong before and duplicate entries were made... is there anything else i need to do now (can you see?) in order for it to be reconsidered?

many thanks, DC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dv8create (talk • contribs) 21:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Jose Antonio Vargas, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:PhilKnight (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Peter Proctor, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:PhilKnight (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Seeking for guidance

Hi Hasteur,

I submitted an article on 'Cullen Investments', which was reviewed by you and later got declined on 17 April 2013. Here's the link for your reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Cullen_Investments

Previously the article was declined on 31 March 2013 due to insufficient references considering which the reference list was updated considerably.

This time the reason for rejection is 'promotional stuff'. I'll be grateful if you can help me with the edition and successful submission of the same article. Additionally it would good if you can point out few sentences in the article which sounds like promotional stuff.

Thanks Ingoddess2805 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingoddess2805 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I've explained my reasoning on the AfC, but 9 out of 24 references beind directly controlled by the subject of the article is nowhere near reasonable in terms of notability. Hasteur (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


Lev Shekhtman inquiry

Hello Hasteur Thank you for reviewing the Lev Shekhtman entry. Would you kindly explain what you meant by "density of citations inappropriate" ? ("Data dump of directing/Acting credits makes this article much too long and density of citations inappropriate.") Thanks, Ikalnitksy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikalnitsky (talk • contribs) 17:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought the wording was fairly clear. For the amount of text that is on the page, there is too few cited statements. I also note that per [1] you have a Conflict of Interest with respect to the subject. Hasteur (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


Resubmittion

Read and provided feedback at the submission page Hasteur (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hey Hasteur

I submitted my page for review and you declined it. I have made the changes you suggested. Please can you have a look at it and advise. Thank you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/ZANEWS — Preceding unsigned comment added by NuggetBerrisford (talk • contribs) 11:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resubmit

Sending the exact same message 3 hours after the previous one isn't helpful. Hasteur (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hey Hasteur

I submitted my page for review and you declined it. I have made the changes you suggested. Please can you have a look at it and advise. Thank you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/ZANEWS NuggetBerrisford (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citations for last two paragraphs of article about Rafe Gomez (User:Thewikirap/sandbox)

Hasteur -

Thanks for reviewing the article.

You had said that the final two paragraphs of the article about Mr. Gomez were woefully under cited. To remedy this, I inserted one citation in the first of the two final paragraphs, which was written about Mr. Gomez on the website Entrepreneur Podcast Network. The second of the two final paragraphs already has a citation, and it's from Mr. Gomez's website. It lists the media where his work has been featured (all of which can be verified by clicking through to the mentioned media outlets from Mr. Gomez's site).

There's not much more citation that's possible, since I'm simply listing facts about Mr. Gomez's work without any embellishment or editorialization.

If those citations aren't enough, what would you recommend?

Thanks.

Thewikirap

Thewikirap (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Paul Harris

Hey Hasteur,

Can you elaborate on how you want the credits section referenced on Paul Harris's page? After review other similar artist's pages, I'm not seeing any difference. Sorry for being so new to this!

Also, if you notice anything else I need to clean up, please let me know!

10 West Studio

Thank you for your review of 10 West Studios.

Unfortunately, a user (deletionist?) named User:LionMans Account blanked a couple sections yesterday with the comment "unnecessary". I have no idea why someone would blank sections and then leave the article in Articles for Creation.

Apparently, this also deleted references, that now makes the article appear to rely on IMDb as references, rather than added detail i.e. each IMDB reference was backed-up with an additional reference before the deletionist changed the article. see Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb

I believe the subscript, you are asking about is the Template:Rp, used for denoting page numbers in multi-page articles.

I've removed / replaced the IMDb references, hope you'll have another look -- Thanks 23:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC) 009o9 (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Resubmit

Hey Hasteur

Thanks so much for your help so far on this page. I have made the changes you suggested after you declined the page. Please can I ask you to have a look at it again, to see if it's ready to be resubmitted? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/ZANEWS NuggetBerrisford (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for_creation/Mohd_Noor_Amin

Hi Hasteur,

Thanks you for your review about this page (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mohd_Noor_Amin). Will you please tell us how the biography can improve. Your statement that it feels like it was copied from somewhere makes it difficult for us to move on. Is it because the style of writing that you base your rejection on the "feeling that it was copied from somewhere"? We have complied with everything that Wikipedia has asked for but our page keeps being rejected. Is there anyway at all that we can complete this without having to have so many rewrites? Would receiving a letter from Datuk Amin stating that the information comes solely from us and have the required sources and not copied from somewhere else assist us in moving forward? Please advice.

As for the page being promotional, the information is backed by references and sources.

Would very much appreciate your assistance and further feedback on the matter. Thank you.

Vicknezan (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2013 (GMT+8)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Leonia_Holistic_Destination_-_Hyderabad

Hi Hasteur,

Thanks for reviewing this page. I have removed promotional burb language to the best of my knowledge and made article very simple. If you still feel if there is any content which seems like promoting or advertising can you kindly highlight the content so i can remove or change it. Hope this time article won't get decline. Thanks!

User:B_Naren (User talk:B_Naren) 16:20, 24 April 2013 (GMT+5:30)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Enders_Analysis

Dear Hasteur

Many thanks for reviewing the article - it was my first, as you've probably noticed. Claire is the company figurehead, and her services, which have contributed significantly to the company's notability, fall under "company services". I think that your comment was more than fair, and I agree with you that the page did read like two separate articles; Some of the phrasing read as if Claire's work was independent of Enders Analysis.

I have edited the article so that any work done by Claire on behalf of Enders Analysis is attributed to the company and not to her as an individual. I've also removed any statements which I thought would be better placed in a separate article about Claire Enders, which I intend to write in the future, and have trimmed the Public Policy section significantly. Please let me know if you think that these changes are sufficient. Nemra1 (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Re. College of Estate Management

Hi Hasteur, Thanks for your review of my submitted article on the College of Estate Management, and for your valuable feedback.See link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/College_of_Estate_Management

I would very much like to make amendments to this so that it can be reconsidered. Firstly though, I would contest your point that "the "references" from the subject's booklet/pamphlet is not appropriate for proping up the notability of the subject". The source for the history of the college is not a booklet, nor a pamphlet, but a history of that institution published in 1969 - The College of Estate Management 1919-1969 by D.M. Lawrance. Copies are quite rare, but I was able to obtain one from Amazon. Regarding its notability, the college is a very well-established institution, held in great esteem by the many thousands of alumni now working in the property and construction industries who know it affectionately as 'the College'. And it is equal in stature to other independent colleges, eg the College (now University) of Law, and Regents College, both of which have articles in Wikipedia. And because the College of Estate Management was recently granted degree-awarding status, it is on a par with UK universities, many of which also have Wikipedia entries.

Considering the second part of your feedback - "Entire sections are without a single citation to back up the claim.." yes, I accept that there are sections in the History part which could have more references. The reason for this is that on a previous submission, an editor had rejected it partly because the references led to the college's own website, which for me is the only source of history I've been able to find after 1969. Please advise therefore what I can do to rectify this.

Finally, in the course of submitting this article and getting it rejected, I note that someone else has now posted a, in my view, very inadequate Wikipedia article on the College of Estate Management, which had inaccuracies (which I have since gone in and corrected), and also has three references that lead to pages with error messages. If you could advise me in more detail on how to amend my original article to make it suitable for publication, it would surely be preferable to what is currently posted.

Regards, Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Initram52 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding: Alain de Weck

Response has been made and OP is has a significant COI with respect to the subject.Hasteur (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

What ratio of self-published to third part references would be accaptable to you? I am starting to get very frustrated with this process. The article has already been revised twice and nine external references added. Every reviewer seems to have different expectations and standards with respect to the ratio of self-published versus external references. BTW Prof. de Weck will receive the WAO's Lifetime Achievement Award at the world congress in Milan on June 22, 2013 and there is a desire to see this article published soon.

So the key question remains: What is an acceptable ratio of self-published to external sources, right now it is approximately 3:1, does it have to be 2:1, 1:1 ??? I need a target to shoot for. I assume that once published additional third party references will be added over time.

Deweck (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:TALKSTALK Alert! In looking at the AfC, it appears significant parts of the article are a copyright violation (both cut/paste and close paraphrasing) of Dr. de Weck's eulogy (http://www.de-weck.ch/fileadmin/documents/News/Deces-Alain/Alain_de_Weck-Eulogy-short.pdf). That would result in a rejection of the article alone. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I wrote the Eulogy and hold the copyright for it !!!! I have the original document that I wrote and it is me who gave permission for it to be posted on the website listed above. Lets get on with it and publish the article summarizing Prof. de Weck. It has already been over two weeks since his death and I am getting several requests daily for this article to come only. Every time I submit a revision there are new people jumping in with new objections and requirements. This is a nightmare !

Deweck (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

If you think our nitpicking is annoying, just wait till you get to mainspace and have a great many more editors crawling over the article and picking at it. The fact that you wrote the eulogy strongly suggests that you have a significant COI with respect to the subject. I do not intend to engage further with respect to this request and will be archiving it now. Hasteur (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gunjan Sinha

Dear Hasteur:

Thank you for reviewing the page on Mr. Sinha. However, we have a problem re: reliable third-party sources: there is a dearth of them about this businessman in question. What other options are there but self-published sources or profiles in this instance?

Also, how can the author of this page about Charles R. Schwab get away with using a profile of Mr. Schwab as one of their sources when I can't use one for the page about Mr. Sinha? You can find what I am talking about here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_R._Schwab#References

Thank you.TH1980 (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Full stop: Charles Schwab is obviously notable. Please don't make the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument as it's easier to deline the article on those grounds. Hasteur (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Article Question

This page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chris Clodfelter was declined due to lack of notability in the area of MMA. Could it potentially be reconsidered due to his muay thai notability rather than his MMA experience? MMA notability requires participation in 3 top tier MMA organization competitions. Muay thai is Clodfelter's area of primary notability. If he has participated in 3 top tier Muay Thai organization competitions will he also meet notability requirements? If so, I can gather proof of top tier muay thai experience to include. Thanks for your help! Leighthal17 (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Responded on the AfC Hasteur (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to my talk page

I treat my talk page as a top level landing page for all discussion and as such archive stale discussions quickly. If a conversation started elsewhere, I will be watching it. If it starts here I will watch it here. Thanks.

Pizza Patrón

Thank you very much for photographing the Pizza Patrón HQ! Are you open to more photo requests? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Within Reason. I've done a bunch of photo requests this past couple of weeks (~20) so I'm probably going to be hands off for a couple of weeks as a 70 mile trip every weekend is not as fun. Hasteur (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    • It's fine if I only list requests in the Dallas area, right? I have quite a few requests in the Dallas area. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Northern half of Dallas County I can do fairly quickly. South half (South of Downtown) takes longer. I also do some Collin County sites as I'm near the Dallas/Collin county border

Alright, so there are some requests. If you already have any of the following, please let me know. If you want to take your time or only do certain ones for now, that's fine too. If you want more than what I posted, please let me know, and I can post more.

Northern Dallas County:

Highland Park:
HP Town Hall: 4700 DREXEL DRIVE | HIGHLAND PARK, TEXAS 75205
Highland Park Department of Public Safety and the HP Library are next door - please photograph those too
File:Highland Park Municipal Building.JPG
File:Highland Park Department of Public Safety.JPG
Highland Park Middle School/McCulloch Intermediate: 355 Granada Drive, Dallas, TX 75205
File:Highland Park Middle School.JPG
Armstrong Elementary: 3600 Cornell, Dallas, TX
File:John S. Armstrong School.JPG
Bradfield Elementary: 4300 Southern, Dallas, TX
File:John S. Bradfield Elementary School.JPG
Vickery Meadow
Emmett J. Conrad High School - 7502 Fair Oaks Avenue Dallas, TX 75231
Tasby Middle School - 7001 Fair Oaks Avenue, Dallas, TX 75231
Jack Lowe, Sr. Elementary School - 7000 Holly Hill Drive Dallas, TX 75231
McShan Elementary School - 8307 Meadow Road, Dallas, TX 75231
Jill Stone Elementary School at Vickery Meadow - 6606 Ridgecrest Road, Dallas, TX 75231-7002
Fire Station #37 - 6742 Greenville Avenue
Preston Hollow
St. Mark's School (Texas) - 10600 Preston Road, Dallas, TX 75230
Ursuline Academy of Dallas - 4900 Walnut Hill Lane Dallas, Texas
Pershing Elementary School - 5715 Meaders Ln, Dallas, TX
Preston Hollow Elementary School - 6423 Walnut Hill Ln Dallas, TX 75230
Preston Hollow Presbyterian School - 9800 Preston Road, Dallas, TX
Preston Royal Library: 5626 Royal Lane
Preston Post Office: 8604 TURTLE CREEK BLVD DALLAS, TX 75225-9998
Netherland Park: 5600 Dittmer
Preston Hollow Park: 6600 Park Ln
Fire Station 41 - 5920 Royal Lane
University Park
UP City Hall/Police/Courts: 3800 University Blvd. University Park, TX 75205
Peek Service Center: 4420 Worcola Street Dallas, TX 75206 (lower priority)
Highland Park Library: 6517 Hillcrest Suite 110, 75205
Highland Park Independent School District administration - 7015 Westchester Drive, Dallas, TX
Highland Park High School - 4220 Emerson Dallas, Texas 75205
Hyer Elementary: 3920 Caruth, Dallas, TX
University Park Elementary: 3505 Amherst, Dallas, TX
UP Parks (other than Holmes Aquatic, those are the lowest priority):
When photographing a park, please get the sign announcing the name, like this: File:AgnesMoffitPark.JPG
Burleson Park - 3000 University @ Dublin2900 Daniel Avenue
Caruth Park - 7801 Hillcrest Ave @ Caruth
Curtis Park and Holmes Aquatic Center - 3501 Lovers Lane @ Dickens
Germany Park - 6401 Lomo Alto @ University
Smith Park - 4000 Greenbrier @ Pickwick
Williams Park - 3801 University @ Williams Pkwy
Central Dallas:
DISD HQ: 3700 Ross Avenue Dallas, TX 75204-5491

Requests for southern Dallas County:

Wilmer-Hutchins ISD admin building (it's across the street from a gas station, so I suppose you can park at the gas station and take the photo from there) - 3820 East Illinois Avenue, Dallas, TX - I fear it could be demolished or have its markings removed (last time I saw it, it was still marked as the WHISD admin building), so I would very much like to have it photographed
File:Wilmer-Hutchins ISD admin building.JPG Hasteur (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

DFW Airport area, in Tarrant County:

  • American Airlines/AMR Corporation corporate headquarters: 4333 Amon Carter Boulevard Fort Worth, TX 76155
  • DFW Airport Admin Building (you will not have to pay the toll to access it): 3200 East Airfield Drive (75261)
  • Fort Worth ARTCC: 13800 FAA Road, Fort Worth, Texas, United States 76155

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Bad news, the WH ISD building (which I assume was on that little triangle of land between the gas station and the highway) is already demolished. Hasteur (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to make sure, was it located on this parcel? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
If it's the building that's listed as the Imperialist University of America, I got a shot of that. There were no WH-ISD logos on it. I was referring to the little triangle as the 2nd link you sent is what I though was the WHISD building. I'll upload what I have shortly Hasteur (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay. I look forward to seeing the image :) WhisperToMe (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a triangle of land with nothing on it, but maybe that's not where the building was after all... WhisperToMe (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The triangle that may have been empty was empty back in 2001: http://msrmaps.com/image.aspx?T=4&S=9&Z=14&X=7100&Y=36216&W=3&qs=%7cDallas%7cTX - It seems like the building itself is still standing WhisperToMe (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Please let me know when you post any photos taken over the weekend. I'll add them to articles WhisperToMe (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to upload. Hardware failure prevented me from uploading quickly. Hasteur (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I just added it to the WHISD article WhisperToMe (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Highland Park Done. Hasteur (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for getting these! WhisperToMe (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Re-review of sandboxed article

Hey Hasteur. I was wondering if you'd be up to re-reviewing my sandboxed article. I've reworked and renamed the proposed article to make it about industry as a whole as opposed to a single website within the industry. It may also be worth noting that a similar article (Mugshots removal) was recently created. My thinking is that new article, based on its contents, would be more suited as a redirect to my proposed article if it were move to mainspace. Again, if you are up for it and have time, take a look at User:TreyGeek/Mugshot_Publishing_Industry and tell me what you think about this version of it. Thanks! --TreyGeek (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking good to me, the only problem I have with it (and it's minor and personal) is that both the Texas references are to the bill's status without any independent coverage. I also note that both the references are at the end of the Texas section and not in the middle. Hasteur (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I had the same issue with the Texas legislation. I was surprised I couldn't find news reports of it. It's possible that it and other legislation might have to be dropped, in terms of details, in a few months if they never get past the legislature. I think I'll adjust where the references are and keep an eye on the progress and any news over the next couple of months. Thanks for the feedback. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Floaters

Hmmm. You may be right, they probably don't do much. I'll go ahead and remove two, leaving just the temporary advert. Thanks for your concerns. Regarding the reasons I reply to people at RfA, please see my reply here. That said, since a number of editors have said, in various ways, that I should stop replying to most people there, I will indeed try to do so. I just hope that people won't start complaining then that I am ignoring their input. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

AfC

Hello, Hasteur. I have been involved with the Articles for Creation WikiProject for a few months now and I recently put a box at the top of my talk page for people who want information about why their AfC was declined. Just looking at your talk page headers, I noticed you get a large amount of messages from people whose articles you have declined. So did I. However, this box has drastically reduced these types of encounters. Check out my talk page and feel free to steal this box. Thanks, TheOneSean | Talk to me 02:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (3rd nomination)

Hello Hasteur. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (3rd nomination), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: this isn't nonsense or vandalism - the IP wants to raise an MfD but, as an IP, is unable to create the MfD page. I'll do it for him. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the "priorXfD" bit - I was having trouble following the not-very-clear instructions for a second-or-subsequent MfD! JohnCD (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
YVW, I saw the creation and recognized it as a non-twinkle assisted creation so I pulled the "Previous AfDs" bit from the preivous nomination. Hasteur (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fedz

Hi Hasteur, you have declined the creation of the article, Fedz, because the Plot and Cast sections were not referenced. I have never previously come across a plot/synopsis or cast list section, which has been referenced before.

My understanding of the plot section is that unless there is commentary or opinion within the summary then this does not need to sourced, as per WP:PLOTPRESENT. From what I thought is normal practice, I have attempted to write the plot factually after viewing the film, as per WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE. There are brief summaries available on the following links; [2][3][4] which are included in the article.

The partial cast list can be verified on the IMDb page (although this is in a different order to the closing credits of the film), which has been included within the External links section. Tanbircdq (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

IMDB is not a reliable source. Even if it were the case that the 2 sections you cherry picked, the further section on the page Wikipedia:PLOTPRESENT#Citations clearly states that you need to have at least one citation to fall under the WP:V requirement. Now if those 2 sections can get cited (even if it's a single citation that shows that they're verifyable, then we're in business. Hasteur (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, citations have now been added to the two sections, thanks. Tanbircdq (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Help

I was wondering if you could help me argue my stance on this AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WWE_Payback or am I in the wrong here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul "The Wall" (talk • contribs) 15:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for volunteering your time at the DRN, the GITS dispute is a problematic one for me, but I hope the acknowledgement of appreciation in my latest post is a welcome one. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You placed a warning on my talk page?

Hi there! You placed a warning on my talk page with a few links about Wikipedia policy and sanctions. I've read through all of those links previously. Could you please describe specifically how my edits constitute "inappropriate behavior"? Incidentally, I think it would have been courteous for you to do so initially, rather than copy and pasting a warning, as per WP:BITE. A less informed wiki user might definitely have been put off by such behavior.

I note specifically you've linked to a sanctions for off-wiki canvassing, which is ironic, as the only off-wiki discussion I'm aware of is your post here. Then today, when attempting to look up the recent UFC 159 results, I hit the horridly organized 2013_in_UFC page and was reminded of the discussion there. I read through a good portion of the MMA-related talks on Wikipedia and felt that my posted approach was a good place to start improving the current format, since the aforementioned page is definitely an eyesore, to me. If you disagree, well, that's what the section I created is for.

HeyDecency (talk) 05:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Being that you're way too familiar with wikipedia policy for the length of your edit history (as evidenced by your straw poll posting and your claims here), we'll just go ahead and throw out your accusation of bite. In fact I'd be tempted to level a WP:SOCK accusation at you, but you've not given enough data points to draw a reasonable attempt at a successful SPI. The same "Revert to status quo ante what worked" argument is not going to happen. If we were to follow your plan, we'd have individual event articles be created (as soon as someone on UFC staff hints at it) and deleted (because it fails WP policy and fails IAR reasoning). As for the reddit post, I was trying to go into the lions den and explain. In no way did I attempt to canvas for a a specific action, but try to recruit new editors to help improve the broad swath of MMA articles. The information I linked to you was the standard boilerplate warning that reminds users who are not adhering to the primary purpose of wikipedia, that MMA articles are under community restrictions and that Administrators have a lower threshold for applying sanctions. I disagree with your premise that the page is an eyesore (as I've seen a great many other articles that have greater problems). I object to you being just the next in a line of faceless burner accounts calling the same question without paying attention to the rest of the page and why the previous requests failed. Hasteur (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello again. You can disagree with my propositions all you'd like, that's your right as a fellow editor. That doesn't in any way mean my actions constitute inappropriate behavior, however, which is what the warning you placed on my page quite clearly says. Unless you can specifically provide an example of such behavior, as I very directly asked you to do in my post above, please remove your additions from my talk page. I'll ignore the rest of the intimidatory assumptions as they really have no significance or place here- feel free to launch any sort of SPI proposals whenever you'd like and I'll submit to them willingly. HeyDecency (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Once the notification of the GS/MMA is given it can't be un-given. And your continued seeking of a pound of flesh only strengthens the case of your disruption of wikipedia. So, by all means go ahead and have a tantrum and call for my head on a platter. It makes exercising the GS against you that much easier. Hasteur (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I haven't sought anything here other than an explanation of the warning for "inappropriate behavior". You've now declined to give such reasoning twice, despite being asked to do so very directly. HeyDecency (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I'll play. Your familiarity with Wikipedia policy, claiming the BITE exception, and our continued taking offense strongly suggests that you're not a new editor, but one who has either been editing previously under a different name (and therefore a Sockpuppet) or someone who was recruited (External Canvassing) and is being coached from outside to try and get me to do something regretable. I will respond no further and will take any further postings here as harassment. I made a single posting on your talk page and now you've come back multiple times. I formally invite you to put your money where your mouth is and bring me to administrator attention so that your actions may be investigated as well. Hasteur (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I have responded to your challenge

at WP:ANI. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 19:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Deleted page listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Deleted page. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Deleted page redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Your comments at ANI

Missed the point in that we've had a discussion about this before, but whatever. Hasteur (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that there is plenty of diffs and there is a clear case that BMK is an abusive editor but no one cares what I have to say nor do I think anything would be done about it so there is absolutely no reason for me to spend the time drafting up an RFC or long thread just so people can tell me how I am being a jerk to another editor who is a jerk and abusive editor throughout the project but is repeatedly allowed to remain. I tolerated it for years and now that I have been a vocal critic of these abuses from him and others now I am the monster. Its typical of this project that's why we are losing so many good editors and admins. We are punishing the good and keeping the bad ones. That's one of the big reasons I don't edit much anymore. I'm down to a couple hundred edits a month instead of over 10, 000. Kumioko (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to give a form letter "You're a bad person for making me jump through hoops" I'll give a form letter response.
Hello NAME, I'm (sorry/disapointed, frustrated, saddened) that you feel this way. There is a time for creation and a time for protecting editors. Our dispute resolution processes are there for a reason, and if you're unwilling to navigate them I'm inclined to treat your complaint like a child throwing a tantrum. Hasteur (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Huh? There was nothing in my comment that was a "form letter" but your tone and response to my comments only proves that no one really cares what I have to say, nor is my continued participation in the project needed or wanted, nor are you or others interested in fixing the problems. Which are all quite sad because it will continue to contribute to the degradation of the project.Kumioko (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Temporal (duration) abbreviated

Thank you for your honest evaluation. (This is an apologion, so it's not an attempted conversation; just thought you'd appreciate a grateful response.)

When I first started composing the article, I thought I would simply do a stub, but then it occurred to me to pre-emptively answer a potential request for expansion, and what you reviewed 16th was the result.

I hadn't initially adverted to the fact that WP is fundamentally a hyperlink resource. By attempting to be complete and NPOV I wound up with an essay-like treatment, almost a book.

So, bearing that in mind and taking your evaluation as constructive critique, I abbreviated by gutting most of the copy, did a bit of revision on what remained, and submitted the result. It's more encyclopedic in its brevity (a bit like Britannica, I'd like to think).

Take a look. Here's the link for your convenience: Temporal (duration)

I don't really think I'll ever do this again—. Writing an article and making it "perfect" is far too fatiguing and time-consuming!

"Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh." Cf. Ecclesiastes 12:9–13.

--Espresso-con-pana (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Temporal fix final and farewell

I am finally finished with "Temporal (duration)". For your convenience just go to my talk page for links to two alternate final versions of the article—one with quotes included in body of article, one without quotes. Thanks for your support and encouragement. It's much appreciated! --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 07:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of page for the company BPN

You just reviewed a page i created.. Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/BPN

Exactly how did you come to the conclusion that BPN is not the name of the company. Did you bother to visit their website? http://bpnww.com/

Because it is evident what the name of the company is.

thegypsie 15:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It's in your references "BPN: Brand Programming Network." Take the hint and try again. I evaluate AfCs very carefully, I doubt your effort was as thorough. Hasteur (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


Clearly it has changed. That is why i stated "Originally, BPN stood for Brand Programming Network." If you compare their current branding with this 2011 article: it is obviously different. Just like their sister agency UM, which used to go by Universal McCann.

thegypsie 16:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrusovanik (talk • contribs)

Hey

How did you even know I posted on MTKing's page?  Gamezero05  talk  22:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Ceiling cat sees everything. In all honesty, I happened to see a change to someone's page that caught my attention and discovered your change. Hasteur (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Possible meetup

See User_talk:TransporterMan#Wicnic. Would you be interested if we put a very informal meetup together? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Solid Concepts

I thought I should tell you that since you removed the histmerge tag I sent the old draft to MfD. It hasn't been edited since February and if the current draft gets accepted it is just going to make a mess. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 16:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Note on your AfCing

Please stop using custom decline reasons and use the built-in ones. They contain links to policy pages and have much more info for new users. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 16:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I will not use the built in decline reasons. When I would use those I would get 2 to 3 times as many "What does that mean" threads here on my page, whereas the custom message explains quite clearly what the problem is and keeps the discussion on the user's page. Your pestering on the other hand and trying to get everyone to fit into the pre-defined boxes is equally as useless due to the fact that over 3/4 of them don't exactly fit the decline reasons and therefore only confuse the article submitter more. Hasteur (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I hid the custom decline reasons in the script on consensus because users were leaving reasons without linking to relevant policy. I understand if you don't like the pre-built reasons, but please link to valid policies when declining. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 18:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Another thing, you have left very BITEy declines in the past, such as this one. That's why the feature was hidden. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 18:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
When we're down to 200 pending AfCs then we can look at tone. You're using a "End Justifies the Means" argument. I'm looking at trying to burn down the log, now throw more roadblocks and red tape up. Hasteur (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The goal isn't to burn down the log, it's to review articles and help new editors. I'm not threatening anything, but I would seriously stop BITEing the noobs. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 18:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't mean to butt in (and I'm normally not a talk page stalker) but I have to support Hasteur hear. Almost all of the messages on my talk page about AfC are new users contesting some tiny part of the form-letter response that is the default. I either use the custom decline reason, or a form response and a comment outlining precisely what is wrong here. Perhaps a compromise could be reached? However, for the mean time, a specific, non-generic response is better than the built-in catchall responses. See the following discussion here, here, and here. These are all cases of me being contacted because the author didn't know what the template meant. Thanks, TheOneSean [ U | T | C ] 18:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC) (Post Scriptum: Please Talkback me if you reply.)

Reference and Citation follow up

Hello Hasteur, "References, but no citations" was your comment; what specifically needs to be adjusted at this time? Best, Novemberflower — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novemberflower (talk • contribs) 04:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gordon Dougan

If OTRS is too backlogged, consider removing the image and accepting the article. It's the only one over 15 days old in the queue right now. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:NODEADLINE. It's better to take time and consider it more than moving it to mainspace faster. Hasteur (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Doc Popcorn

Hello, I recently submitted an article for your review. It was declined; but, I attempted to follow the same format of a business in our same business. Here is the link to their Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auntie_Anne's Also, another business similar to ours has a Wikipedia page that is obviously franchise advertising driven. Here is their page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menchie's. How did theirs get published? Can you give me some advice on how I can get Doc Popcorn's story on Wikipedia? Thank you for all of your help! Brie Jones — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briejones (talk • contribs) 20:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF says that just because a similar article exists or doesn't exisist, doesn't justify the inclusion of annother article. Please read the comment I left as it explains better why your article was declined. Hasteur (talk) 20:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)