This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ritchie333. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I am trying to understand the rejection, to be able to improve the entry.
"The references don't seem to refer directly to AirClim as an organisation, and why it's notable. Particularly, the last reference is a primary source, and unsuitable for sustaining notability. For books, it helps if you can cite the specific page number - click here for some advice on this."
All references refer to AirClim as an organisation, but either use the full name "The Air pollution and climate secretariat" or the former name "The Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain".
The sources mention AirClim as an influential NGO in European and International air Pollution politics, specifically in the LPRTAP process.
I have also compared the AirClim page to one sister organisation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChemSec, which almost only use primary sources. Why is that accepted, but not in this entry?
Hi. Firstly, the presence or state of one Wikipedia article has no bearing on whether another one in the same state is acceptable - it may be that nobody's read it and decided it's problematic. I think you answered your own question - the article should mention AirCon's previous names so it's easy to verify information. Make those changes and resubmit the article - it doesn't look too far off being accepted. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Master Dhananjay
Dear Sir,
i have added a link from you tube, an interview with malayalam film child artist Dhananjay from the most popolur channnel named Asianet. Will it be a necessary authentic proof of the content under 'Master Dhananjay' to be added in Wiki?
The article has been deleted once already due to being considered blatant advertising and a potential copyright violation. Please don't create it again, or it may be redeleted and the title protected. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Ritchie333, thanks for your review and work in making a decision on the Pearmund Cellars page the I posted. I am new to Wikipedia and am working to establish more content on Virginia Wine, wineries and the people that have had an impact. Being new to the scene, I didn't expect the personal attacks among users, and appreciate your wading through all that.
I still want to contribute, specifically for topics on Virginia wine, because I do believe that it is an industry that will continue to grow and because there are some very unique aspects to the agriculture/tourism/business balance. I started with Pearmund Cellars because it is close to home and I felt they had a significant amount of press that could be referenced.
Do you have any recommendations for how I might contribute and build content on this industry while staying within the purpose and guidelines of Wikipedia. It looks like one thing is to contribute more articles and build my own credibility, so I'll work on that, but don't want to spin my wheels and have them all deleted.
Hi. Well I don't think any of the attacks were specifically directed at you. The other thing to bear in mind that provided something is covered in at least one reliable source, it might be mentionable somewhere on Wikipedia, just not necessarily in its own article. Our article on Virginia Wine is quite small and can be easily expanded covering many vineyards in the state. Over here, I'd use any book by Oz Clarke as a source, being a notable wine expert. Just remember that improving existing articles can be a good alternative to starting new ones. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I'm starting to realize that I should spend some time updating and adding to articles before posting my own. It is difficult finding those reliable sources. Starting with the Virginia wine article is a good recommendation. thanks for the feedback. --Jlgorman24 (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission
I don't think a redirect would be called for, since he's not even mentioned anywhere on Garth's page, and only did one work for him. That would be like redirecting "Bryan Kennedy" to Garth's page — sure, Bryan also co-wrote The Beaches of Cheyenne, but it was Bryan's only time working with Garth, and the two acts are not otherwise related. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)19:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
But remember AfD is not cleanup - just because it doesn't appear in Brook's page right now, doesn't mean it can't in the future - the collaborations are verifiable so there's potential to expand the article and explain his songwriting partners while keeping within our policies. Brook's article is only at B-class, which means nobody's formally assessed to be complete in scope. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 30
I'm not having a bunch of Korean pipsqueaks borrowing my old band name!
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Hammond organ players, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rainbow (band) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mellotron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dave Gregory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Just trying to figure out how the periodontal prosthesis article already exits. When I go to Prosthodontics I don't see anything but when I enter in the Periodontal Prosthesis it comes up under Prosthodontics but with no information, just the name. So no real article on the subject as far as I am concerned. I am not sure why it is there or how I can edit and change it. Perhaps you can help me with this.
Mvilardi (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)mvilardi
It is there, but it's a redirect. We create redirects when you want one page to have two search terms. For example, Heart attack is a redirect to Myocardial infarction. If you search for Periodontal Prosthesis and go to Prosthodontics, you'll see a small message saying "(from Redirected from Periodontal Prosthesis)". Click on the link, and it will take you to the definition of the redirect here.
Having said all of that, I don't actually understand why the redirect was created to here. I think a better redirect is Periodontal disease#Treatment. I've added one sentence from your submission into there and cited the first reference to it. That might give you some idea of how to fill in the rest of the section. One thing I would caution you about is refrain from mentioning Dr. Morton Amsterdam - as a reader, I'm interesting in what the technique is and how it improves teeth. It's not so important who mentioned it, unless that person happens to be extremely notable and widely respected in the field (which I don't believe to be the case). Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
jb423
Dear Ritchie333.
I would like to let you know that I have created seven "Wiki" pages before and after your loverly message that I would like to reply be saying Did you know that I created the pages Talk Dirty (John Entwistle song), Waspman, Let's See Action, Postcard (The Who song), The Quiet One (The Who song)Dangerous (The Who song) and It's Your Turn as well as many edits on John Entwistle those of which you had commented on about The Ox "playing Nazis as a kid" is a quote and I'm afraid I can't change his words so I had to put the Youtube Reference on so that you did not think i was either a vandal or a mad nazi who wants to spread the word I am a simple Who Fanatic.
I would like to hear what you have to say (Again)
—Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Jay. Well, the good news is that your work's getting better. I don't think you're a vandal, just someone who's a bit unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. I've seen teenage editors get blocked for seemingly trivial things, simply because they don't know how to talk themselves out of the situation, and I didn't want to see it happen with you as well. A number of your articles have been deleted, but not all have, and indeed one or two I've defended. Success Story (song) is still up for AfD - see here, and I note I'm the only editor championing for a straight "keep" of the article.
As for your new articles, Let's See Action definitely passes WP:NSONG by being a chart hit, and is almost a good candidate for Did you know? on the front page. All it needs is better sourcing, as The Hypertext Who is a self published source and, while, respectable, doesn't really come up to the quality of books that have been commercially published. I appreciate if you're young you can't just nip onto Amazon and buy them on a whim, but perhaps your local library can lend you copies. Dave Marsh's book, while old, is still my favourite book about the band. If I get time, I'll fix that up and DYK nominate it myself. You'll then start to see positive messages appear on your talk page.
The problem with Entwistle and "playing at Nazi's" quote isn't that specific fact, it's that you've cited to a YouTube video which is a copyright violation. To cut a long story short, YouTube is generally unacceptable as a source. I know it kind of goes against common sense, but Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and we can't be seen to endorse copyright infringement. If the quote is memorable, another source will have it. For what it's worth, I'd have said the same for Entwistle helping Keith Moon blow up toilets, taking a shotgun to his record collection or the specific circumstances surrounding his death.
For your detailed, patient and well-researched help provided to many new editors at WP:AFCHD. Having come here to award you this barnstar, I see you're also providing similar help here! Keep up the great work. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Articles for Creation/Contact Gallery, Norwich, 1986-1999
Hello Richie333,
Thank you very much for your frank reply to my question regarding the article being declined. I am surprised that you consider the Norfolk Records Office not to be an independent source in this case. When the gallery folded in 1999 all the official documents of the gallery where given to them which they store in 14 boxes. I have looked through 10 of them and can confirm that everything seems to be there. I didn't discover the historical account that they show on their website until recently and was very surprised because I didn't know of anybody left in the organisation who would have written it for them at that time. I can only assume that the staff there have gleaned the historical facts from the documents in the archive. Surely this is what any independent writer would do? The account that they have is very close to my written piece which I did from my memory and my own archive after being involved as the Treasurer for the first 9 years.
The notability issue is another matter. For the regional arts council, Eastern Arts Board, to award the organisation a steadily increasing Revenue Grant funding for 13 years must surely confirm it as a notable concern. The arts council never have that much funds to play with so give it out very carefully.
I will try again before long to submit the article and include your suggestion of the books containing written pieces concerning the gallery. If that fails I will 'throw in the towel' and leave it for some inspired writer to do the spadework and write a book or find some way to get an article in Wikipedia.
Thank you again for your help.
(Woodbutts (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC))
Hi. Just to clarify, I think NRO generally is a fine source and it without a shadow of a doubt proves the gallery really existed and it really was council funded. I've spent many an afternoon myself in the National Archives and the British Library researching stuff, and the amount of information tucked away in there that could be represented on something like Wikipedia is frankly staggering. It's just you need all three of notable, verifiable and suitable to get an article, and we've had so many hoax articles appear on Wikipedia (here are some high-profile ones) that some people tend to be a little twitchy about anything without cast-iron proof these days. This is a shame, because you might notice we have articles on The Forum, Norwich, Dragon Hall, Norwich and the Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts whose level of sourcing is far below what we expect these days.
I have nothing against this article other than in its current form, its garbage. I've been a 4-string banjo player for most of my life, since I was 7 and I'm now 44. I very much would like to see an article about the 4-string banjo, but not the mishmash that exists now or with the content under article title that was highjacked. Care to work together to draft a proper article? We still need justification for a separate article versus just expanding the section in the main Banjo article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I'm generally tidying up and improving instrument articles. I did note, confusingly, that there is a Four-string banjo and 4-string banjo. One's a redirect, one's an article. I'm not really a banjo expert but I can probably pull together some bits from book sources to give it a go. However, being in a bad shape and requiring cleanup is not a valid reason to go to AfD - see WP:NOTCLEANUP. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Luckily I am a "banjo expert" and specifically with regard to the 4-string variety. I'm happy to put together an article with the resources I have at hand plus others I am aware of and have access to. My usual method is to find a similar article and use its structure as a template. Any articles come to mind? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dewain Whitmore, JrMikeivy (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello Ritchie333!!
Thank you so much for your reply and assistance regarding Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dewain Whitmore, Jr. I thought I cited the references correctly but apparently I did not. I must be doing something wrong. Can you please show me what exactly I need to do to get this article created? Thank you again!
Mikey
You need to find reliable sources such as major books or magazines that explains why Whitmore is sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. Then you need to use the <ref> tag and the various citation templates to cite your writing in the article.
For a recent example of an article I've cleaned up, look at this diff of an edit I recently made to The Argument Sketch. The old version had no sources and was tagged for attention. The edited version now cites several books, making use of the {{cite book}} template. Notice how I've included title, author, page and ISBN number. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Teahouse Invitation
Hello! Ritchie333,
you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. The Teahouse is an awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us!
I have struck things that are definitely done and made comments. I think my concern at the moment is still over missing content. Also, we can't really pass an article through GA when a section is legitimately tagged as requiring expansion, I'm afraid. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)08:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
GA review
I see that you are doing a GA review of a play that I would consider a c-class article (except that c-class articles on plays should have a better plot summary). Just my 2 cents of caution as a person who has done a lot of editing on theatre-related articles: There is no description of how the play came to be written, or the writing process; there is a woefully inadequate plot summary; the themes section is perfunctory, there is no discussion of the production designs, choice of director/designers, the rehearsal process changes during previews. There is no critical post-mortem on the play - what has been the assessment of it since the early reviews? To compare a GA-class play article, see The Importance of Being Earnest. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I used The Mousetrap as a benchmark, though I've just checked back and discovered it's also at C class, so mea culpa on that. I did mention that the article was lacking in several areas and needed substantial expansion, and the lack of discussing the writing (particularly since the author died before the play opened) was a major concern. Tony's an experienced GA writer though, so I've given him the opportunity to fix it all. I think my only concern about The Importance of Being Earnest is that it's had much more coverage and prominence in sources, having had a thorough evaluation as its role in some of the most important works of the English Language. So what passes 3a ("Broad in coverage") for that isn't necessarily the same as for lesser known plays. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)08:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Don't despair! There are a few other straight play GAs and FAs (mostly older works) and quite a few musical theatre GAs and FAs, including several of the Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals. The main problem is that people like Tony are focusing on new plays and musicals instead of working on the most important works that deserve better encyclopedia articles. Not only is this a WP:Recentism problem but it also means that these articles are almost entirely referenced to online news articles, which will be dead links in a couple of years. Better, IMO, to focus on mature works. By all means, give the recent works a good c-class article, but bring the big guns to bear on mature, famous works. Just my 2cents. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think I'd go quite that far. Tony's working on something worthwhile, the last work of a notable playwright and the first major theatrical appearance of a highly notable actor, so it's not all bad. I can see merit in trying to make a GA out of it. But in general, I agree that we need to try and steer clear of the recentism. In the past I've seen the odd Wikipedian getting mightily upset about me criticising Texas Recreational Road 8 being a GA while Thomas Telford languishes unloved at C class. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Not bad at all. Tony's research is very good, and he has brought the article up to a good standard that will give readers lots of information about the play. I agree with your comment that the subject itself needs to mature a little before the sources will exist that will allow us to bring this farther. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Brent Mydland
hello, I'm the one who put has put the majority of the interview Brent had with Blair Jackson on his wikipedia. Thats where i got all the quotes from. Im sorry for not citing my sources, but i wouldnt even begin to know how. Blair mailed me the interview, and i felt it had to go up on the page. this time last year there was all kind of non sense on there, and i feel now its the best its ever been, and good at providing a glimpse into a man who was otherwise pretty low key, and has tons of misconceptions of him floating around, and is unfortunately not here to speak for himself. If you could help me in anyway in making the page more legit it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenthead1988 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. The article looks well written, it's just a shame that you didn't know how to source. The main reason we require citations is so that people can check that the facts are correct, and also to check they weren't just copied wholesale, as that can be considered a copyright violation. Also, you can end up with things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Michigan Men's Glee Club, where people are so convinced that the facts aren't reputedly published that they want to delete it.
Anyway, to cite sources, this document has the full details, but the first thing I need to know is where exactly the interview was published. It really needs to be in a book or a magazine - an email from Blair Jackson unfortunately is not sufficient, because there's no editorial control over it, and we can generally only cite works that have gone through official channels to check facts and remove anything questionable, hence why we prefer books. If you can confirm exactly where it was commercially published, we can look at retrospectively citing it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
A Question for the recently Approved article: Private Shared Wireless Network
Hey Ritchie333,
You recently accepted the article I wrote named Private Shared Wireless Network...Thank you for that!
I noticed that the article has been assessed as "Start-Class" and could use some improvements.
Could you possibly provide me with some specifics? I'm new to this, and I am more than willing to accept your "wisdom" on creating an article.
The grading scheme explains how articles are assessed. Most AfC submissions that are approved come out as start class. In your case, the topic seems a worthy one for the encyclopedia, and the main thing I'd work on is the wording. For instance, in the opening paragraph, describe what a wide area network is, why it needs to be private, and who are the main uses of it. Once you've expanded the article, you might want to look at the manual of style to see how articles are generally arranged with a lead, followed by individual sections. Minneapolis wireless internet network might give you some ideas, as it's a good article related to networking. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
] [[band (music)|Band]] [[The Who]], The [[song]] is on [[John Entwistle]]'s fifth solo [[album]] (And his most Successfull as well as his final album to chart in the [[United States]]{{cn}} [[Too
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Leslie speaker may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
{{sfn|Faragher|2011|p=110}} A slightly smaller version, the {{convert|33|in|mm}} 142 was available.{{cn} Hammond-Suzuki currently manufacture the 122A, a straight reissue of the 122, and the 122XB,
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Who may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
played a short set at the ceremony, which turned out to be the last time Jones played with the Who).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.allmusic.com/artist/kenney-jones-mn0000068047/biography|title=Kenny
I am very grateful for your comments on my article. I am not sure how to proceed with improving the references (previous editors suggested that I need only indicate exactly where the documentation is located). I would be grateful if you could provide guidance on how to properly reference the article. With regard to the research prior to 1981, I was unable to find any references or data indicating the existence of underground clubs or events. I understand that the Maritime Hotel era was the foundation of the Northern Ireland Blues culture which reflected the UK mainstream scenes of Liverpool and London in the 1960’s. I spoke to individuals and journalists who attended the Maritime Hotel and all were adamant that they would have been opposed to being labelled underground. With regard to merging with the Belfast Culture article, I have given this much thought. I believe that the underground clubs do not reflect Belfast’s culture but strive to develop a unique and separate culture spreading beyond the confines of Northern Ireland.
Your help in this matter is greatly appreciated and I hope you can further assist me in getting the article to an acceptable level
Wokmonkey (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the best advice I can probably give is "start small, build incrementally". Decide what the absolutely most important bit of information is in your article and move it (and the source) into Culture of Belfast. That article is about 15K in size, which is not too large - about 50 - 60K is usually the cut-off point for a new article. Then take the next bit of information and add that. Just add a small amount of information at a time. Remember that Wikipedia is read by everyone, and someone who's never been to Ireland, let alone Belfast, may come across your work, and it needs to come across in a way that a non-expert can understand. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thanks for the info on me making this article a lot better. I see at the end of the day I have to work harder. I still have along way to go and will be posting as I go on. But at this point that's the bulk of my success.Gpisin (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Periodontal Prosthesis
Submission declined on 6 September 2013 by Ritchie333 (talk).
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Prosthodontics instead.
This article does not fall as it was listed under Prosthodontics. It should be its own entity. If there is someway this can be accomplished it would be great. Any help would be appreciated.
Mvilardi (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)mvilardi
Hi Richie333, Thanks for agreeing to review the Bournemouth article. I have added Talk:Bournemouth/GA1 to my watchlist and look forward to hearing your comments.--Ykraps (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
If you can hang on until all my current GA and FA reviews are closed, then we'll get down to brass tacks and see who's willing to propose it and who's going to second it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Who you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk(talk)16:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Little advice
A quick question: Where do I have to submit a request for making "99 Ways" a redirect to the EP article? I guess I went to the wrong place by nominating it for deletion. Thanks.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
If nobody objects, just replace the article with #REDIRECT [[EP article]]. If you think it's controversial (and I personally don't think it is but check on the AfD just in case), put up a new request in Proposed mergers. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello Ritchie333. I am confused by your suggestion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk that the way I replied to Phil Whyte from Integritie UK Ltd was unreasonable. Please could you explain what was problematic in how I replied to him?
I am bringing this here because I don't see it as constructive to have an argument at that noticeboard about what he could or could not have known about the sources he himself provided. At the time he posted to the noticeboard, he had already seen a notice linking him to Wikipedia:VRS. That page explains in very clear language that press releases are not acceptable for proving notability, and that "directory listings don't count". It also explains that the "cited reference must be about the subject – addressing the subject directly in detail, and more than a trivial mention". I re-iterated all of this in my reply to him.
I have no problem with your telling him that "it might be too soon to have an article and we should wait until other news outlets follow the Telegraph's lead". But my reply would have enabled him to realise that same thing, but by considering the matter for himself and understanding better the issues with the sources he was providing. I really don't understand why you have a problem with what I wrote. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arthur. Basically I think in places like the AFC Help Desk, other help desks, the IRC channels and (especially) the Teahouse, is you just have to turn up the AGF filter a bit more than usual. Had you posted "Would it be better if you explained which of your twenty-three sources you consider to be both independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage of the product this article submission is about?" on an AfD where experienced Wikipedians were taking part, there would have been no issue. But newcomers generally don't understand policy, and it takes a while to sink in. Even if you've bashed them around the head with WP:VRS multiple times, the fact they've posted on the help desk means they just don't get it.
Take a look at the typical conversations on the help desk (or, indeed, on this very talk page!) Many of them are simply "Why was my submission declined?" when a quick look at the submission to an experienced AfC reviewer makes it incredibly obvious in seconds! I appreciate it gets frustrating to have the same questions wheeled out again and again at the help desk (usually relating to notability, verifiability or copyright violation), but that's just the way things work.
Anyway, I wouldn't dwell on it too much. I'm not having a go at you or anything, honestly - we all make mistakes and that's just part of life. Hopefully either the submitter will understand what sources they need, or they'll realise that it's too soon to have an article and work on something else. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
October 2013 AFC Backlog elimination drive
WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive
WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1800 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. --Mdann52talk to me!
The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:
Whenever you make an edit, a message above your edit window says "Encyclopedia content must be verifiable". You should not add unreferenced content - ever. This article has had big problems with editors passing by and adding unsourced trivia which degrades the overall article quality. I have redone your edit, this time using a reliable source (in this case Nick Awde's book) and integrated it in with the rest of the article. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
(a) You are claiming a fast rule when any experienced WPian knows that the principle is belied in practice and in principle. Logic 101: If it ain't verified yet does not prove that it can't be. (b) Proper practice is to flag the sentence and encourage, rather than discourage, editing of the encyclopedia. (c) It is, furthermore, utterly rude to revert an edit and then include your own, instead of editing the existing material. The claim to know which sources are reliable and which not smells bad too. EGO resize?Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policy on verification states "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". I am of the opinion that a commercially published book is more of a reliable source than a self published website, as it has passed through formal copyediting and editorial procedures, and our guideline for citing reliable sources agrees. "Notable users" sections of articles are particularly prone to picking up unreferenced cruft if left unattended, which may be confusing to a reader without a good understanding of the topic. If you have any further issues, a better platform to raise them on would be Talk:Mellotron, where other editors can participate in the discussion. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Well what do you know... the contents was verifiable after all. And how did you KNOW it was not? And what do you know now about the verifiability of this material? Also, please avoid cherrypicking. Do you have a problem with Classic Rock Magazine? And, why do you twist the article so that Barclay James Harvest is not mentioned using the same overall template as Tangerine Dream, just to take a contemporary user? The fact, sad though that is, is that Woolly Wolstenholme and his career crashed after he left the band. So, the band is the logical place to start. Your edit is neatly sourced and poorly informative, relative to the context I gave of how the Mellotron shaped the band. As for your repeated claims that the article has had problems: This is not the Palestine article, come on. And, as you have demonstrated through your own edit, what I added was NOT a problem. For the second time, you are elevating so-called problems with known solutions into your own rules that only impede the progress of the encyclopedia.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Blow the froth of one!
A beer on me!
Thanks for the thorough review which makes it all the more satisfying when the article passes. The award was a nice bonus too. I'd never heard of it until today. All the best--Ykraps (talk) 07:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
You see what you did? That beer reminded me I would be consuming several at the 3 October Festival in Leiden in a couple of days, and most sane people would have just told you that. But no, I had to create an article and schedule it for a main page DYK on the date. I've got Mad Wikipedian Disease. It's only a hop, skip and a jump before I start correcting myself in conversation by saying "ce". Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I hope you have a great time and try not to have too many, especially if you're coming back on the ferry! A small criticism; the article could do with a better image so don't forget your camera. Bon Voyage or perhaps I should say, goede reis--Ykraps (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Obscure!
What, an article on Dumpy's Rusty Nuts! I saw them at the Regent Centre in Christchurch back in '81 or 2 and if it wasn't for the name, I would have forgotten them completely! You'll be telling me there's an article on IQ next!--Ykraps (talk) 07:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Main (slightly snarky) mention of Dumpy's is that (as the article says) they were a standing joke in Melody Maker for years, the idea being if your band can't attract as much attention as them, something's not right. Technically they fail all the criteria in WP:NMUSIC other than good faith that sources exist offline. I did try and do some sources from Google Books online, but I struggled to find anything more than half a sentence in any of them. Mind you, at least they've got an article, unlike the charmingly titled Bum Gravy that IIRC were a standing joke on Steve Wright's Radio 1 show when he was still on Radio 1.
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
I can't remember what this submission was about, and it seems I would have probably put it in the queue in response to a help desk query. I have quickly reviewed the article, and find your decline reason is not appropriate, so I have marked this review as "failed" on the appropriate backlog drive sheet. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Something/Anything? you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2(talk)01:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Articles for creation: The Causses and the Cévennes, Mediterranean agro-pastoral Cultural Landscape (October 9)
Hi Ritchie333,
Thanks for taking the time to look at my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Causses and the Cévennes, Mediterranean agro-pastoral Cultural Landscape. You say that there is a problem because the article duplicates information in the separate Causses and Cévennes articles. I don't feel this is the case. My article is specifically about the World Heritage site named "The Causses and the Cévennes, Mediterranean agro-pastoral Cultural Landscape". For the most part, the article provides information specific to the site's World Heritage listing that probably wouldn't be appropriate in the page for either individual place.
I'm happy to provide more information about the World Heritage process, if need be, specifically with relation to "serial listings", i.e. a World Heritage "site" that is in fact a number of distinct sites grouped together under one single listing on the World Heritage List.
Thanks for taking the time to look over my article again and approving it. Most kindly appreciated. :-) I notice that the name of the article has been changed. I wonder if the article shouldn't be listed under the official UNESCO name for the site, which is "The Causses and the Cévennes, Mediterranean agro-pastoral Cultural Landscape". Perhaps a redirect from Causses and Cévennes?
Kalleh sport club is part of "Kalleh dairy company", for mor information look at Official website [5]. In this article the name of Company also misspelled.
I simply don't know what else to do. I've tried to submit a page twice, and both times it was declined. I did what was asked, and it is still not good enough. The first declination was because of the references I used. They needed to have information "about" the subject and not "from" the subject so I made the changes. This time, I'm being advised that the references that have information "about" the subject isn't credible enough and not reported by "reliable" sources. I don't understand. How can the information not be reliable? It is readily available for viewing on sites including the Huffington Post. Please, help me. This is very frustrating. Please help me.
Hi. The sources are reliable in nature - definitely. And they do mention Rene Ritchie. But he's not the main subject of the article, and that's what's important. The Huffington Post article is about future plans for the iPhone and iPad. Ritchie's just along for a few quotations. What we need is sources that describe without doubt that he's significant
Now, don't get me wrong, Rene Ritchie looks notable from what the article says about him - if he's regularly appearing on CNN International, then there should be some easy way of finding a page in cnn.com that's about him or principally about him. As and when you've found that, then you'll have a much better source that can make the article pass. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
![[2]](http://www.solico.ir/Portals/0/LiveContent/742/Images/The_Business_Year_Print_AD0.jpg){kind=link}
