User talk:CasperJB

Your submission at Articles for creation
 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 once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Dalisays (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 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 once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Zach Vega (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 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 once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Sarah (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 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 once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

New article "Frank Buytendijk"
Hi Excirial,

Thanks for looking at the article submission. Can you help me out a little bit why the article was rejected? I have carefully read all guidelines, and have focused on "real-world" press coverage, all verifiable and all reliable. I must be missing something.

Would absolutely love your guidance..

CasperJB — Preceding unsigned comment added by CasperJB (talk • contribs) 19:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hiyas there CasperJB,


 * The article itself looks mostly fine, but it is lacking citations that state what reliable sources are used for the article. The only reference cited is "Worldcat author record" which appears to attribute the books written. That is fine, but the rest of the article is entirely unsourced. For example - If i were to change the article to state that "Frank Buytendijk is currently the manager of the worlds largest botanic garden", how could anyone see that this is plain nonsense? The lack of underlying sources would mean that no-one would be able to verify the content of the article for its truthfulness.


 * There are two more issues. The first one is that this a biography of a living person (Also shortened to BLP). Rules on sourcing BLP's are exceptionally strict, since having incorrect content in these can have repercussions for the subject of the article. Additionally the article lacks a clear indication of Notability (See also a specific guideline for author notability). The best way to "prove" someone is notable, is by adding reliable sources regarding the subject. This is also called the golden rule for inclusion.


 * I hope this helps! Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 20:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 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 once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Adam Mugliston  Talk  11:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Frank Buytendijk
Hi!

I declined your submission for the following reasons:
 * I don't think he is notable
 * You need to reduce the publications lists - they make the article look ugly
 * You need to expand the information about him a bit
 * You need sources about him from books, newspapers etc. Things written on paper not only websites

Tell me when you're done, then I'll check it before you resubmit. Then tell me and I will accept if I agree, but I'll have to check some guidelines before that.

Slightly off-topic, I see you're new. I would like to offer you the Adopt-a-User program. I myself am part of it as an adopter and I would be willing to adopt you if you're interested. Let me know. Adam Mugliston Talk  18:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Adam,

Wow, you are fast. Thanks for the advice. Will clean up the article. I tried to be as brief as possible, but got pulled into supplying more and more information. BTW, **ALL SOURCES** are on paper, not website.

And YES, I'd love your help.

CasperJB


 * Great. First of all sign your messages with ~ . From what I saw all your sources are links, but all right. Don't be brief, be proper (like I think you are)

Fill out this form and then we can get started : User:Adam mugliston/Adopt/Entry/CasperJB  Adam Mugliston  Talk  19:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Adam, Wow, you are fast. Not sure if I should sign up, as I am not fully committed to becoming an editor. I thought I'd use this author I know as a good way of finding out how Wikipedia works. I don't want to set expectations I can't meet. My problem is getting conflicting advice. The article was very clean first, then other editors suggested to add more sources and references. All of them are journals, magazines and newspaper articles. I can remove the web links, so they are just references to the paper versions, but that also doesn't make sense, does it? Also, as I'd like to keep it as factual, short and clean as possible, how can I get rid of all the article links without negatively affecting notability? Because you are right, it doesn't look good. Can you give some examples? CasperJB CasperJB (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm online so I'm fast. You can give it a go and see how you like editing. I don't mind if you leave. Keep some paper versions and some web links. What I meant to get rid of is those publication lists. Reduce those and then your article can go in as a stub. If you add more references - even better. Adam Mugliston  Talk  19:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Adam, How about now? I totally removed the publications list, just have the bibliography and secondary references. I am more than happy to remove those too, but then I will probably get verifiability issues again. Would this be good? CasperJB CasperJB (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * A lot better. Just need some references for the bibliography and the rest of the interview sections and then you'll be fine. Adam Mugliston  Talk  19:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Adam, EXCELLENT. Thank you. Really happy to hear that. My sincere apologies for being so thick and asking so much of your time, but what references do you need for the bibliography, other than ISBN? And what references do you need for the articles other than the links that are available? I am sure that if you give an example I can figure it out from there then, but need a hint. THANKS. (BTW, I did get some inspiration and am research a second subject now, which should be MUCH easier when this is done. CasperJB CasperJB (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, to be honest I think I have misguided you a bit. Your bibliography should actually be your references, as I understand your bibliography is what you based the article on. You basically need to type in what you put in the bibliography in the tags. Then you don't need sources for the bibliography. For the interviews, you need to say where you got the info from. Adam Mugliston  Talk  19:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Adam, I took your advice to heart and also expanded a bit on information. Not about the author, but about the books, as that is more factual. This allowed me to create references for the books. I still have the bibliography as a section in there, as that is what one normally lists for authors, isn't it? I played around with references for the secondary articles, as you point out they need to show where I got the information from. Moving website links to references looks awkward, and referencing an article with a reference to the article seems a bit redundant. The links behind the articles, as far as available, are the verifiability. The 3 other references without a weblink are also to paper-based magazines/newspapers, but they were not online. So I left it like it was. If this is really not good, let me know. I am more than happy to take all those articles out, if that cleans up the article without touching reliability/notability. Hope this works for you now! CasperJB CasperJB (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A lot, a lot better. I think it's ready for submission, I'd be happy to accept. Adam Mugliston  Talk  20:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Adam, That is fantastic news. I think it is now submitted again. If you could accept, that'd be awesome. CasperJB CasperJB (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you did already. Even better. Thank you, Adam CasperJB (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. So, what do you think about getting adopted. If you want to know more about the lessons you can also go to: User:Adam mugliston/Adopt. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Adam Mugliston  Talk  20:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Frank Buytendijk, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Adam Mugliston Talk  20:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Please fill out our brief Teahouse guest survey
Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages sometime in the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 00:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Be Informed for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Be Informed is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Be Informed until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 16:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)