User talk:Kikichugirl/Archive 3

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 8

You make me smile

Hello Kikichugirl, I dream of horses has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 05:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

GraceOdin's Reply

Okay. Thank you! GraceOdin (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Grace

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For being great on IRC. Clubjustin3 (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Valay Shende

Hi Kikichugirl. Regarding your recent edit of the Valay Shende article. The reference used in that section also mentions a first prize at the India Sabka festival (2002). According to this page he also won two silver medals and was a "H.S.C. Nagpur District Topper". I agree that "a number" may be better than "various". But maybe using "including" is more accurate. Without "including" the text may give the impression that the subsequent listing - the two entries - is all-inclusive (is complete, all-encompassing). --82.136.210.153 (talk) 09:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For coming to my rescue after my userpage was vandalised. Clubjustin3 (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
@Clubjustin4: No problem! You may want to put in a request at WP:RFPP under U1 (user request in own userspace) for semiprotection so it doesn't happen again. — kikichugirl speak up! 05:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Can you help me do that? I don't know how.Clubjustin3 (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The page itself shows you how to do it. If there's anything that's confusing, please feel free to specifically point it out and ask me. Also, you reported the vandal to WP:ANI - I think WP:AIV would have been sufficient; it's not as long of a page and doesnt involve people throwing poo at each other to result in a huge fight. :P — kikichugirl speak up! 05:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

20:02:05, 29 January 2015 review of submission by Hellocarlosr


I went through the live chat and discussed the removal of the 3rd party blog link that didn't follow the advertising guidelines.

It was also mentioned to me to remove the referral tags to other Wikipedia pages.

I am not adding a referral link to the citation since most that are out there are discussing it as a top 10.

I am worried the content is not enough is there a minimum character I should be shooting for when writing the content for this page.

Thanks!

Opened in December of 2003, Shingle Creek Golf Club is a 7,228 yard golf course with a par 72. The golf course was designed by David Harman. There is a 70,000 sq. ft. practice facility developed within the property. Shingle Creek Golf Club is owned and operated by Rosen Hotels and Resorts.

The course was developed around Shingle Creek, the headwaters of the Florida Everglades. The land where Shingle Creek resides is a 230-acre parcel of land which was purchased in the year 2000 by Harry Rosen. 20 acres of land were donated to the University of Central Florida for the Rosen College of Hospitality Management.

Hellocarlosr (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Your article right now is very short. It's best if you add more information. Why is it an important golf course? What have news organizations said about it? What is its history? Good luck! — kikichugirl speak up! 20:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Request on 09:01:40, 30 January 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Sckipio


Trying to understand how to revise the submission to meet your criteria


Our site was rejected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sckipio_Technologies

We wrote our description in a way that matched other companies who have been accepted in the chip business examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma_Designs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lantiq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualcomm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvell_Technology_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia

Our structure was the same as the approved ones. We struggle to see the difference.

You imply that we are not being neutral. We don't see a single adjective. Not one opinion. Not one product feature or benefit. We don't understand your definition of advertising. There is no advertising copy. We have simply stated facts like others similar to us have. Please explain what is the offensive copy.

We have had over 100 articles written about Sckipio since October of 2014. Yet, if we include those articles, we felt it would make it MORE advertising oriented, not less. We are happy to include what you want. Here are a few examples:

http://www.lightreading.com/broadband/dsl-vectoring-gfast/sckipio-turns-up-the-gfast-volume/a/d-id/711331 http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1325246 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/10/chip_company_sckipio_has_raised_17m_to_build_gfast_chips/ http://www.cedmagazine.com/news/2015/01/dsl-accelerating-gfast-technology-demonstrated-at-ces https://www.cable.co.uk/news/ultrafast-copper-holds-the-key-to-4k-tv-700000373/ http://www.nscreenmedia.com/faroudja-sckipio-seek-boost-ultra-hd-streaming/ http://gfastnews.com/index.php/90-r/132-sckipio-s-shipping-chips-and-raises-17m http://www.itbusinessedge.com/articles/g.fast-a-powerful-weapon-for-telcos.html

Why were so many articles written about Sckipio? Because we are the first vendor in an exploding new market. We are the keynote speaker at events, we are the leading player in the space. This technology, G.fast is the official replacement of DSL and will become the leading broadband access technology from telephone companies within 2 years. We expect in a short amount of time, many wikipedia users will begin to learn more about G.fast and they should have a neutral set of facts about the company. We are very promotional on our site, but we tried very hard to be as neutral as possible in Wikipedia.

Like others in our space, we wanted to list our products. The only descriptive information provided was needed to clarify the nature of each chip. We are open to any/all suggestions.

Please let us know what we need to do differently.

Thanks

Sckipio (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Sckipio: There are several issues here. First of all, your username violates the username policy because it's the name of a company and implies shared use, an implication your use of "we" to refer to yourselves confirms. Wikipedia does not allow shared use of accounts; only one person may have access to an account, ever. I'll block this account in a moment. Please create new individual accounts for each of you that wants to edit Wikipedia, and pick usernames that comply with the username policy; if you want the accounts to be associated with the company, usernames such as "John at Sckipio" would be acceptable.
Secondly, you should take a look at the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use regarding undisclosed paid editing.
Regarding the draft itself, I found that two of your sources were the company's website and a press release, respectively, with a third not mentioning Sckipio itself at all, and not supporting the sentence it is cited for. An entire section does not cite any sources whatsoever. And while the draft's tone is less promotional than your comments here, it's still something of a "Look how great this company is!" piece. Huon (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Bobby Watson (producer/bassist)

Hi Kikichugirl...appreciate the suggestions and the assistance. I did notice on many many many artist pages (in fact some of this artist old band mates Michael Thompson (guitarist), Morris Pleasure and David Hawk Wolinski and Allen Hinds (who's article is on the Japanese wiki site)...that ALL things were not sourced prior to publication of their article...I took this article over that some one else started...and started attempting to get this guy out there...heck...he's an old man and seems to be the only one...out of most of the people he has worked with...that does NOT have an article... Why is this particular article having to have every item sourced? I noticed when the article was first done...there were A LOT of stuff the guy/girl put in there that I would NOT even START to work to find the sources...I just took them out...it was crazy...they were all "bulleted"...with NO sourcing at all. This guy has alot of work on Youtube, placed there by the OTHER artist that he has worked with.

Please advise...thanks much for your quick review and rejection and info and input...as to why...

Poekneegurl (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)poekneegurl

(talk page stalker)@Poekneegurl: All content on Wikipedia must be verifiable from reliable sources. Now admittedly there are quite a few articles that fall short of this requirement - but to address that, we should improve (or delete) the problematic articles we already have, not create more of that kind. YouTube has no meaningful editorial oversight and is not a reliable source. Huon (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

AfC

Hi Kikichugirl. Thank you once again for taking an interest in AfC and for participating in the short discussion on my talk page. AfC has been studded with arrogance, ownership, and poor reviewing for far too long and it is now too much for the few who have been trying to hold it together. Everything and anything you can do to get poor reviewers to improve or desist, and to document your findings would be most appreciated. Happy editing ! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Siyaram's

You left a message that you will help with expeditious review of the reverted Drafts, subject to posting a request here. I had left a message on Primefac's page. If you want to take on the analysis I'm very happy. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done — kikichugirl speak up! 23:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Back at you. Is it now defluffed adequately? FeatherPluma (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it looks okay. I'll have another editor take a look at it for a third opinion. — kikichugirl speak up! 00:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, Huon and L235 both agree that it's ready for mainspace. Nice work. — kikichugirl speak up! 00:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
1) Thank you, in regards to getting this article to mainspace. 2) As an aside, the NPOV advice does not appear to emanate explicitly from policy. The problem is I can read it. I think it represents a (collectively supported?) extension from it. Removing branding entirely as a theme for a company like this is not in fact inherently neutral, it's a subjective collective choice. Also, the effort involved in advancing an article with this level of (in)significance is anathema - but I am pleased for the original editor. I hope the trimmed work product isn't too disappointing to them. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Articles for Creation barnstar
Your work on reviewing Articles for Creation is phenomenal. In the past few days, the number of pending AfC submissions has dropped down almost to 1500, partially because of you. Thank you for all of your prolific work in Articles for Creation. Cheers, --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 02:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Request on 02:06:34, 2 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Dhritter


Your comments on the Cosmos article I submitted are simply factually incorrect. The material is based on references to the original source material and legitimate, authenticated second hand sources, and not on any original research. If you can't provide most justification for your feedback, I have to disregard it. It's very disappointing to wait a month to get such a cursory dismissal unsupported by any examples. Your feedback would not pass any editorial review, for sure.

Dhritter (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Dhritter: Hi. How about we discuss this on the Wikipedia live IRC help channel? Here is a web IRC client: [1]. Kikichugirl and several other editors, including me, are there. Cheers, --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 02:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Please don't accuse me of factual inaccuracy; I did my best. I did not say your references were not legitimate. I said there weren't enough which is a different thing. You also didn't link me to your article, so I couldn't find it at first. Anyway, your article needs more than a mere 6 sources and it's too much plot summary. Encyclopedic articles do not have that much plot summary (and all that plot summary you wrote is unsourced - WP:OR). — kikichugirl speak up! 02:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Zencap

I see that this Draft is well sourced, and I don't see overwhelming copyvio, tone, NPOV, or other issues. It has been mildly modified from its revert status to its present status. It is of course imperfect. However, I now ask for expedited reconsideration please.FeatherPluma (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

 Checking... — kikichugirl speak up! 03:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Magheramorne Silver Band

Hi,

Our page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Magheramorne_Silver_Band was rejected for lack of reliable sources. Of the sources included, one is bbc.co.uk (cited in Wikipedia's guidelines as an example of a reliable news source), newsletter.co.uk, the online version of the Belfast Newsletter, the world's oldest English language periodical still in circulation and one of Northern Ireland's leading newspapers, and the larnetimes.co.uk website, the online presence of the Larne Times, a local periodical under the ownership of the same group which owns the aforementioned Newsletter.

I believe these references are reliable and have been thoughtfully selected and placed within the article.

Could you please explain therefore the decision to refuse the article?

Many thanks,

(Silver maestro (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC))

Hi,Silver maestro. First of all, you mention "our" page. The rule is one account per person and one person per account, so, per WP:NOSHARE, please create an account for each person interested in editing this account. If you are connected to this band, please take a look at the Plain and Simple conflict of interest guide for information on best practices. As for the Draft:Magheramorne Silver Band, I declined it on basis of sources because there are entire sections completely devoid of sources. Please add more sources to these sections so that the notability is properly indicated. I have fixed the decline reason to reflect this. Thanks. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. — kikichugirl speak up! 20:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC - Helper Script access

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Louis A. Lehr, Jr. Article

Hi Kikichugirl!

I looked over your comments about my article and I did have a question for you. In your review of this article, you mention that my submission reads more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. You then go onto say that the article should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. I went ahead and reviewed my references and they are all independent, reliable, and published sources. Can you please help me and tell me why the sources I used are not considered independent, reliable, and published sources?

Thank you in advance for your help.

Crash2341 (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Crash2341Crash2341 (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Crash2341, the issue with your draft is not the references, but with the fact that it reads like a "Who's Who" advertisement. Unfortunately the decline notifications are all standardised, and are designed to cover as many possibilities for the chosen reason (in this case "advertisement") as possible. While it makes it easier on the reviewers (since we don't have to type out the same message every time), it can get a little confusing to the creator of the page. That being said, I agree with Kikichugirl that your draft contains a fair amount of promotional language, particularly with phrases like "nationally prominent trial attorney." As an additional note, you should check to make sure your sentences makes sense - there are a few occasions where the sentence runs on and it's hard to keep track of what's being spoken. Short, simple phrases are the best way to word things. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

08:08:40, 5 February 2015 review of submission by Rkumar26


Rkumar26 (talk) 08:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

There are four article in news paper about our foundation. I could not understand why it is not reliable source of information.

Hi, Rkumar26. Four sources is definitely not enough. Your article is also very short and reads like an advertisement. Please fix those problems before you resubmit. Additionally, it's recommended that you don't write about your own company as Wikipedia is not for advertising. Please see WP:PSCOI. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. — kikichugirl speak up! 08:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The talks article review and improvements.

Hi there, hope you are keeping well.

You recently reviewed my article and deemed some of the citations a bit shady. Could you give me some more detailed feedback so we can work towards a finished article?

Looking forward ti hearing from you.

Richard lovelock — Preceding unsigned comment added by AOOHull (talk • contribs) 11:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi AOOHull, I looked over your draft and the issue with some of your references is that they are unreliable. Generally blogs and facebook are not considered to be reliable sources as there is no editorial oversight. The Skiddle reference actually says at the bottom that Skiddle takes no responsibility for the accuracy of the content, and there's a similar notice on the ThisIsUll site. The Readymag review is a fairly good reference, since it gives a detailed review of their album (it doesn't discuss the band itself much, but that's fine). So all you need to demonstrate notability is find a few more independent sources that go in-depth about the band. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

16:47:09, 6 February 2015 review of submission by Trowbridge Aikikai


Dear Kikchugirl

Thanks for reviewing my article. I would like clarification about the reason for rejection, please, so that I can make the necessary changes.

As referenced, the principle sources are the autobiographical articles already in the public domain. There are few, if any, other sources available. The internal evidence contained within them - names, dates, places, events = are all well documented and easily checked.

I look forward to your reply and suggestions.

Rob Hill Trowbridge Aikikai (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Trowbridge Aikia. The draft you linked needs more inline citations at the very least, if not more sources. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. — kikichugirl speak up! 04:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

15:13:41, 9 February 2015 review of submission by DeanoJD


Hello, I would really appreciate your guidance and expertise please, as my original article was declined as I failed to write it in a more neutral tone. I have since revised it and attach a link below. Can you kindly guide me if this is still not suitable to be approved/published? Many thanks for being there... 

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Lincoln_Townley&action=submit

DeanoJD (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

DeanoJD, you're getting towards a better tone, though it still relies heavily on personal quotes (and no one really cares or needs to know that the Marriott in London is a 5-star hotel). The draft also requires more references to demonstrate notability; references to Wikipedia are not allowed, so you'll need independent reliable sources that discuss Townley in detail. Primefac (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

17:04:50, 9 February 2015 review of submission by Trowbridge Aikikai


Dear Kikichugirl I'm not sure what happened to my previous submission on this page but I'll try again.

Thanks for reviewing my article about Stanley Pranin. I just need to clarify what you consider is the necessary among of referencing and how you want this done. the guidelines are extremely long and detailed to the point that they offer no direct guidance. I have listed the existing sources and I am now adding in-line referencing, as recommended in the guidelines. Unless I hear otherwise from you, I shall continue with this and resubmit. Thanks again

Rob Hill Trowbridge Aikikai (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

17:46:14, 9 February 2015 review of submission by Trowbridge Aikikai


Hello again. I found your comments on my last note. Thanks. It gets me a bit closer to what's needed. I have included a number of in-line references in preparation for resubmission. Because Pranin is such a key figure in Aikido archiving and publishing you will find that other sources will generally quote him and Aiki News/ Aikido Journal as their source so the whole business of citation and referencing will end up going round in circles. His academic record, Aikido gradings, language capacity, record of interviews with Aikido masters, publishing history and event organisation is all information that his been in the public domain and on view for decades. I hope this knowledge can inform your view of my article. Thanks again.

Rob Hill Trowbridge Aikikai (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I still don't see inline sources, Trowbridge Aikikai. Please take a look at WP:REFBEGIN to see how you can use the ref tool to generate a list of references at the bottom. Please also watch the tone; it could approach puffery which is also a reason for decline. Also, please avoid double posting - it's unnecessary (you can just edit my talk page to edit your comment below). Thanks! — kikichugirl speak up! 20:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

King's College, Auckland - Controversies Section Comment

I agree with Sazziesez that the controversies section is not needed but my argument is not necessarily made by the same rationale. Although there is a source for it, I believe that the section puts undue emphasis on recent news, which wikipedia is not supposed to do. Arfæst Ealdwrítere 23:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
Thanks for your civil comment on my talk page regarding my acceptance of two AfC articles! Maestroso simplo (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Wow. For your concise but polite tone and energetic explanation at User_talk:Maestroso_simplo#Your_AfC_review_of_Programming_Boot_Camp, I award you this Special Barnstar. Thank you in addition for all the work you do for Wikipedia, content and non-content. Cheers! --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 04:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Request on 12:17:27, 10 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by DeanoJD


My initial article was rejected as it needed to be written in a more neutral tone - I'm really hoping I have now done this and attach a link to the piece for your learned eye, before I re-submit it. Thanks a lot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lincoln_Townley

DeanoJD (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

DeanoJD (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

HI, DeanoJD, and I apologize for the delayed reply. Your article looks better right now, although more sources could be better. Hopefully someone else with more time can come along and accept it soon? — kikichugirl speak up! 04:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Claude_Montal

"This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner." I guess this is one of the standard comments when rejecting a submission, as it is in identical wording to the comments I had from reviewer Onel5969 a day ago. He gave me some specifics. I paid attention and made substantive changes. As far as I can see, I met the criteria: the article definitely does summarize information in secondary, reliable sources, as far as I can tell, and is written from a neutral point of view, reflecting all of those secondary sources. Would you please point me to specific points in the article that you believe do not meet the criteria you have stated? Fssturm (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Fssturm: Hi Fssturm, I'm Lixxx235. Yeah, that decline rationale is one of several standards, and I fully agree with kikichugirl that that rationale applies. Here are the answers to your questions:
  • By far, the main reason to decline is that you wrote it like an essay, not an entry in an encyclopedia. Can you imagine the Britannica having an entry starting "Born in 1800, Claude Montal was left completely blind at the age of five by typhoid fever ..."? Have you ever seen any Wikipedia article starting in a way that does not convey most of why the subject is significant in the first sentence? The first sentence is not a "hook" like you might find in some academic essays. Take a look at our best articles and base your article on the structure of those.
  • The draft is definitely not from a neutral point of view; rather, it looks like selected excerpts from an autobiography. Again, take a look at our best articles for ideas.
I hope this answers some of your questions. If you have any further questions, please feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Cheers, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Cirex

Hi!. Can you help me with the references, clean up, and as you suggest put them at the end of the sentences on the Cirex article please? This is the draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cirex Thanks in advance, much appreciate Bnotepr (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bnotepr, just move the <ref></ref> tags to the end of each sentence and it'll look good. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. — kikichugirl speak up! 04:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The Last Well

Hi, I'm submitting for the first time and there were comments regarding my article for submission. Can you please help me better understand your comments?


Here is my question: All of the biographical information in my submission was included in the article in the news publication Blue Ribbon News (http://blueribbonnews.com/2014/11/the-last-well-answering-a-threat-more-deadly-than-ebola/) Basically I tried to work from only biographical info sourced from this article. Does this news reference not help with the information included ? Thanks in advance for your help.--Vgrgrr (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Vgrgrr. First, your article reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. This is not a "life and times" place, but rather a dry discussion about The Last Well itself. Also, you should use sections to break up your article. I hope this helps. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. — kikichugirl speak up! 04:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Request on 21:30:09, 15 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Teamwesley


Hi there, I had submitted a page for review entitled August Wesley (wrestler). I have received your feedback stating that additional references need to be cited. I clicked on your link to edit the page and go forward with citing additional references and the page states that it has been deleted. I am unable to edit the page and I am concerned about how I can cite additional references if the page no longer exists. This page was formed after weeks of hard work and research so I am hoping that this is not the case. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated as I am new to this. Thank you!

Teamwesley (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Teamwesley. The page was deleted for being too promotional. When I declined it, it was basically a page talking about how awesome he was. Let me ping User:Mike V who deleted the page, and see if he has anything to say. — kikichugirl speak up! 01:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

AfD

Hi. Thank you for doing delsort. The fact that you do this does not mean that you cannot also vote on those articles. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought I saw someone do it before. Thanks for removing my comment. — kikichugirl speak up! 22:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@Kudpung: This would be an example of where I've seen it done. — kikichugirl speak up! 06:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on WP:AN#Closure review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script

Hello! You have been selected to receive an invitation to participate in the closure review for the recent RfC regarding the AfC Helper script. You've been chosen because you participated in the original RfC. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. This message is automated. Replies will not be noticed. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


Astrophysics Source Code Library edits

Hi! I totally get having standards, and if there is a wiki page for something that should be linked, I will use it. If there is no wiki page for something that should be linked, there isn't, and better an external link than none at all. ("Too many" is subjective; if you don't use the ASCL/are not its target audience, you might not know what links are useful to those who do.) The suggestion to add a section for Externals links is exactly what I had done, but that entire section was deleted. I had -- in fairness to other resources -- included links to these other similar resources; they do not have wiki pages. Listing these other similar resources is helpful to ASCL users.

Because of the recent undos by you and another, the edits I was making -- updating affiliations, clarifying language, adding other personnel, adding references for information currently without citation -- are in conflict with the page, which as it stands is inaccurate/out-of-date. I know you and the other editor mean well, but I'm out of time, alas, and the inaccuracies stand.

Owlice1 (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Owlice1, linking to relevant pages as external links is perfectly acceptable, but the key word here is "relevant." Peter Teuben may be on the advisory committee, but we do not need to have an external link to his biography (or any of the other committee members). The edits made by kikichugirl and Samwalton9 are perfectly justified. If an external link is directly relevant to the Library, then it can be included in the External links section. Otherwise, it will be removed. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
kikichugirl, as a note, the conversation continues on my talk page. Primefac (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
@Owlice1: I think the change you have made are acceptable. The external links that aren't in refs should go at the end, so that it reads less like an advertisement. Thank you for updating the page and making Wikipedia better. On your talk page, you mentioned that it's "not normally" but WP:IAR in my opinion shouldn't be used here in my opinion. Also, just because the links were there when it was approved, doesn't mean that they should be there permanently. Good luck! — kikichugirl speak up! 04:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

00:37:14, 13 February 2015 review of submission by UComm2015


Hello! I'm just inquiring into why Bob Kuhn's page was rejected. He's the president of an institution embroiled in one of Canada's top legal cases (http://ablawg.ca/2015/01/02/the-top-ten-canadian-legal-ethics-stories-2014/, and http://www.straight.com/news/799076/reasonable-doubt-top-five-canadian-legal-stories-2014). How can it be improved?

Thanks.

UComm2015 (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

// ADDITION:

Today I worked to add a variety of sources, including Canada's largest newspaper (The Globe and Mail) and BC's biggest tabloid (The Province). I also deleted some adjectives that may have implied value (therefore hopefully making it less "advertise"-y).

I'm genuinely surprised that the president of a University doesn't have a Wikipedia page, so please let me know how else I can improve it.

Thanks!

UComm2015 (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

HI, UComm2015. Your draft reads strongly like an advertisement. While you have sufficient sources, I think you need to write more neutrally. See WP:NPOV for the guidelines on that. if Bob Kuhn is so awesome, then you gotta prove it. Wikipedia isn't a place to talk about how awesome someone is - it's a place to neutrally discuss someone's achievements if they exist, and if you can prove that they exist. Good luck! If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. — kikichugirl speak up! 04:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:François E. Matthes

You are the first to refuse a submission and I found your instructions confusing. But, I have edited the page for Draft:François E. Matthes and believe I have removed the peacock terms.

As to more sources, I found only one biographer. Wikipedia does not condone new research which would be available at Bancroft Library. So, I have instead linked to supporting sources within Wikipedia.

Seblake (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Seblak. I noticed your changes, and the article still reads like an essay. Articles must be written in a formal, encyclopedic tone. See WP:NPOV. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. — kikichugirl speak up! 04:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

AfC vs NPP

Hi. I'll leave you to guess why it's probably not best for editors not suitable for AfC to try NPP instead. If you can't find the answer don't hesitate to drop me an email. Keep up the excellent work! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I thought of NPP because I spent a fair amount of time there through trial and error figuring out what is and isn't an acceptable article. But suggesting they go !vote in AfDs is okay then? And suggesting they start with vandal patrol? I'm trying not to be bitey because at this person's talk page I was told off harshly for all the stuff I did. As someone who started with vandal patrol, then NPP (I skipped all the ones I wasn't too sure about) I sometimes get confused on what is and isn't supposed to be done. — kikichugirl speak up! 01:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Take no notice of it, your're doing a grand job and perhaps even being a tiny bit too kind rather than bitey! - an editor like that who disagrees to that extent and/or argues with DGG probably shouldn't be reviewing or patrolling anything at all. Still, if you can't readily identify the subtle difference between AfC and NPP, it's not a criticism, but I can explain it better by email. BTW, that's a lovely place where you are studying. A friend of mine who has a chair at Carleton once taught there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
As I see it, the difference is that the actions at NPP are visible and reviewed: speedy deletion noms are reviewed by the admins, everything else by the entire editing community. I therefore consider it safer, to the extent that I would move everything into that channel. And, yes, keep up the good work.We need you. Good work in reviewing will inevitably attract negative comment from those doing poor work--see my extensive talk page archives for examples. My technique for dealing with such comment is to think carefully whether the other party might indeed be right; if you still think that you are, explain once, and then ignore further comments without taking them personally. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@DGG: Thanks for the advice. :) — kikichugirl speak up! 04:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Article Rejected: Draft:AnthonyDiMoro

I recently made an article and used all online citations to qualify the article. However it was rejected on the premiss of improper use of citations. My intent was to qualify the individual the article was written about via links to reputable websites (Per WikiPedia's guidelines)and did not find any proper citation places in my content.

So my confusion is regarding how to edit this to make it acceptable. I have seen other articles where links are listed to qualify that individual but citations were not used.

Jamesparticular (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Jamesparticular, you've managed to work out the citations issue, now you need to work on notability. At the moment you have very little in the way of reliable sources, the majority being primary sources (interviews, his own websites) or simply name drops (no major information included). You also have a TON of external links that should either be turned into references or removed entirely. Find some good sources, include them in the text, and you'll be a lot closer to getting this draft approved. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC) (talk page stalker)


I am confused as what is considered to be reliable. I have proven consistent acknowledgement from national media. I will correct the link volume and remove the excess. I just want to be sure I am clear on the difference between what is or isnt considered to be a reliable source. I can certainly trim it up where needed.

Jamesparticular (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the double message, but the article has been edited and re-submitted. It seems someone else made a lot of the necessary corrections, which is great. I just wanted to understand how I would insert the picture for the INFO part of the article (where the age, location, full name appears). Clarification on that would be helpful for this and future WikiPedia articles. Thank you

Jamesparticular (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

HI, Jamesparticular. In particular, reliable sources do not have to be online, but they do need to be reliable - newspapers, magazines, non-self-published books, etc. are all reliable if they are published by reputable organizations. The Dailymail source looks good. Try finding more of those. As for the photo, you need to use a free photo and upload it on Wikipedia first; Commons might be a better place to upload it if I'm not mistaken. Here's a quick guide to uploading images. Good luck! — kikichugirl speak up! 04:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)