User talk:Alpha Quadrant/Archive 11

Schema Therapy Publications List
Hey AQ, Thanks for reviewing my article in AfC, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Schema_Therapy_Publications_List.

I gotta say, I'm not sure if I totally agree with your criticism of it under the idea of "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory for finding information." My Publications List is a list of scholarly references relevant to an as an addendum to the Schema Therapy Wikipedia article. As a consumer of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias -- and I can imagine plenty of others in this situation -- it would be valuable to quickly find information on a particular clinical issue or for a literature review.

The examples on the page linked to under the criticism of "directories for finding information" are: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional); Genealogical entries; The White or Yellow Pages; Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business; Sales catalogs; Changelogs or release notes; Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y"; A complete exposition of all possible details. I don't think my list belongs grouped in any of those. I think it fits better under the category of references, which is of course very helpful for Wikipedia.

Let me know what you think!! Take care, Curt Curt k (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A category of references would be useful for building an encyclopedia, but without encyclopedic information, it really isn't an encyclopedia entry. The abstracts provided in the article are also copied from other websites. Per Wikipedia's copyright policy, copied content should be used sparingly and clearly attributed. If the entries listed in the article are released under a license compatible with Wikipedia, then you may consider submitting these sources to Wikisource. I hope this helps you. If you have any questions I would be happy to help. Best,  Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  18:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, AQ. In terms of copyright, published abstracts I believe are freely reproducable. ?? Wait, maybe not, this argues that abstracts cannot be reproduced on Wikipedia --http://journalology.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-you-cant-copy-abstracts-into.html

Is there a standard Wikipedia policy on this??

As far as the The Publication List article not having encylopedic content, I agree. It's not really meant to be a totally stand alone article, it's intended as an addendum to the main Schema Therapy article, a sort of big external links without making the user click links all over the place. I had it the new draft of he Schema Therapy article I'm working on, but an editor felt that it made it too long. So, it seems it's a sort of pick your poison kind of situation, have it in the main article and make it long, or have it on its own and then it's without context. Having put it tat way, I'm thinking that context and organization win over an arbitrary length. Readers don't *have* to read an addendum! Moot if abstracts can't be on Wikipedia. Any thoughts on that? I'll look into it too. Thanks Curt k (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The link you mentioned above is correct, abstracts are assumed to be copyrighted, unless the publisher of the work states otherwise. If the list of works is too long, then you may consider breaking the section off into a separate article. For example, William Shatner has a large number of works, so a separate article was created at Works by William Shatner for just that aspect of the topic. You may be able to do something similar for this topic. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  19:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Bummer. Thanks for your help. I think I can rework it where the abstracts are hosted on a separate site and the Wikipedia article just links there. Too bad publishers can't get it together to open up even abstracts, which would be free advertising for them, not to mention serving their mission of spreading information. Anyhow, thanks again for your help.

BTW, I have a re-write of the main Schema Therapy article up as a AfC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Schema_Therapy I'd appreciate feedback on it if you'd like! Take care, Curt k (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Mentor request
Would you perhaps adopt me? :3 I think I especially wanna learn how to work in articles for creation. c: Glacialfox (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, I would be happy to mentor you. The instructions for reviewing Articles for Creation submissions is located here. If you need any assistance, or have any questions about it, I would be happy to help. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  18:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This article confuses me a lot to be honest, I tried working off it before but I don't know if just that small section relates to the draft submissions or the whole thing kinda, and the templates and tag things are just like what and yeah. :l Glacialfox (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I see that you have submitted an article for review at Articles for Creation. If you are looking for help with the article you wrote, then the link I provided above explaining how to make reviews won't be very helpful. Looking at your article, at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Attack Cat, it appears to be well written. However, the first two sources it cites is blogspot, which is not considered a reliable source for citing information. You might consider replacing those sources. If you are interested in reviewing articles for creation submissions, there is a tool that automates much of the process. If you would like, I can show you how it works. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  19:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've fixed the references for them now. :) I would love you to show me how it works. :D Glacialfox (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has the ability for users to use tools called scripts. A script was written specifically to help in reviewing Articles for Creation submissions. To use the script, add the following to this page.


 * Once you have added this code to the page, save it. When you view a articles for creation submission, you will now notice that there is a "review" tab near the search bar. If you click that, it will give you four options, Accept, decline, mark as reviewing, and comment. Clicking Accept prompts you for the article's title, and Articles for Creation's grading scheme. Pressing the decline button prompts you for a decline reason. A list of common decline reasons is listed in a dropdown menu. Template:AFC submission/comments lists what each decline message will produce. If none of the decline reasons seem right, you can use the blank box to leave a custom decline message. Clicking the mark as reviewing button marks the submission as being reviewed. It notifies other reviewers that you are working on reviewing the article, so that you do not give conflicting reviews. This is really only a problem when there are just a few pending submissions. Right now there are a huge number of articles waiting to be reviewed. Lastly, the comment button allows you to leave a custom comment on the submission. All articles for creation submissions awaiting to be reviewed are listed in Category:Pending AfC submissions. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  20:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added the code, but I do not see anything when I view articles Glacialfox (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, it's there now. This is rather hard when articles aren't super obviously bad. >.> Glacialfox (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, when you first start reviewing, it is difficult to determine a specific problem with an article. The most common reason for declining is because the article doesn't have any reliable sources. For example Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Manojkumar is completely unsourced. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/United architects of the philippines- british columbia chapter only contains primary sources such as the organization's official website. As articles should contain reliable sources independent of the subject, these articles can be declined as such. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  21:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been working there for a bit now but I'm definitely making mistakes (Someone just accused me of handwaving not too long ago, they just might be right though >.>). I've started trying to leave comments on some things instead of declining them, and cleaning up some articles like this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/No_Joy) but obviously I'm not too knowledgeable about that either. I definitely have a ton to learn. >.> I think maybe you should teach me what to do with articles that are probably acceptable or that could easily be or I don't know. Really I just want to be helpful and good at something, are there any super repetitive tasks on this site? Glacialfox (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking over your recent work, you appear to be doing a great job reviewing. Thank you for taking the time to review the submission. I see you have declined a few submissions with "Not suitable for Wikipedia". If possible, it is better to decline with a more specific reason (such as being written like an advertisement). To accept a submission that you feel is ready, click the "accept" button. A display similar to the decline screen should appear. There should be a field titled "Move submission to:" with a pre-filled title. If the title is appropriate for the article, then you can safely leave this alone. There are also three options. The "Assessment (optional):" box prompts you for your evaluation of the article's quality based on the project grading scheme. You don't have to worry about the other two boxes, as they are for advanced use of the accept script. If you are looking for other things to work on, Category:Wikipedia backlog has a complete list of things that need to be done on Wikipedia. Working on link rot prevention is an extremely repetitive task. Articles needing link rot prevention cleanup are listed in Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup. If you are looking for something fairly simple, you might be interested in adding links to other articles. There is a list located here of articles with no internal links to other Wikipedia articles. Internal links should be added to relevant articles. I hope this helps you. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  03:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am thinking of taking this task as my main thing. :3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_with_incorrect_citation_syntax I don't know whether to bother with worrying about the legitimacy of the sources or anything or just fix them like I've been doing. Glacialfox (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've found I like patrolling for vandalism, don't know if I should just do that or do that and the citation thingy I was doing or something else. Or maybe not at all cause there's already a bunch of people that do it. Blah. What do you do when people won't stop vandalising an article? And if there is a bunch in a row how do you revert to an older one? Glacialfox (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI: I reverted the decline message and approved Sociedad Latina. mabdul 14:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh and I tweaked the decline reason for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/So This is Christmas (film). mabdul 14:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright class
A course for which you are an Online Ambassador is being discussed here; would appreciate your assistance in sorting this out. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Death Valley Driver Video Review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Death Valley Driver Video Review. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Goodvac (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

ANAT technology and Robotics Design debate
I do, as a matter of fact, have a question. Could you help me save the pages? I was warned that it would be more wise to have someone who has nothing direct to do with them post them, and write everything, so I pointed out that I write well and that I stay neutral, considering my great-aunt is a judge in the supreme court of France, it runs in the family. If you live in Canada, I could get you an interview with the inventor, who is an incredible human being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 05:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at the article, and see what can be done. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  15:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

2003 Czech suicide demonstration
About "moved 2003 Czech suicide demonstrators to 2003 Czech suicide demonstration: better title"

Read http://www.radio.cz/en/section/curraffrs/two-more-public-suicides-leave-czechs-in-shock

I propose to come back to the version 19:28, 5 November 2011 with some cleanup and delete the page.

Mormegil 87.19.77.23 (talk) 07:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So you want the article title changed back to "Czech suicide demonstrators"? If so, sure, I can do that. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  15:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "2003 Czech suicide demonstrators", and deleting the new page. Mormegil 87.19.63.21 (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In the while, I made a temporary re-editing of the page. Mormegil 87.19.76.76 (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

A Canadiansteve conundrum
Many thanks for deleting abovementioned username's post at my talk. Honestly, from one thing to another already! Does this user not wish to abide by any rules?Djathinkimacowboy (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC) ::AQ, why did you remove my post on Canadiansteve's talk page? I have the right to ask him not to post canvassing material, as I have the right to ask him anything! If I am in error in any way, please excuse me.Djathinkimacowboy (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC) AQ, please forgive me. I left a comment on CharlieEchoTango's talk page; I must have been in confusion and never left any message at Canadiansteve's talk page. And you had no part in this. Forgive me.Djathinkimacowboy (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I believe that Canadiansteve is concerned because two of the articles he worked on are going through Articles for Deletion. As to why he posted on your talk page is unknown. The users he asked seem to be random. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  15:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My thanks.Djathinkimacowboy (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Romanian currency
I've moved all the coin articles to be without disambiguation after I saw you move the first one, and I've adjusted the template Romanian currency and coinage. You'll probably wanna change their banknotes similarly. I gotta end my wiki session shortly. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll go through and perform the moves. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  16:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Buster Keaton
AQ, I'd like to plead for your opinion in a matter at the article. I inserted some pertinent little fact, but I preceded it with the term "wryly". This editor DVdm, who is watching me even more closely than you, keeps altering my edits because he doesn't like them. I object to that, and I have told him so. I'd like him to stop flouncing around with the changes. I come to you because I am starting to believe this user is trying to start an edit war.Djathinkimacowboy (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears he just removed a word because it wasn't neutral. Per Manual of Style/Words to watch, terms that are positive or negative should be removed, or reworded. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  19:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But this is what I mean! "Wryly" describes the verbiage, it hasn't anything to do with positive or negative! Since when is any derivative of "wry" considered mere opinion? It's an adjective! Also, can you assist me in changing the appearance of my siganture? I know what the entire code looks like, just don't know where to change it.Djathinkimacowboy (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wry isn't a major violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, but it is a bit borderline. The extra adjective doesn't really add much to the article content. You can change your signature at Special:Preferences under the "Signature" section. Once you have created your custom signature, be sure to check the "Treat the above as wiki markup." box so that it is styled correctly. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  19:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

All right, I shall bow to your good judgment. Thanks. As to the sig, the entire code doesn't fit in the box. I've tried that.Djathinkimacowboy (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You are probably hitting the 255 character signature limit. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  19:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I thought that too, but I basically copied this from someone else and simply used differing colors per the code line requirements. So I wondered why someone else could fit a longer code line in their box at the signature preferences.Djathinkimacowboy (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your username might be longer than theirs. Also, some users create their signature with a template, and then substitute the template in their signature. Users are not supposed to do that to get around the 255 character limit, but some do. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  19:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Signature souping-up
Actually I'd like you to see what I am using - I noted in a test that the talk doesn't link back to my talk. Lord knows what else is the matter with this:

Djathinkimacowboy &#124;  talk

Can you assist me in improving this and how to change it to my regular signature?Djathinkimacowboy (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * When you comment on your own talk page, the talk: link doesn't work. You might notice that the talk: link in my signature doesn't work here. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  19:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

With the deepest desire that you not murder me, what about this: Djathink imacowboy  20:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The style is a bit close to another user's signature. You would need to change the colors, or style, so that you are not accused of impersonating another user. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  20:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

and I knew it'd be too good to last. You know, borrowing inspiration is the only way I can get this. I have no idea where to fetch these colors and code line. And I DID change the colors as much as I dared! Forgive me for not signing. I am user Djathinkimacowboy.20:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Help:Using colours and HTML color names might be helpful. How about this for your signature: Djathink  imacowboy . Thoughts?  Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  20:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll try your suggestion, because Djathinkimacowboy    (talk)  20:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC) is what I have now and you can guess where I borrowed the inspiration. So I am using yours, you genius you!!20:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You did me a great service, bless you. I think I've got it now. This is much more 'me'. Djathink imacowboy  20:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Guayabera request
Hello my friend. A request for you to take a look at a recent edit. At Guayabera under the section "4. Similar shirts", I have added a necessary fact and ref., but the URL leads to an Adobe pdf. While that is easily verifiable and I think it a very good ref., is it really? Would you look into it? Djathink imacowboy  16:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any issues with your edit. The changes you made are neutral and the information is cited. Nice work. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  03:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * my gratitude is boundless! Djathink  imacowboy  18:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Dates script
The script function you requested is here. Enjoy! Feedback is always appreciated. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 07:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

National Australia Bank
The images you removed on the NAB page are the logos of 100% owned subsidiaries of the NAB. Thus the fair use rationale on each of the respective image pages should also cover being used on the head entity's wiki (i.e. NAB). I suspect you have removed the images because this fair use template makes no mention of NAB. I have tried to amend the summary however can't seem to edit it. Are you able to a) show me how to edit it to say that they can also be used on the NAB page, or b) let common sense prevail and just let them be used on the NAB page anyway?? Regards Mitsuhirato (talk) 09:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In order to use non-free images, they must have a fair use rationale. For every use of the image, there must be a specific fair use rationale. To add specific fair use rationale


 * 1) Go to the image's description page
 * 2) Click the "edit" button
 * 3) Add Template:Non-free use rationale
 * 4) Fill out the template fields
 * 5) Save the page
 * Once these steps are done, the image should have a proper fair use rationale. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  01:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Grand mosque of Varamin
I sent a submission ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Grand_Mosque_of_Varamin and you didn't accept it because of unreliable source. the source I used was from ArchNet which I assume is very reliable. Please confirm me if there are other things too. Thanks for being a reviewer. Pouyakhani (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that ArchNet would be a reliable source. Based on their contact section of their site, it appears that members of the site contribute information. If any member of the site can change information there, it wouldn't be classified as reliable. If I am in error about this I apologize. It appears that the ArchNet article provides scholarly sources, you might consider using them to cite your article. Additionally, the information in your Wikipedia submission was copied from the ArchNet site. Although it appears that their content license allows others to reuse the information on the site, it is usually best practice to write Wikipedia articles using your own wording. I hope that helps you. If you have any other questions, I would be happy to help. Best,  Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  01:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh Thank you for the info. I shall look for more sources. Thanks again. Pouyakhani (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Editing tools problem
Dear Alpha Quadrant, so sorry to intrude. What has happened to the editing tools/icons? I notice in my edits I have to manually type the HTML code and it is making me nervous. Djathink imacowboy  16:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You may have unchecked "Show edit toolbar (requires JavaScript)" in your user preferences. Can you go to Special:Preferences, click on the "editing" tab, and make sure that the box is checked? Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  01:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear AQ, yes, 1st thing I did and it was never unchecked anyway. Also I notice there is that little Internet Explorer error icon I always get here, but never anywhere else. Can't fathom what it is. See you're busy, sorry to disturb. Djathink  imacowboy  16:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You could try clearing your browser cache. If that doesn't work, you may consider bringing the issue up at Village pump (technical). Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  22:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing too many images
Hi Alpha Quadrant. I see that you are removing large numbers of images from pages. Are you sure that's the best course of action? Some of these images are clearly fair use, e.g., a low resolution photo of a now-deceased head of state from Benin. Are you familiar with the basic standards of Fair Use? A reminder, for the U.S.: To use the Benin example, the purpose of the use is to discuss leaders; the nature of the copyrighted work is an unknown sourced portrait from a reliable NGO. The portion of the use is entire but very low resolution, and does not impact on the nonexistent market for the portrait because there is zero market for reproducing photos of former Benin president Hubert Maga.
 * the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
 * the nature of the copyrighted work;
 * the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
 * the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

It looks like you are slashing images from articles because they don't have complete Fair Use metadata without stopping to see if fair use is warranted.

In another example, you removed an image of uniforms from History_of_the_Detroit_Lions. The thing is, the image was created by a a Wikipedia user, so copyright is not an issue. In case you did not know, trademark is not copyright. It's not legal to reproduce the trademarked uniform to be sold and worn by another team, but there's zero restriction on reproducing (in print, or any other media) a trademarked image. It's no different than putting the CocaCola logo on a Wikipedia page.

I am happy to discuss these more, but removing large volumes of perfectly fine images harms Wikipedia's quality, provides zero useful protection to Wikimedia Foundation of copyright violation claims, hurts morale from other editors who have scanned and uploaded these images.

Instead, I suggest you might revise the metadata about Fair use for those images. there might be a few bad eggs in there, but a spot check shows me that you are overdoing it. Wxidea (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Wxidea, the images I removed from articles lacked specific fair use rationale. Per Wikipedia's Non-free content criteria #10c, all non-free images must have a specific fair use rationale. Until they do, the images must be removed. All images on Wikipedia must be under a license compatible with Wikipedia's copyright license(Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike). If the image is not, then it may only be used under fair use, providing it meets all ten criteria listed at WP:NFCC. This includes Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike and similar images. Although such images are not fully copyrighted, they may still only be used under fair use because they are incompatible with Wikipedia's license.(See here for an explanation.) The CocaCola logo is in public domain because it does not meet the Threshold of Originality in order to be copyrighted. However, it is indeed still trademarked. All of the images I removed were tagged as used under the non-free criteria. I could go through and individually add fair use rationale to every image that truly meets fair use. I have done that in the past. However, the burden is on the user who added the image to add fair use rationale. If they don't, then someone else must add it, or remove the image from the article, which is what I did. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  01:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So basically, you don't want to think about each case, you are going only by the metadata?Wxidea (talk) 06:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Right. Pretty much he just said that policy requires that non-free images have FURs, and that the images he removed don't have FURs. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what he is doing. You are suggesting that he add the FURs himself. That's not his responsibility. It is the responsibility of the uploader, or of anyone who cares that the image remain in the article. He could do the FURs himself, but nothing says that he has to or even should do them himself.
 * As for the NFL jersey example, NFL jerseys are copyrighted. It dosen't matter that a Wikipedian created an image of an NFL jersey, that does not erase the copyright. Any claims that said image is free are blatantly false (although the uploader probably didn't know that), and therefore NFCC rules are in effect regardless of how the file was tagged.
 * Finally, Wxidea you need to watch your tone. NFCC issues spark fires quickly, and if said fires ignite, people flood in to make the situation much worse. Everyone needs to keep their cools around NFCC issues, otherwise they'll spin out of control and wind up at AN/I every time. It's just a sad fact of Wikipedia.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  08:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sven, you are wrong. The jerseys are trademarked, not copyrighted. And the laws are substantially different. Wxidea (talk) 06:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What license are the jerseys under then? If they aren't copyrighted, then what is their copyright status. Until evidence is presented stating they are not under copyright, they are assumed to be copyrighted. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  22:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * AlphaQuadrant, what makes you think a jersey is copyrighted? Is your favorite pair of jeans copyrighted? Is your car copyrighted? Do you think you could draw a sketch of common objects with design patents and/or trademarks and upload them to Wikipedia? Wxidea (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Jersey logos can be copyrighted. File:Detroit Lions.svg is used in the jersey image. File:Detroit Lions.svg likely meets the threshold of originality, and can therefore be copyrighted. Unless you can present evidence stating that the works are not under copyright, they can only be used under fair use. As creating a derivative of a copyrighted work does not make the derivative work freely licensed. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  16:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability
Regarding your rejection of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Harvard_School_of_Public_Health_(HSPH)_Partnership_for_Cohort_Research_and_Training_(PaCT) Can you give an example of what was not verifiable? Do you want more sources, more diversity of sources, or more inline citations? Wxidea (talk) 06:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Specifically, all the sources provided are affiliated with the organization. Therefore, the sources are first party sources. In order to establish the topic's notability, reliable third party sources are needed. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  15:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update
Dear : Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/17 October 2011/Metrication in the United Kingdom

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Alpha Quadrant, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see this "inactivity" seems to be an issue. Please comment at User talk:Steven Zhang. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 21:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi ALpha Quadrant,
 * It is nearly two weeks since I posted a full reply to your observation that my objectiosn were not well documented. In my reply I cited an Essay on the matter and independently demonstrated my case. I have had no reply from you, only disagreement from the two principal editors involved. Can we expect some input from you or, since we have drifted into the world of statistics (which was not mentioned in the original outline of the dispute) do you wish to step down - I am aware that not everybody understands statistics? Martinvl (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have been fairly busy this past week, but I have been keeping an eye on the discussion. I haven't commented in the discussion as of late, as I felt discussion without my input was fairly productive. I do note that the discussion does appear to be going in policy circles (WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, and WP:RS) as of late. It might be a good idea to take the issues one at a time. From the sources presented, it appears they have adequately established the mention of the survey/experiment as due. The remaining issue is whether or not to mention the possibility that the survey was discontinued. Currently, the time the experiment ended is unknown, or even whether or not it has in fact ended. The mySupermarket source does list the weight using the metric system. (I am using this source, as I have assumed it is what the discussion is referring to). That could be used to confirm that online distribution has been discontinued (or never took place). I still can't find any coverage confirming that the experiment had been entirely discontinued. It is possible to verify part of the information using a first party source (mySupermarket), just not all of it. Going to an ASDA grocery store in order to confirm or deny the discontinuation of the experiment would be original research. It might be worth mentioning in the article that online distribution was at least discontinued, and state that the current status of the experiment is unknown. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  18:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Quadrant Alpha,
 * Thank you for your reply. One of the reasons for me pushing you is DeFacto's antics on other articles that are related to this article.  Could I suggest that you have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Measurement to get a little background as to what else is happenning.  Martinvl (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

File namespace noticeboard idea
Hi there. As a file worker, I'd like your input on the idea of a noticeboard for file workers. The prototype is at Village pump (idea lab).

Please comment at the VPIL thread, or edit the page linked to there directly, as I can't keep track of this conversation if everyone I invite to comment on the matter responds on their own talk pages.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  07:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry it took so long to act on this.


 * Thanks for the notification. I'll take a look. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  22:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CODENI
Hello AQ. Thank you for reviewing the article for submission, CODENI. I have tried to submit this article a few different times but have been denied because it reads like an advertisement. For the most recent submission I tried to "strip" the article down as best I could... Alas, it was denied again. Could you point specifically to language/examples that makes it read like an ad? Thank you in advance for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melissawarp (talk • contribs) 19:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Melissawarp, the reason I declined your submission is because the article is not written in a neutral point of view. Many of the sentences contain unnecessary adjectives that really don't add much to the article (see Words to watch). For example the sentence, CODENI educators provide homework support and specialized tutoring for children...contains words that really don't do anything other than promote the subject. The article also contains a number of direct quotes when describing the subject. These quotes are not neutral, and the source of the quotes are not stated. For example, you can begin quotes with "According to _ ..." or similar. Quotes should be used sparingly, as too many quotes can be considered a violation ofcopyright. The last thing I noticed, was that much of the article was unsourced. All information of the article should be verifiable in reliable sources. Information that cannot be cited is considered original research and should be removed. I hope this helps you. If you have any other questions, I would be happy to help. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  22:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Article for creation: Challenge hypothesis
Hello there, I created the page "challenge hypothesis." It was classified as C-class. I was wondering if you could provide feedback, and let me know why it was classified as C-class. This is a topic that has not been extensively examined in individual studies, and I thought I included sufficient and representative citations. I also wanted to expand on the theorizing behind why their predictions make sense. I would like to do the topic justice and would appreciate your feedback.

Thank you, Melissa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melissafales (talk • contribs) 00:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Melissa, you might be interested in the Articles for Creation grading scheme. I assessed the article as C class because, although the article is adequately sourced, additional sourcing would be preferred. The article could also be a bit more detailed. Overall though, the article is fairly well written, and a borderline B class article. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  00:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Screen sizes
Hi, just a short note to say that your edit summary here can be disputable as some people with a smaller screen (ie. me) see it on three lines all the time anyway. I appreciate you may not have realised this at the time but please be aware in future that some people have smaller or larger screen sizes than others and content may appear different. Thanks,  Rcsprinter  (warn)  22:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Iwan Baan
Hi Alpha Quadrant

Thanks for your NAC of the above-captioned AfD. However, I think everyone who opined agreed that the original source for the stub itself was enough to establish notability, so I would appreciate a revision of the closure summary reflecting this, and not implying that the addition of more sources was necessary for the conclusion of "keep".

Thanks, Bongo  matic  04:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Rationale changed. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  16:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Bongo  matic  03:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/De Havenzangers
Hi. I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/De Havenzangers. If you could take a look at my comments, that would be good. :) One or two small concerns that should be easily fixable so this can be speeded along. --LauraHale (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, those issues are fairly easy to address. I'll take a look. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  16:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Quick question
Sorry if this seems out of the blue, but I noticed some non-admin AFD closures you made and wondered... have you ever considered a run at RFA? You have plenty of experience in my opinion, and seeing you note your closures as non-admin made me have one of those, "Huh, I thought they were a sysop already." moments. Steven Walling &bull; talk   06:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have considered it. Per this discussion, I believe it would be best if I get a GA or FA written first. Although my first attempt failed, I have tried to address the concerns on Dominion War in order to get it to GA. When I get some time, I am  going to go through and make the fixes the reviewer suggested.  Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  16:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the autopatrolled status recommendation. I appreciate the vote of confidence. I hope to add articles on notable historic persons and events of the American Civil War and colonial America which have no current pages and to add information from reliable sources to articles that are stubs or start class and can be expanded. Donner60 (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Nice work on your articles. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  15:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Asking for tips to improve wikipage
Dear Alpha Quadrant, Thanks so much for reviewing my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) Partnership for Cohort Research and Training (PaCT). I am still unclear on what other information is required exactly to make the article publishable on Wikipedia. I have tried reading the guidelines, but it is still not quite clear to me. Could you kindly let me know some specifics- as I did add citations of published articles that were missing in the initial submission. Also, with regard to the images, what exactly would be acceptable with regard to a copyright license and holder's name? I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks in advance, PaCtuser PaCtuser (talk) 03:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem with the article is all the sources are affiliated with the organization. Therefore, the sources are first party. In order to establish the topic's notability, the article needs reliable third party sources. Reliable sources are sources published by organizations with a strong reputation for fact checking. (such as newspapers, book, magazines, or online news articles. Sources do not need to be online, or even in English.) While the Harvard website is a reliable source, it is affiliated with the subject. As for the images, I believe I have corrected the license on File:Pact cmyk.jpg. As for File:Pact sites.png, it needs to be released under a license compatible with Wikipedia. See Declaration of consent for all enquiries for instructions on how to do this. If you need any assistance, or have any questions, I would be more than happy to assist. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  15:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Alpha Quadrant, Thanks so much for your response and for your tips on how best to improve the page. I have added some third party sources and resubmitted the page. Many of the articles that have been cited in this page are first party sources, because Harvard and MIT are the pioneers on conducting this type of research. A number of the articles included are peer-reviewed and published in well known journals such as the Lancet and American Journal of Epidemiology. These journals are reliable and well-accepted in the scientific community. As for the map File:Pact sites.png, it was used in one of our presentations which is cited. Please let me know whether there is anything else I can do to make the page acceptable for publishing. Thanks in advance for reviewing the page. Kind regards, PaCtuser (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Alpha Quadrant, I also wanted to bring to your attention another source that I recently added to the wikipage, which is from the New England Journal of Medicine http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1112235?query=TOC and further demonstrates the importance of the topic and our study. Thanks and I look forward to hearing from you. PaCtuser (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice work on the sourcing. After doing another review, the only other thing I noticed was that the article uses "will" quite a bit and states that events will happen. As the events haven't happened yet, they aren't necessarily going to happen. It is fine to mention the events, but as no one on this earth can see the future, it should state that the events are scheduled or planned to occur. Rather than stating the events will most certainly occur, as there is a chance that something might come up, causing the project to change plans. The other thing I noticed was that the "Addressing the Chronic Disease Tsunami" section uses first person point of view and addresses the reader with a question. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, first and second person points of view should be avoided whenever possible. (See WP:FIRSTPERSON) However, neither of these issues warrant a decline. If you would like, I can accept the article now, and you can fix the two issues later. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  17:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Alpha Quadrant, Thanks so much for reviewing the article again and also for your feedback. Sure, I will address the issues you raised with regard to some of the language used and will continue to edit the article. That would be great if you can accept the article! Once you accept it, how long will it take for the article to be published and to become 'live'? Thanks so mcuh again for your help. PaCtuser (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * When I "accept" a submission, all I am really doing is changing the the article's title (Help:Moving). Your submission is "live" right now. All I have to do to "accept" the submission is remove the Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/ from the title, remove the Articles for Creation banner, and add the article to the list of new accepted submissions. When I do accept the article, is the correct title Africa/Harvard School of Public Health Partnership for Cohort Research and Training? Usually articles use the most commonly used name for the title. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  18:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Alpha Quadrant, Thanks for your message. Yes, Africa/Harvard School of Public Health Partnership for Cohort Research and Training is the correct title. Could you kindly let me know when you have "accepted" the submission. Thanks again. PaCtuser (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/K-1 World Grand Prix 2009 in Tokyo Final 16 Qualifying GP
It appears you did not complete the close, while you redirected the main article, the 4 bundled nominations still have outstanding AfD tags on them. It is not exactly clear how your close will apply to them, so I'll leave them for you to figure out: Just wanted to bring them to your attention, Monty  845  21:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * K-1 World Grand Prix 2009 in Seoul
 * K-1 World Grand Prix 2009 in Yokohama
 * K-1 Fighting Network Prague 2008
 * K-1 World Grand Prix 2008 in Riga

DYK for De Havenzangers
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

My edit at ID article page reverted
Since I unwillingly entered a dispute by act of user Amatulić who reverted my edit, I'd like to ask you as my Mentor for kind arbitration/supervision of our discussion so that it would not get out of control and would not lead to my repetitive block. Thanx a lot in advance --Stephfo (talk) 10:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Future of the US Education Program and the Ambassador Project
There is a discussion about the future and the growth of the US education program along with the future of the Wikipedia Ambassador Project here. Voceditenore (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hwa Chong Institution Student Leaders Convention logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Hwa Chong Institution Student Leaders Convention logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Stephfo
Hi Alpha Quadrant. It is my understanding that you are User:Stephfo's mentor. Stephfo has recently appeared on the Intelligent Design article, and is engaging editors on the talk page regarding a recent proposal. I've noticed that he has fallen back into some of the behaviors that led to his previous block, and I'm concerned that if these aren't addressed early, we're going to see a repeat of same disruptive behavior that led to our last mess. The discussion thus far is pretty young, so there isn't yet a long-term problem, but I'd ask that you look it over and potentially discuss with Stephfo how best to handle this (and other) disputes. Drop me a line if you need any help, however, I have had some difficulty communicating with him in the past. All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe Jess nominated two of my articles for deleion as a possible act of revenge for dispute we had at the ID talk page. Pls. advise how to tackle the situation. --Stephfo (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding the revenge charge, we need evidence in order to accuse other editors of violating our conduct policies. If you have evidence that Jess is watching your contribs and following you around, you should make a report at WP:WQA. – Lionel (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice. Stephfo asked me for help earlier today (see two sections up). Although, at the time, I didn't have time to take a detailed look. I'll see what I can do to help. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  04:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Alpha. I appreciate you being involved to help out. FYI, I responded to you on Stephfo's talk page in order to clarify. I think we're probably on the same page on that issue, but obviously if the idea hasn't come across clearly, feel free to correct me. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 06:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Tritech
Hi - I noticed that you replaced the logo for Tritech. You have now associated the wrong logo with that article. The previous logo was the correct logo for the company described in the article. You should consider replacing the logo with the correct logo and potentially writing an article about the Tritech for which you have provided the logo. |► ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 14:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out my error. I noticed that the old logo was in jpg format, so I converted it to png format. When I went to cite the source of the image, I noticed that the logo on the listed website was different. I didn't realize that there were two different electronic companies with the same name. I'll correct my mistake. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  18:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Please upload your free media to Commons!
Thank you for uploading free images/media to Wikipedia! As you may know, there is another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please upload media there instead (see m:Help:Unified login). That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Moving images to the Commons (you may view previous uploads by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'file' namespace from the drop down box (or see ). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!


 * Is there a particular file upload in question? I am aware of common's existence and I do use it to upload free media. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  00:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
I disagree with the NAC of the above AfD, not a single source has been added to the article since the start of the AfD, none of the links provided to in the AfD are significant coverage of the firm. Please re-open and re-list. Mt king  (edits)  04:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources are listed in the AfD debate. The sheer amount of coverage is significant. Also, the sources presented by Cirt, Arxiloxos, and to some extent Bearian, are reliable third party sources. With the exception of a few of Bearian's sources, the sources are reliable, independent of the subject, and the sources are much more than trivial passing mentions. Thus, the topic meets the general notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  04:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I just noticed you removed a portion of the article that assisted in establishing the subject's notability, then nominated it for deletion as non-notable. Decreasing the article's quality and then nominating the article is fairly backhanded. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  04:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing backhanded at all, the section you have now restored consists of two refs from Chambers a legal directory :
 * The first supporting the claim they are ranked No.1 in "Real Estate: California" is because the list is in alphabetical order (see here).
 * The second is the firms profile.
 * The websites Superlawyers and Bestlawyers are self-evidently directories of lawyers.
 * As for the refs in the AfD, Cirt did not provide any, he produced a link to Google Scholar which links to pages written by staff at the firm and nothing specificity about the firm. I showed how none of the ref's Bearian proffered is significant coverage. The two LA Times refs by Arxiloxos one of them is a report how the firm is opening a one person office in Mexico not very, the other is about the city hiring the firm. Mt  king  (edits)  06:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
 * The sources presented in the discussion constitutes significant non-trivial coverage. You can't simply dismiss 49 reliable academic sources as "trivial". I do note that several of these academic sources are trivial one sentence mentions. With that said, going through the sources, there are a many sources with non-trivial coverage. The news sources presented are more than one sentence mentions. In the discussion you dismissed several reliable news sources as trivial, because there was "only on paragraph on the firm". Per GNG, the subject does not need to be the main subject of the article in order to be non-trivial. It just needs to be detailed enough to use the information without resorting to original research. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  16:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Stephfo. Again.
I'm afraid that Stephfo is again falling back into the habits that got him indefinitely blocked. I've left him a message on his talk page, here: []. Please have a talk with him about this. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  16:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a big bunch. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Australian gold rushes
I disagree with your non-admin close above and request the 4-day old discussion be reinstated to allow it to take its full course. Per WP:NAC: "Clear keep outcomes after a full listing period" (my emphasis). I would expect the closer to have been less dismissive to my concerns, given I'm a long term editor. As stated clearly, the subject notability is not the issue, yet you cite that as somehow being resolved anyway. My deletion concerns have not been addressed. And lastly, 4 !votes is hardly a snowball, especially as most are non-Australians and from their comments don't quite get what I was arguing for. Two other editors had expressed similar concerns to mine on the talk page. For the record, I have no emotional attachment to this article, but do feel that process was not followed by your actions - closure was both premature and unauthorised. Moondyne (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion clearly established that the subject is notable and the article is fairly well sourced. The arguments you presented for deletion aren't really arguments to delete the article. The arguments are are arguing that the title be changed, or else you request that the article be deleted because the current article overlaps with two other articles. Nominating an article for deletion because the title is somewhat inaccurate and some of the information overlaps with two other articles is out of process. AfD is not cleanup, if the article only covers one aspect of the subject, consider fixing it. Discussions on changing an article's title should take place at requested moves. Discussion on merging content should take place through a merge discussion. The closure I made was as much a procedural keep as it was a snow keep. No editors are going to agree with deletion under the current rationale because the rationale is proposing something other than deletion, the article is fairly well sourced, and on a notable topic. I have altered my closure rationale to explain this.  Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  16:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for explaining and adjusting the rationale. I do still maintain that your closure was premature. Its interesting that none of the discussion participants or yourself noticed or bothered to fix the glaring vandalism that was there throughout the discussion. Moondyne (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow

 * Btw even my bot is lame compared to you. Petrb (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I am glad to be of help. I wouldn't say your bot is "lame". It performs tasks that would be extremely time consuming for reviewers to do manually. Without your bot (and EarwigBot), AfC would be quite a bit less organized. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  19:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)