User talk:Cerebellum/Archive 2

I received a note that my article on David Jones was rejected. I wanted to try to improve it to meet the editorial guidelines but it has been removed. How do I get it back so I can continue improving it?

Joann Wieland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joann Wieland (talk • contribs) 22:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Rob Keyloch
Many thanks for your suggestions (decliner=Cerebellum|ts=20121108113636|u=193.60.60.79) that I implement inline citations so that reader can tell where information comes from. I have also kept in mind WP:42 and included external and verifieable references. Best Wishes, J

Independent Collectors
Hello, I hope you can help me. You just approved my article on Independent Collectors, but now it is already up for deletion. And I am unable to improve my article as my account has been blocked. (Hence me writing this without being logged in) I think I misunderstood the guidelines when choosing my username but now that I do understand I cant change it anymore. I am a bit at a loss here. Can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.19.208.178 (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

RazorThreat article submission
Thank you so much for your reply and specific examples. They are exactly what I was looking for. I will update the article and resubmit. I look forward to your next review. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Granite (talk • contribs) 16:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Chris van Ouwerkerk submission
Thank you very much again for the encouragement and advice. I have updated the submission and am now unsure how to resubmit it for review. I have added to the figures notability and increased the number of sources. If you can advise on going forward from here it would be much appreciated!

HeavyWeight Yoga article submission
Your message declining this article states that "Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established."

1. Pilarzyk, p. 140 The practice uses language geared to the overweight. 2. San Antonio Express News, Lifestyles, October 6, 2005 3. Health.com, April 12, 2010 ^ Pilarzyk, p. 140 ^ a b Pilarzyk, p. 139 ^ Pilarzyk, p. 143 4. American Fitness, Nov-Dec 2010. p. 52

Pilarzyk, Tom (2008). Yoga Beyond Fitness. Quest Books. ISBN 978-0-8356-0863-3.

1. The Skinny, Orlando Sun Sentinel, July 16, 2008, Abby Lentz gives tips on HeavyWeight yoga 2. Great Day Houston, KHOU Houston, Texas Jan. 1, 2020 HeavyWeight Yoga Allows You To Exercise In Your Own Skin 3. Natural Solutions Magazine, January 1, 2009, Embrace Your Curves 4. Daily Spark, June, 2009, You Don't have to be Stick Thin to Do HeavyWeight Yoga 5. San Antonio Express-News S.A. Life, September, 2009. HeavyWeight Yoga revisited 6. Health.com, April 10, 2010, Yoga Can Help You Love Your Body (and Lose Weight) 7. Austin American-Statesman, Fit City, July 23, 2012, Is yoga as an Olympic sport a stretch?

The above are 11 independent, reliable sources referenced throughout this article. Three are daily newspapers. One is a published book. One is the leading TV station in Houston. One is the website operated by Health magazine, and another is the trade journal for fitness trainers, American Fitness.

Please be specific about what elements of the article don't use independent sources. I'll do my best to locate them and reference them in a revision.

Best wishes,

--Ronseybold (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've given the article a thorough rewrite to bring it into line with encyclopedic language, plus I've removed explict references to the materials whose source is the creator of the HeavyWeight practice. Also, I've been working on summarizing the story of the founder's training. Thanks so much for your guidance on this. Let me know how it's looking this time around.

-- Ronseybold (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Um, I'm a little confused on how to resubmit this for another review, now that the changes are looking good. Can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronseybold (talk • contribs) 02:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I think I've just figured it out. Thanks so much for your help in this. I'm eager to find some other topics I might submit, or flesh out some stubs.Ronseybold (talk) 02:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase
Hello. As a participant in Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The article on the J. Manley Robbins Trail
Hi. I saw you recently declined the article I wrote on the J. Manley Robbins Trail for its lack of notability. I agree that the article's notability is not too well established. However, I did write in the article that it was potentially the oldest rail-trail in America. Should this count for something with regards to the notability? Perhaps instead of having it deleted, there would be some way to improve it? Thanks. King jakob c (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw your counter-proposal to creating an article on the trail. That sounds good to me. King jakob c (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

A Thank You Message
Thanks for your work with The New New Deal, supporting its move from 'Articles For Creation' to the site proper. It's my first article that I've made myself related to this user account.

I'd post a kitten image or something, but... ah... anyways, keep up the good work! CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Another thank you message
Hi Cerebellum, more thanks to you - this time for your help and advice on my Bernadette Davis article. I do hope to add to it in the future, as I find more info / more sources become available, and thanks for pointing me to the grading system page. By the way, do you know if it's possible to re-name the page, e.g. from Bernadette Davis to Bernadette Davis (Writer)? PaukiPKK (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)PaukiPKK

Hi Cerebellum - re your message to me about the page change: OK, I'll leave it as it is. I had noticed there was another Bernadette Davis, a feminist/blogger/editor [her words!] living in the USA, so I thought it may be worth distinguishing them - but now this Bernadette has got there first, the other one will have to differentiate - if they ever become notable! PaukiPKK (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)PaukiPKK

Hi again Cerebellum - I was just adding some more quotes and references to the page on Bernadette Davis, from reviews about the show Some Girls after its first episode aired - and I thought: "Should I be creating a page for Some Girls itself and then have these reviews and quotes on that page?" (I thought the quotes were apt for Bernadette's page originally as they stated that the writing was original and unusual, but then now that I look at it, it looks like, as they're about the show more than Bernadette, that perhaps the show itself should have a page of its own.) PK. PaukiPKK (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)PaukiPKK

Hi CB, had a look at the Infobox thing - a good idea, though it's certainly a test of whether you can follow rules, sorry protocols! - though I might wait till there's a bit more info available, as you suggested - thanks for the idea! PK. PaukiPKK (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)PaukiPKK.

feindura article submission
hi, thanks for reviewing my submission. currently i cant find more sources which talk about feindura, but i am sure they exist and more will come soon. so my question is, how long does the submission article stay, or will it be deleted? feindura exists since 2010 and its one of the few flat file cms out there. Almost all other cms have also an wikipedia article, so i assume feindura deserves one too :) If more sources will come up, i will add them to the refs. thanks in advance. frozeman (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for apprvoing justin c. hamilton Iknowball 07:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iknowball (talk • contribs)

"Regarding Justin C. Hamilton" I just noticed that the (Basketball) at the end of my title ( Justin C. Hamlilton (Basketball)  Has been removed.  I dont understnad why.  There are other Justin Hamiltons that play so I put his middle intial to differenitate him from them but with out the Basketball, his name doesnt come up under the wiki search.  You have to put the C.  for his middle name.  Is there any way to get it back on there?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iknowball (talk • contribs) 08:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a note, I moved both Justin Hamilon pages to fit existing basketball convention: Justin Hamilton (basketball, born 1980) and Justin Hamilton (basketball, born 1990) Rikster2 (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank yoiu Rikster2. Iknowball 09:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iknowball (talk • contribs)

Wealth Lab article submission
After you declined my article, I went back and added numerous reliable sources as you suggested. I hope you could take another look and if you see anything that stands out as a deal breaker that you would let me know ASAP and I´ll fix it. The subject should not suffer because I happen to be a poor editor. I´m quite confident that once this article is published that it fill up with more quality content fast as I have no doubt that many Wealth Lab users also dabble in Wikipedia as I do. I find it easy to edit pre-existing articles and make them better, but it has been daunting to try and get a new article posted. I would really appreciate any help as I´m all in now. Thanks in advance Heatman1 (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I really appreciate the quick response. I´ll post a note on the Wealth Lab forum and see if I can get some help improve its level. Cheers! Heatman1 (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening COTM
From: Northamerica1000(talk) 01:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Submission VergeGameStudio
Thank you for helping. That was the first article created myself.

Have a Waffle ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bau912 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Haha, I love waffles! Glad I could help :) --Cerebellum (talk) 11:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Equinet article submission
Thank you very much for looking into the article I created. You declined it because "the sources provided seem to be affiliated with the subject". I am sorry if this is a newbie confusion, but I would like to say that I referred to Equinet's sources because this is the only place where this kind of detailed information about the organisation can be found. Equinet like many other small organisations do not have in-depth or up-to-date depictions of them written by other entities.

I randomly checked some of the organisations that work in equality field and suffer from the same kind of problems. Indeed, I found that their Wikipedia pages don't refer to any other sources apart from their own and in some cases include a long text without any references. Yet they have been approved...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission_against_Racism_and_Intolerance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENAR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Women%27s_Lobby

So I am simply wondering what a feasible solution would be? Would I have to wait years and hope that the organisation would become famous enough to have its structure and activities portrayed by newspapers or other entities? Thank you for your reply! Equinet (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry if this is disappointing - let me know if there is anything else I can do for you, and I wish you success in your future endeavors. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know if I should reply on my or your Talk page, such a n00b. But I do not understand how I should make the changes ? After doing research for alternative sources and adding them I clicked "edit the article" on my page and then saved it and sent for submission. But now you say that I did it "without going through the Articles for Creation process, simply by going to a blank page (e.g. Equinet) and filling in information". I don't even know what I did wrong, I would be happy to do it the right way.

But what about those other articles I linked, the ones that are accepted with way poorer sources than the ones here? Just curious!

Thanks a lot for all your help, I really appreciate it. Equinet (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, now things make more sense! Thanks for all the tips and special credit for your patient and helpful attitude towards newcomers. Equinet (talk) 09:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Women's Worldwide Web article submission
Thank you very much for looking into the article. After receiving the "declining" note, I changed the section that you mentioned in your comments. I hope you could take a look and let me know if the language is fine for an Encyclopedia. Thanks again! --GabyLevy (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you message
Thank you so much for your valuable comments and help! --GabyLevy (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad I could help :) --Cerebellum (talk) 13:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/RaiseAChild.US
I would like feedback please on my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/RaiseAChild.US, which you said read more like an advertisement. This is my first article and in my zeal to document online sources, I included press releases the organization published on PRWeb. I'm guessing that might be one of the problems, but I'd like to know if it is and also if there are other problems, such as talking too much about the founders. I tried to follow the format of other articles published on Wikipedia about other nonprofits. I would like to correct this article and submit others, so I would appreciate specific feedback on how to revise the article so that it will be accepted. Editor.corlight (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Editor.corlight

I believe I have incorporated all of your suggestions. Please review my article again and let me know if I need to make further corrections. Thank you! Editor.corlight (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Editor.corlight

HP Flexible DC AfC
Hi Cerebellum. I wonder if you could take another look at: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/HP Flexible DC

I have had former colleagues, business relations, etc. with both HP and IBM, so I tend to avoid direct editing, but I gave it a quick cleanup and believe it is probably ready. Corporate 15:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening COTM
From: Northamerica1000(talk) 15:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No word on RaiseAChild.US page yet
Hi Cerebellum, At your suggestion, I resubmitted my RaiseAChild.US page on November 14 and November 28 but I haven't heard anything. Is there something I am doing incorrectly in the resubmission process? Thanks! Editor.corlight — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor.corlight (talk • contribs) 23:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2013 WikiCup!
Hello Cerebellum, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The competition begins at midnight UTC. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders: *The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page. *Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started the review in 2013.) We will be checking. *If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself. *Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens. *Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked. Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 18:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2013 WikiCup
Hello, Cerebellum, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders:
 * The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page.
 * Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started and completed the review in 2013.) We will be checking.
 * If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself.
 * Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens.
 * Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked.

Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 13:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the GA Review
Thanks for the GA Review of School of Advanced Military Studies at Talk:School of Advanced Military Studies/GA2. I tried to fix everything in your comments. If you have the time, please take a look at how I updated the article based on your comments. Casprings (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for review
Hi Cerebellum, can you take another look at Phillips Exeter Academy? Thank you. Regards,FrankDev (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

GA1 Review for Philomela
I believe I have addressed the citation issues you had mentioned in your comment on 05JAN13. I hope I have not left anything unaddressed amongst those concerns. If so, please do let me know. --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

GAN
Hi, I thought you'll wait for me there. Regards, Zia Khan 22:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Psychic TV/PTV3 - Mr Alien Brain vs. The Skinwalkers (CD & DVD, 2X12") (2008) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Psychic TV/PTV3 - Mr Alien Brain vs. The Skinwalkers&. Since you had some involvement with the Psychic TV/PTV3 - Mr Alien Brain vs. The Skinwalkers (CD & DVD, 2X12") (2008) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). —Torchiest talkedits 04:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter
Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:
 * was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
 * was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
 * was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
 * was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
 * was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:


 * was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
 * has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
 * claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of, who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Chris Claremont photo
Hi. Can you offer your opinion in the discussion on whether to include a 1990s photograph of Chris Claremont in his article? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
 * , primarily for an array of warship GAs.
 * , primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
 * , due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with, this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:
 * , whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
 * , whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
 * and, who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
 * , who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by : did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Third Epistle of John, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Painter (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Photo consensus discussion
Hi. Can you offer your opinion on the matter discussed at the bottom of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Amazingly, looking at WikiProject Bible, this appears to be the first book of the Bible to reach GA status. I hope you'll consider tackling some more of these in the future! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the kind words and the review! I certainly hope to keep working on these, but it's pretty daunting considering that so much has been written about most books of the Bible.  The shorter books like 3 John are nice because the information available is more manageable.  Thank you again and good luck with your 2013 goals, those are very impressive!  Regards, --Cerebellum (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, I suspect that's why you're the first. Still, if you ever take any more on, best of luck! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Varaha: Talk:Varaha/GA1
Thanks for the review. I have done a minor copyedit. Can you please check. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pass. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn
Thanks again for the review. :) James086 Talk 17:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

John Cotton
Thanks very much for your review of John Cotton, and for the very kind recognition following. I believe I've answered your comments, so you may want to take a look. Your comments are very important to me, because I've done a lot of research on the article, and would like to promote it further. Also, nice work on the Third epistle of John. Would be great to see this kind of scholarship on all the books. Sarnold17 (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Women's Worldwide Web
Hi Cerebellum, hope you're doing well! I received an email that my article has been reviewed and penalized once again (not by you) and with out giving me some advice. Could you be so kind to take a look, please? Your comments will help me improove it, if necessary. Also, I would like to ask you a question, if I may: I am living in Paris, and translated the article into French. I submitted it to fr.Wikipedia.org (it was refused) and asked me to use intewikis. I am not an expert, so I followed the guideline in order to creat women's worldwide web (empowering women) tag on the wikidata, in order to allow the interwikis on English version. I am really lost... What can I do? Your advice is valuable for me! Thanks in advance for your attention to this message. Wishing you a lovely day! GabyLevy (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 15:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{||}

Editor of the Week
User:Khazar2 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
 * I nominate Editor Cerebellum, an all-around terrific Wikipedian. Active since 2007, Cerebellum has accumulated nearly 9,000 edits. She/he is notable for her/his helpfulness and courtesy: she/he has reviewed hundreds of nominations at Articles for creation and follows up patiently on the talk pages of new users who submit there; she/he participates regularly in AfD discussions and cleanup; and she/he has conducted Good Article reviews on a variety of topics, giving friendly encouragement to both the nominators of articles that pass and those that fail. In February 2013, Cerebellum brought Third Epistle of John to Good Article status, the first time any book of the Christian Bible achieved that distinction. Cerebellum's kindness and diligence show Wikipedia at its best.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: Thanks again for your efforts!  Go  Phightins  !  16:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry I didn't know your gender--I thought to ask might spoil the surprise of the award. Congratulations, and thanks again for all your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Congrats on the award and all the fine work contributed to improvement of wiki!--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Cerebellum's kindness and diligence show Wikipedia at its best". Thank you for the example you set. ```Buster Seven   Talk  18:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there Cerebellum. I haven't worked with you, but taking a look at your talk page it sounds like your award is well-deserved!  Congrats! Gandydancer (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, thank you guys for the recognition! Very encouraging and humbling :) --Cerebellum (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Congratulations for this award, and thank you for all you do on Wikipedia :) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 June newsletter
We are down to our final 16: the 2013 semi-finals are upon us. A score of 321 was required to survive round 3, further cementing this as the most competitive WikiCup yet; round 3 was survived in 2012 with 243 points, in 2011 with 76 points and in 2010 with 250 points. The change may in part be to do with the fact that more articles are now awarded bonus points, in addition to more competitive play. Reaching the final has, in the past, required 573 points (2012, a 135% increase on the score needed to reach round 4), 150 points (2011, a 97% increase) and 417 points (2010, a 72% increase). This round has seen over a third of participants claiming points for featured articles (with seven users claiming for multiple featured articles) and most users have also gained bonus points. However, the majority of points continue to come from good articles, followed by did you know articles. In this round, every content type was utilised by at least one user, proving that the WikiCup brings together content contributors from all corners of the project.

Round 3 saw a number of contributions of note. claimed the first featured topic points in this year's competition for her excellent work on topics related to Maya Angelou, the noted American author and poet. We have also continued to see high-importance articles improved as part of the competition: was awarded a thoroughly well-earned 560 points for her featured article Middle Ages and 102 points for her good article Battle of Hastings. Good articles James Chadwick and Stanislaw Ulam netted 102 and 72 points respectively, while 72 points were awarded to  for each of Władysław Sikorski and Emilia Plater, both recently promoted to good article status. Collaborative efforts between WikiCup participants have continued, with, for example, and  being awarded 180 points each for their featured article on Boletus luridus.

A rules reminder: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on the 29/30 June, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. We are currently seeing concern about the amount of time people have to wait for reviews, especially at GAC- if you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 09:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Photo consensus discussion at Talk:Rick Remender
Hi. Can you offer your opinion regarding the Infobox photo discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 17:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Psychic TV/PTV3 – Mr Alien Brain vs. The Skinwalkers (CD & DVD, 2X12") (2008) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Psychic TV/PTV3 – Mr Alien Brain vs. The Skinwalkers&. Since you had some involvement with the Psychic TV/PTV3 – Mr Alien Brain vs. The Skinwalkers (CD & DVD, 2X12") (2008) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). —Torchiest talkedits 12:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for your GA review of Hegemony or Survival; much appreciated! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Best of wishes on your recently-initiated RFA!
I just wanted to send you this message to wish you the best wishes for you recent self-nominated RFA! As many may have said, this week will be filled with challenges and stress that will show how you would handle your responses (and, for that matter, immediate responses during the RFA process) in regards to anything that comes along with earning the "mop". Regardless of the outcome (or how I personally end up voting), I wish you the best and hope that this week will be a welcome challenge and achievement to you and your experiences on Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, I appreciate it :) --Cerebellum (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Likewise, best wishes for the RfA. Wifione  Message 16:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Re your response to Stfg, you might like to read up on the details of the various deletion processes before wading in, if you are elected -- afaik, you can't PROD an article that's been through AfD, even if the result was no consensus. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite right, thank you! --Cerebellum (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Good luck and Some Qs at your RfA
Hi Cerebellum, Good luck for your RfA. You appears to be a good candidate and I tend to support you. I have asked some question, but I read your comment to the first neutral vote which has slightly overlapping concerns after posting the questions. I hope you don't mind still answering those.--Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 04:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your interest! I'm of course more than happy to answer your questions.  --Cerebellum (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

Advance congratulations!
Cerebellum, let me take the opportunity to convey to you my advance congratulations on an RfA that is evidently going to be closed as successful in the next two hours or so. Please feel free to ask me or other administrators for any help in administration; from scripts to procedure knowledge, anything that can assist you in handling administration better. Again, thanks for offering to administrate. Have fun!  Wifione  Message 21:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much Wifione for all your help and support! I'll probably be asking you questions soon :) --Cerebellum (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You are now an administrator
Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to get in touch on my talk page. WJBscribe (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Congrats, you're now a sysop!  ///Euro Car  GT  23:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) --Cerebellum (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Let me know if you have any questions I can help with. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Congratulations and good luck!  JianhuiMobile talk 06:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, feel free to raid my monobook for some nifty block rationale scripts that some kind soul put there. As you are mainly a content contributor one area of adminship that you might want to get involved in is handing out the Autopatrolled userright. Every now and then some of us go on trawls of editors who have contributed over 50 articles and it never ceases to amaze me how many neglected colleagues we encounter in the process.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! ```Buster Seven   Talk  00:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Congratulations - 0% opposition too! Oddbodz (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Heh, just give it time :) Thank you though. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Congrats on becoming an admin, but...
...you seem to have hit a couple snags already. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Official Album: The Happiest Celebration on Earth – Walt Disney World Resort Album as delete, but apparently forgot to delete the page. I've nominated it for WP:CSD based on that, so someone should get to it soon, but just a heads up. Thanks, Ansh666 08:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, you're right - thank you for letting me know! I've deleted it now.  --Cerebellum (talk) 08:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just doing what I can to help out! Cheers, Ansh666 08:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * No worries! I appreciate the thought you put into your comment on the RfA and you being willing to change your mind.  --Cerebellum (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Help for admins
There's a whole host of useful scripts for admins in  my  User:Kudpung/vector.js that  you  can plunder. Some of them add extra tabs to  your page top, some add new things to  the Twinkle dropdowns, and some just have some nice surprises. They all  work -  at  least  when the Wiki  software is working. I wouldn't  be without  them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thank you very much! --Cerebellum (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
For recognizing the work of one of my students :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course! Thank you for your work on that class!  --Cerebellum (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you so much for recognizing my work on Toshio Narahashi. I plan to write about more scientists, and it's encouraging to see that experienced users like yourself appreciate the content. Thanks again for reviewing the article and sending your feedback! Chicrunner79 (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Turbine_Flats_Project
Thanks for the ping! Can you help me figure out how the article failed WP:COMPANY? Did the sources just not provide the necessary "depth of coverage"? ~ JoshDuffMan (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review
I've nominated this article for deletion at Articles for deletion/Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review; I'm notifying you because you accepted it at AfC  DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * ditto at Articles for deletion/Jedediah Bila  DGG ( talk ) 21:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

afc and promotionalism
I think you are considerably more permissive than I would be  about promotionalism in articles from AfC. I've identified a few articles about subjects that are probably notable, but where the article is so promotional that I would not have accepted it. I'm not intending to say that I am necessarily right, and I know that consensus is very variable on the question of promotionalism, for which there are no absolute standards, and I also know that I am considerable less permissive here than I would have been 2 or 3 years ago. But the difference seems striking enough that it's worth a discussion.

The two articles above are ones I think clearly non-notable as well as promotional. I've identified some others, back from very recently to a year ago, that I think notable enough for an article and might perhaps be rescued by rewriting,   which I consequently do not want to nominate for deletion if it can be avoided. (However, I do not have time to fix these--I have time only to work on those of undoubtedly high notability and those of special interest to me.)
 * INJAZ
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Russian Union of Engineers
 * , I've worked on this before but there's lots more to do and I can't read the sources. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Russian Club of Financial Directors
 * ❌, this one's even worse. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Rinaldo Brutoco
 * ✅--Cerebellum (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Wealth Lab
 * , some excessive information removed. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * PrivacyStar
 * ✅--Cerebellum (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * AEDesign -- this is one where I also doubt notability but need to check further.
 * Nominated for deletion. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Chevereto
 * ❌, not sure what needs to be done here. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Erika Karp
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * European Ideas Network
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Certified Water Technologist
 * PRODed. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Scott D. Anthony
 * ❌, looks OK to me. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

and to a lesser correctable degree, that I would have accepted but myself modified
 * Association of Christian Librarians
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Redeeming Our Communities
 * ✅ --Cerebellum (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * European Renal Association – European Dialysis and Transplant Association

Some are not particularly promotional, but may not be notable :
 * DAS Collection
 * This one's marginal but there are two good sources so I think it's ok   --Cerebellum (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 9flats
 * Seems notable to me. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * SysIQ, Inc.
 * Lots of junk refs, but some substantial coverage in [Google Books. --[[User:Cerebellum|Cerebellum]] (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Swimming Pool & Spa Association of Australia
 * Not too sure about this one - there are lots of random Google News results from the 80s, but I can't tell if they constitute substantial coverage or not. I'm inclined to give it the benefit of the debt since it has at least been around for a while. --Cerebellum (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

There are also some where I have some doubt consensus would accept the notability if challenged, but where I personally would defend it, such as Adam Gussen and other losing political candidates from major parties. I rather doubt the notability of Ahna O'Reilly (only one significant role, which is a little excessive to call co-star) but I am not sure of notability standards here, and I rarely get involved with such articles. I thing Altegris is notable, but I think the sources inadequate to show it.

In the context of the increase in paid and promotional editing, I think we need to be much more sensitive. Among the things I look for are business or administrative jargon, adjectives of importance, use of bullets instead of paragraphs, and listing of more than the CEO in the infobox. I think most of the article I indicated were made by PR editors, either outside or inside the organization,on the basis of their similarity to the thousands of known such articles. I know I' m hitting you with a good many of these at once, and everyone has made mistakes in this area, myself included.  DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cerebellum (talk), Thanks so much for your review and feedback for the AFC I submitted yesterday for The Wisdom Tree (Film). I see your pov. Having fixed the areas of issue, I believe it is neutral, with only the facts presented. I would truly appreciate your review of my resubmission. Am hoping it receives the green flag for inclusion in Wikipedia. :) Thank you for your time, and speedy feedback.Pictowrit (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC) pictowrit

Hi again, Cerebellum (talk) Okay, so I've paid great attention to present just facts about the film. Also, have edited the text substantially, in view of your comments and suggestions for a more acceptable article. Thank you for the advice and your time. :) Now here's the bind I was in thus far, which I'd like to draw your attention to. The film has not been released to the general public yet. In fact, as the article indicates, only limited people have seen the film. Hence, at this point providing further references from newspaper articles or citations from elsewhere is not feasible. Nevertheless I have taken utmost care to ensure there's neither fluff, nor peacock enhancement on the story, nor for the characters. These are just as depicted in the story. As far as the actors go, I've no other source but IMDb at this point, but have knocked off the little additional info I had in previously. Now there are just 'external' links. In all sincerity I believe I've presented a totally neutral point of view. Truly would appreciate your happy nod on this one. :) This is an article about a film with bare bones information. Hope to read this article here on Wikipedia. :) Thanks a bunch. Pictowrit (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)pictowrit

Thank you very much
Thanks very much for your review and suggestions for the Scott McDonald article. I am going to continue working on better sources. I appreciate your assistance. This is my first submitted article so your guidance is invaluable! Kingman13 (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

John Coxall
Hi, I've proposed this page which you created for deletion. I can't find any serious sources on the guy, and as someone who was briefly the mayor of Cairns more than a century ago he doesn't have inherent notability under WP:POLITICIAN. Frickeg (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Galalae
I'm new to this so don't know if this is the right medium to discuss something with Cerebellum. If it is, I would like to know in more detail exactly what objections cerebellum hasto the article written on Kevin Galalae. I look forward to receiving your reply. Best wishes. Ian Morley Ecogrow (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not the reviewer for this draft, but i have reviewed a number of AfC submissions in the past, and I took a quick look at it. It seem to me that is is written from the PoV of a supporter of the subject, not from a neutral point of view. Specifically, several of the subject's actions were clearly controversial -- ad the very least two governments seem to have been opposed to his actions, and no doubt others objected also, but we don't seem to get any opinions or views from those who oppose the subject's views. Moreover, very controversial claims (such as "the chemical and biological methods used since 1945 by the United Nations and countries around the world to undermine human fertility.") are presented as unchallenged facts. Extraordinary claims (such as " the Canadian authorities have coopted doctors to falsify Galalae’s medical record" and " He was falsely charged with harassment, thrown out of his own home, separated from his children, cut off from his own bank account, deprived of all his computers, thrown penniless into the street, and bound by recognizance conditions designed to bankrupt him financially and emotionally") are sourced to a wiki and what appears to be a highly partisan source. This is not good enough for such claims. Indeed this is probably a violation of our Living people policy as well as of verifiability. DES (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Article for creation/Kevin Galalae
You declined a submission on 23rd November 2013. I would like to edit this article so that it is in a form acceptable to you. I'm completely new to the ways of Wikipedia and see this task as being rather daunting! If there is any way you could explain your objections and give me a little guidance as to how I could put things right I would be very grateful. Best wishes. Ian MorleyEcogrow (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Giving you a heads up
Hey, just giving you a heads up that an article you accepted from AfC a few years ago, Peter Wanderfalke, was recently deleted as a hoax. This isn't a post to chastise you or anything, just letting you know what happened. It appears that the sources on the article weren't genuine and there was no mention of him in any scholarly or reputable sources. I figure that if you know of any proof that he exists, we can re-create the article and re-open the AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Article for creation/Scott McDonald
Thanks again for your review and suggestions for my Scott McDonald article. Your feedback last November was invaluable. I did resubmit and was rejected, which really helped me learn where I was still lacking on the sourcing front. I believe the page is much stronger now and was hoping to seek your advice on next steps. If you feel it is improved and ready for re-submission, I would be more confident adding back to the queue. If there are other improvements you recommend, I will gladly heed your advice. Thanks so much. This has been a fantastic education and I am grateful for all the feedback received from great editors along this journey. All the best. Kingman13 (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Wil Wheaton photo discussion
Hi. Can you offer your opinion in the consensus subthread of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

19:58:50, 24 July 2014 review of submission by Cprosper1
Dear Cerebellum,

You recently declined the Juliette Longuet draft. I have been editing it so that it meets Wiki standards. However, it would help if I knew specifically which areas I fell short. Was there an in issue with the wording or the references?

Best, Cprosper1

Cprosper1 (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

20:02:29, 24 July 2014 review of submission by Cprosper1
Cprosper1 (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding ISPmanager deletion
Hi, we added the following sources and for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ISPmanager as you have previously asked us.

Those sources are considered reliable enough for our Russian version of the article. Why it is not so for the English version? Those are two books officially published, they are independent, and they are not the articles that were paid for by the company. Why they were not accepted. Please, help to resolve the issue.

Kind regards, Ksenya


 * Fixed formatting above Jim1138 (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I have added the information at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:ISPmanager I'm ready to answer all your questions regarding the original texts and their translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksenyaphil (talk • contribs) 04:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Mark Kritzman
An article that you declined, Draft:Mark Kritzman is now in article space Mark Kritzman. It appears that the two editors involved declared company affiliation on the user page. is also active on the article. Boston200 requested it be deleted, it was moved to User:200Boston/Mark Kritzman, but then copy/pasted back to Mark Kritzman. Not quite sure what's going on. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up! 200Boston has posted an explanation here, and since the article was close to being acceptable at AFC I'm inclined to keep it in article space and correct the deficiencies instead of deleting and making 200Boston go through AFC gain. Sound OK to you?  --Cerebellum (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

21:12:15, 28 July 2014 review of submission by Fionnloch
Hi Cerebellum, Naturally I'm disappointed by my draft entry on Monstrous Regiment Theatre Company being declined, but more importantly, I'm puzzled by the reasons given for this (that it reads more like an advertisement, needs to support its claims with independent sources etc). I would be grateful for some explanation or elaboration of these reasons, since otherwise I won't know how to go about revising the draft for resubmission. I certainly hadn't intended to write anything that was 'promotional', and I tried to avoid expressing any opinions about the quality, value etc of the company's work, other than to state that it 'figures prominently in studies of feminist theatre' in Britain during the period concerned. I cited six independent, published sources to support this claim (all of which are pretty standard, and representative, works on feminist theatre), and I don't think it's misleading, exaggerated, biased or the like. I thought this was a reasonable way of establishing 'notability' (assuming that feminist theatre is itself notable - and Wikipedia is 'calling' for more entries in this category, something that I had noticed before starting to do the background reading for this draft entry). Altogether in the entry I make use of 10 different sources, with 27 citations. Only one of these sources, cited 4 times, is written by a member/members of the company (Hanna ed 1991). It is itself quite frequently cited in academic studies of feminist theatre, and is very much 'inside story' rather than 'self-promotion' in character. It would be a bit odd to exclude it as a source, but I could probably do so without too much difficulty, if its use is regarded as problematic. (Perhaps I should add that 'I am not Hanna'!). Otherwise, re-reading the draft this evening, the only things that strike me as potentially problematic are a few bits of phrasing, such as 'placing women's lives and experiences centre stage', 'incensed by…'. 'resolved to…'. The first of these was used in some early publicity produced by the company, but was then taken up by many others, and has now become a fairly standard way in which people writing about feminist theatre characterise what feminist companies were trying to do, so I thought it would be OK to use it here. Again, this could be amended without much difficulty. However, beyond what I've noted above, I don't understand what is being objected to about the draft: illumination requested, please! Fionnloch (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Fionnloch

Fionnloch (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, Cerebellum, for your speedy reply and helpful suggestions. I have now made changes aimed at removing non-neutral language, and have resubmitted the revised draft.Fionnloch (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Fionnloch

ISPmanager
Hi, yes, sure, I will make translation during the day. Can I post it here or send it to your email? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksenyaphil (talk • contribs) 00:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, Cerebellum. Thanks a lot! I've resubmitted the article but the new user Davis declined it again. I hope you'll help me, because I tried to do my best to meet the requirements.


 * Hi, Cerebellum

Thank you for your help once again. Any news regarding the article about ISPmanager? David asked me to delete the references to the company's web-site, so I deleted them and now I'm waiting for approval. Can you advise me something? You told that everything looks good...


 * I did not see you message, sorry! I have resubmitted the article right now, please check. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksenyaphil (talk • contribs) 01:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Martin Hill wiki page
Thank you so much for your advice. It was very constructive and helpful! I edited it, hopefully making the tone much more neutral and formal. Once again, thanks! Mharrison98 (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)mharrison98

Thanks so much for your constructive criticism! I've fixed what I hope are all of the issues- I never realized how hard writing objectively is! Anyways, thanks a ton for being so helpful! Mharrison98 (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)mharrison98

BeFrugal
Thanks so much for your constructive criticism on the page. I have added some more reputable and recent, post 2012, sources from Bloomberg BussinessWeek, BBC, CNET and Reviewed.com. I hope this addresses your concerns about the original submission. Thanks again. Train1234 (talk) 9:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Train1234

Per your recommendations I have cleaned up the page further, combining the Products and Services section. Thanks again for your speedy response. Train1234 (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Train1234