User talk:CharlieEchoTango/Archive 2

College Magazine
This article, which you helped start from an AFC request, was recently speedily deleted; I undeleted it (see the talk page) and did some work to improve it, but it and its proposer could use a bit more help in getting better third-party sources and moving beyond start-class quality. Thanks for your work on AFC!

Regards, –SJ + 07:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This was clearly not some speedy material here, and thanks for undeleting this article. I'll see if and how I can improve the article, but more importantly I will leave a message on the proposer's talk page sometime today or tomorrow, and see what can be done from there. Thanks for letting me know about this!
 * Cheers -  CharlieEchoTango ]] 20:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Help with New Article
Hi CharlieEchoTango, I have another question left over from our back and forth on my talk page: How do I attract people’s attention to help with the article? Do I post a template? Thanks so much for the help. Zblumz (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Turf Equipment Technician
Thanks for your review of the Turf Equipment Technician article. I added some prose to it but the format is all messed up now. I am not too good at the wiki coding. I am trying to get the page up there so that others can add to it as many have more expertise on this subject than I do. I re-submitted. We will see if it gets through this time. Thanks again for your review. Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Temgco (talk • contribs) 21:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Mark undefined,
 * I'm sorry I haven't been very clear in my first review, and I see you have put a lot of effort into writing prose as suggested, thank you. The first issue was that the article was a list of indiscriminate information, the issue now is that the article is a text that reads like an essay. It's not really your fault, it's the fact that the subject is not inherently encyclopedic (job descriptions generally are not).
 * That being said, I am sure some of the text can be added into other articles, I'm thinking of Groundskeeping and Golf course turf, for example. What do you think?
 * Cheers -  CharlieEchoTango ]] 21:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

turf equipment tech
Thanks again for the help. I did check out the groundskeeper wiki and others and wanted to add to that. I thought the best way would be to make a separate, unique page for the turf equipment tech. Groundskeeper is more of a European term - we use Golf Course Superintendent (GCS) here in the US - hence the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America ( GCSAA). You mentioned that mine was more of a job description. What is the differentiation between that and a groundskeeper or other occupation listed? How do you propose that I proceed. Can I copy what I have done and add it to one of the other articles? If the GCSAA has an article, can I make an article for the IGCEMA? Is there a submission procedure like I am doing now that gets reviewed if I add to another post? Thanks again for all of your help. Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Temgco (talk • contribs) 02:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Face-blush.svg Thank you!  CharlieEchoTango ]] 00:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Re Denis Juneau:
Ooops! J'ai oublié de signer- et (même d'écrire?) mon msg, au sujet de l'article sur Denis Juneau, pour lequel j'aurais de nouveau besoin d'un petit coup-de-pouce...Merci--Pierrelaurenti (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Salut, je suis pas sur de saisir ta question. Qu'est-ce que je peux faire exactement? Laisse moi savoir en détail et je serais ravi de te donner un coup de main. Face-wink.svg  CharlieEchoTango ]] 20:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/M.A. John
I don't really understand which part of this article is not based on fact. I have given sufficient references that anyone can easily traced on the web. 3 newspaper articles, 1 external link, 1 published book on research related to this article, still you are saying these are not facts. It is really disappointing for a newcomer in wikipedia, sorry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiananarchist (talk • contribs) 13:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!


 * I declined the article because it (or some parts of it) read more like an essay than an encyclopedia article, which seemed the most appropriate reason to decline, although there is also neutral point of view issues.
 * Your main question is « which part of this article is not based on fact? », so here is a very small excerpt I chose from the article to illustrate its issues. I tagged the relevant parts :
 * The KPCC President K.K. Viswanathan pleaded to John to withdraw these candidates and promised to revoke the suspension immediately after the election. If John's 24 candidates were in the field, CPM Front would have definitely won the election, Kerala political history would have been different. But John realized this better than anyone else, and Radical Forum members though expelled from Congress did not want CPM to win. The candidates were withdrawn. After the election, K.K. Viswanathan forgot about his promise!
 * Articles must be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia. Every statement made about a person must be supported by a reference using WP:Inline citations. This is English Wikipedia policy, you can find it at WP:V.


 * Let's cut the above excerpt in smaller parts :
 * The KPCC President K.K. Viswanathan pleaded to John to withdraw these candidates and promised to revoke the suspension immediately after the election.
 * Where can I (the reader) find out if this is true? Statements like this should always be supported by an inline citation, using  tags. The inline citation serves to identify which reference was used to state the claim. If you cannot find a reference for a claim, than it is original research and is not permitted on Wikipedia.
 * If John's 24 candidates were in the field, CPM Front would have definitely won the election, Kerala political history would have been different.
 * Again, this needs inline citations. Who said that Kerala political history would have been different? Is this is a conclusion you came to yourself, than it is not acceptable as it amounts to original research and personal synthesis. If it is a conclusion that was published elsewhere, than you can add it, by directly citing the source of the conclusion : « According to the Delhi Times, Kerala political history would have been different ». Same thing for « definitely ». See Manual of Style (words to watch)
 * But John realized this better than anyone else, and Radical Forum members though expelled from Congress did not want CPM to win.
 * Now this is the biggest issue with the excerpt. « realized this better than anyone else » is simply not conform to the neutrality policy and is an opinion, not a fact. If someone published this opinion, you could use it between quotes, being very careful about the balance between praise and criticism. Wikipedia articles are not written to promote a subject.
 * The candidates were withdrawn. After the election, K.K. Viswanathan forgot about his promise!
 * An additional note about the use of punctuation. « ! » is not a formal way of ending a sentence and gives a tone - and undue weight - to the alleged fact that he « forgot about his promise ». And that alleged fact also needs an inline citation.


 * To learn how to add inline citations, see Citing sources
 * To learn more about the verifiability policy, see Verifiability
 * To learn more about the neutrality policy, see Neutral point of view


 * I do certainly hope that you take the time to review these comments and improve the article, and if you have any more questions, please do ask, and I will do my best to help you.


 * Again, welcome to Wikipedia!


 * Cheers -  CharlieEchoTango ]] 21:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

article Denis Juneau
Merci de me revenir la-dessus. En fait, il n'y avait pas de question précise. Je me demandais si tu étais là et dispo ( avant-hier donc) et depuis, j'ai fait qqs progrès et qqs gaffes aussi. Entre autre chose, j'ai -comme -mêlé les références avec les citations, ce qui m'a valu la réprimande ( en rouge) qui trône sur la page actuelle. Malheureusement je ne peux m'en occuper de suite, dois laisse en plan juqu'à demain sans doute...Seras-tu ds les environs demain? Si oui, je te refais signe, ok? --Pierrelaurenti (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Je ne suis pas certain si tu parles de l'article en anglais ou en français. Celui en anglais me semble correct, voir historique, il semble avoit été corrigé par d'autres éditeurs. Un conseil, fais attention à écrire tes "edit summary" en anglais, car beaucoup de gens sur ce Wikipédia ne comprendrons pas « petit ajout ».
 * Je serais dans les environs demain, n'hésite pas à m'écrire.
 * Bonne fin de journée! Face-smile.svg  CharlieEchoTango ]] 21:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

IRC chat
Hello, there is an upcoming, very informal discussion on IRC on the freenode channel (quick webchat link) on the 6th March 2011 at 17:00 UTC concerning ways to improve help over IRC, and other matters relating to Wiki?edia channels in general, but mostly about #wikipedia-en-help.

This is just a friendly, informal chat. Nothing official, no fixed agenda. There is nothing 'secretive' about it - anyone is quite welcome. Some of you had a chat there, the other day. We wanted to invite them to carry on discussions, at a prearranged time - and thought it courteous to ask group contacts and channel founders too. Or if you signed up manually.

If you aren't at all interested, feel free to remove yourself from the names we've spammed this to, which is in User:123Hedgehog456/IRC informal chat users. If you didn't sign up, well, people have been adding loads of names to the list, so someone might have accidentally added your name.

Thank you,  Chzz  ► and  1 2 3  Hedgehog  4 5 6  19:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC).

Message made by Chzz, with help from 123Hedgehog456.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of 123Hedgehog456 (talk) at 22:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 28 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Article
I include two newspaper link in my article. Please review and allow wikipedea to publish the article. The singer Rupankar is a modern Bengali song writer and singer. Most of the reviews in the Bengali newspaper. Please let me know which will help me to update the article so you can reconsider.

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpingfriend (talk • contribs)

Bernie_M_Smith
 Chzz  ► 18:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

SPANOS Industries
Hello! I added the article that was sent to correction, I did corrections and added resources and I want to send it please to review. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Spanos_Industries

I asked your associate who was guiding and helping me, but then I saw that u did the last review of the  article. Please can you tell me if now it is OK? Many thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kala kala (talk • contribs) 10:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

article Denis Juneau
C'était pour l'article en français que j'avais besoin d'aide- mais entretemps, j'ai eu droit à la visite d'un autre éditeur, qui m'a tout arrangé ça! J'étais très surpris et surtout soulagé, comme je m'attendais à me remettre à débrouiller tout ça. Il ne me manquerait qu'à trouver une image pour illustrer. Je vais vérifier si celle qui illustre le prix Borduas est libre de droit- sans doute pas? Sinon, je vais essayer de trouver ds les archives de famille. Merci encore de ton aide et support- PS:et dorénavant, je me souviendrai de ton nom correctement :)--Pierrelaurenti (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Welcome back to Wikipedia! Glad you're not retired anymore.

Logan Talk Contributions 02:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC) 


 * Thanks :) CharlieEchoTango (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Rollbacker and Reviewer

 * I granted your request for restoration of your voluntarily relinquished rights. Welcome back and happy editing.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - CharlieEchoTango (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Agri-Fab, Inc. page
Hi,

Thank you for reviewing my page and giving me some constructive feedback. I can see how you said it looked like an advertisement. I have taken out most of the pictures. However I believe that ones such as the picture of the lawn sweeper are critical to understanding the company. I don't think many people even know what a lawn sweeper is. I have also added in some references and I hope that now the page is acceptable. Thanks a lot! Czx78 (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi . Thank you for your contributions! I edited the article to clean it up, add internal links and remove some of the images. I disagree that pictures are critical to understanding the company, especially multiple pictures. They could be useful on a page describing an item, but not on the company page, and especially not a picture used for marketing purposes. This could even be seen as spam. As for the potential reader question of "what is a lawn sweeper", I added an internal link to the relevant Wikipedia article, lawn sweeper. You can do this yourself by adding brackets  to a word or expression, and it will link to the article (if it exists on Wikipedia). Exemple,   links to Google.
 * Again, thank you for your contributions. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 03:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Czx78 (talk) 03:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

AFC
I changed the reason of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pedro González Reinoso after checking the source code. the total text was hidden in a ref tag (which I removed). Next time be careful with "blue boxes" XD mabdul 09:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My mistake! Thank you very much for the correction. What blue box?  Cheers :) CharlieEchoTango (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

that blue boxes XD Normally unexperienced users do it by mistake and if there is such a box, then there is normally also content! mabdul 17:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Update on Enterprise Architect
Hello CharlieEchoTango,

A deep thanks for reveiwing this article. I have taken up on your key comment and made updates to the references to cite the external sources from where they originate. References 1..11 now cover the external authors, most are published externaly, however some are published within the product web site.

Of course the references to the help-files 11 ... are fixed to the product web site, but I do hope that these give the reader a reference to veiw more detail on the fuctionality of what is only briefly described on the page.

Let me know if this is not appropriate.

Again thanks for your contribution. Any other comments are welcome.

Leggattst (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi . The article, in my opinion, is okay as it stands now, which is why I moved in the mainspace. The references seem okay at first glance, obviously, this being a technical product/concept, it will not have the kind of coverage expected of most other articles. So far, I do not see anything inappropriate, but if any other editor does, I am sure they will contact you to share their concerns. Thank you for you taking the time to write and edit the article, but most importantly, thank you for caring. Cheers - CharlieEchoTango (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Help with my article
Hello! I was wondering if you could me with my article? You recently reviewed my Article for Creation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jurga_Zilinskiene) but rejected it based on it being not neutral enough. I was wondering if there was anything specific that made it too biased? Is it with regards to the language used or certain content? I understand that you might be too busy to help but if you had some time to help a budding Wikipedia user then I would be really greatful! Thanks very much either way - I look forward to hearing from you soon. CJGC (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Will comment shortly, standby. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment below. 16:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * RE
 * Hi there undefined, thank you for your contributions!
 * Here are a few issues I came accross when declining the submission :


 * 1. Puffery :
 * humble origins (clarify; humble is a subjective word)
 * huge success (success)
 * single-handedly (unnecessary and probably not entirely true)
 * huge media interest (media interest)
 * personally given (given)
 * These are all terms that should be avoided, see WP:Manual of Style (words to watch). This is just a small sample I took from the introduction of the article, there are more.


 * 2. Sentences like "gaining recognition for her entrepreneurship with the Shell Live Wire Award for Young Entrepreneurs in 2003" are also turned in a way that could be interpreted as showing off the subject. It could simply be "for which she was awarded the Shell Live Wire Award for Young Entrepreneurs in 2003".


 * 3. Facts are good, but adding her own quotes is a bit overblown in my opinion. An encyclopedic article is best kept short, this is not an interview or a news article, and quoting the subject serves little purpose here.


 * 4. Also, is there any relevant criticism of this individual or her work? For example you cited a "Capitalist" column to include overblown praise, is there a "Communist" column that would criticize her or her work? I'm just asking, because I do not know the subject. If there is criticism however, it would be sensible to summarize it appropriately in the article, in a spirit of fairness and neutrality.


 * Once these issues are addressed, don't hesitate to resubmit the article, and I or another reviewer will be happy to re-evaluate. If you have any other questions or need further clarification, just ask and I'll do my best to answer them. Again, thank you for your contributions - CharlieEchoTango (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I would like to sincerely thank you for your help! I will look at making the changes now and resubmit my article. You have been a great help! CJGC (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I appologize.
"Lol i'm on wikipedia", that edit was not made by me, but I laughed and posted the link on my page. I knew it would have been automatically edited out, so I saved the screenshot given to me by someone else for "Shits and giggles". I did not personally vandalize Wikipedia, in fact, that whole event of the person sending that to me got me talking with my agent on how to correctly edit Wikipedia with a biography and current work, which is when I contacted you. It was a joke from a fan, I did not edit that in there. It has been removed from my fan page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tshawn09 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but vandalism is no laughing matter. You are right, it would have been edited out pretty quickly, but it takes time from an editor who could be doing more useful things, it consumes project resources, and it's just not a good idea. But your point is taken, and I will assume good faith and thus remove the warning I left on your talk page. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The Cross and the Triquetra
Bold text Hello, I have tried to create a page for a book titled "The Cross and the Triquetra" four times now, and four times it has been rejected for quote Unreliable sources. I am the books author, and in addition to listing myself, I have listed the publishing company, and the books library of Congress ID number. So what else do you people want from me in regards to a reliable source? Please get back to me as soon as you can. Thank you. Robert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.71.240.37 (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there Robert, have you read the link provided in the decline rationale? -> WP:RS. Basically, you are not a reliable source to establish the notability of the book, nor is your publishing company, nor is a number. As outlined in WP:BOOKS, the book must have been the subject of at least two reviews by independent, reliable, third-party sources to pass the threshold of notability. Facts in the article should also be accompanied by inline citations, citing independent third-party sources, for verifiability purposes and to comply with the policy of "no original research". To help you with inline citations, a great place to start is WP:INLINE or WP:REFB. Oh, and because you are the book's author, you may also want to read WP:COI. Cheers - CharlieEchoTango (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You will also notice your contact information has been redacted for privacy reasons. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Matt_Blashaw
Hello! You recently reviewed my article and turned it down citing the notability of the subject. Here is the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Matt_Blashaw

Maybe you can help me out with my confusion. I wrote the article based on the same source from two other articles that have been approved. Amy Matthews and Chris Grundy. Maybe you can clarify for me what else is needed in order for the article to be notable? Thanks for your help!

lynco123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynco123 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi there ,


 * First of all, the two other articles probably shouldn't be on Wikipedia in the first place, and have many issues, including a lack of sources. Both of them did not go through the Articles for Creation process and are quite old (2008), so probably went unnoticed when they were created. But even if something bad is on Wikipedia, doesn't mean that we should add more.


 * So let's focus on the article you submitted. Right now, there is simply not enough references included to establish that the subject meets the general notability guideline. You need to show that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. For example, media articles about the subject, etc. Just a preventive note : Youtube, Facebook, Wikipedia, IMDb and other user-submitted content sites are not generally not considered reliable sources. Reliable sources must have some form of editorial control and integrity.


 * When you have gathered two or three sources independent from each other and independent from the subject, you can use them to verify the facts stated in the article by using inline citations. This ensure compliance with the policy on no original research and that the article's content is verifiable. This is especially important for biographies of living persons.


 * Here's a quick example : . You can learn more about citing sources at WP:REFB.


 * Feel free to ask if you have more questions or if I haven't been clear. When you think you have added enough sources to show that the subject meets the general notability guideline (GNG), feel free to resubmit your article.


 * Thank you for your contributions - CharlieEchoTango (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter Laufer article
Thanks for all your help. I edited everything I could through the "Honors and Awards" section. I'll work on "Books" tomorrow. Please let me know what you think so far.

Cheers, Terry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terry Phillips (talk • contribs) 03:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Great job on formatting the book section and sourcing the awards section. I moved the article to the mainspace, it is now at Peter Laufer.
 * I think the article overall is fine, but is probably too long and too detailed. While formatting it, I noticed some of the paragraphs were repetitive. If you can work on 'sanitizing' and compacting the article, it would be great. For exemple, there is no real need to have all the books listed in the prose when they are all in the list. Maybe only keep the more significant ones in the prose? But remember, there is no deadline on Wikipedia. And I'm sure other editors will edit it eventually, that's why wikis are so great!
 * Again, thank you for your contributions! Cheers - CharlieEchoTango (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Kilo Kapanel
your saying that my article has un reliable sources but the article was wrote by a writer at sacramento news and review newspaper in california what do i need to submit to prove i am a notable artist if you did any kind of research, then you would find plenty of reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitellentertainment (talk • contribs) 23:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello.
 * Your suggestion is essentially unsourced. You provided one citation, which refers to an article that is 1) offline, 2) from a local tabloid. With only one such source, the submission does not provide indication that the subject has received significant coverage from a variety of reliable, third-party publications.
 * Furthermore, the subject of the submission appears to fail the notability threshold set at WP:MUSIC.
 * The article also has plenty of other issues, starting with the quality (or lack thereof) of the prose, the neutrality (or lack thereof) of the tone, etc.
 * As for finding plenty of reliable sources, it's up to you to provide them, not me.
 * Thank you CharlieEchoTango (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

true i totally understand that its one source but i just edited the page and added an online source. also the sacramento news and review is not a tabloid it is a premier newspaper here in sacramento california. the thing is if you can let me know whats not real in my article that you feel then i can just take it out. because ive noticed a lot of artist that have wikipedia articles that hasnt did 80% as much of the stuff i have did. Kitellentertainment (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC) im signed with getty images and pump audio a company in new york and thanks to them alot of my songs are played on mtv and vh1 as background music i can send you my royalty statement. i would post that if i had a link for but i have proof of how notable i am in cali as im typing this i just heard my song played on 40 greatest pranks on vh1 as we speak. all im trying to do is add this article so my fans have a wikipedia connect to my name.Kitellentertainment (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability on Wikipedia is defined by the amount of significant coverage you have received in reliable, third-party sources. See WP:GNG. I don't need you to send me the royalty statement, I need you to provide reliable sources (external publications) that confirm your songs are played on MTV and VHL, and that someone noticed. More importantly, notability for musicians is established using the guidelines at WP:MUSIC, and at this point it appears you do not meet them. So unless you can show the subject (that would be you) has received significant coverage, there's little I can do. In the meantime, you may want to read the guidelines on autobiographies. Thank you. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion
Yesterday I prepared an article about a famous Lebanese designer, it falls within the category of Biography. in the bio, i put 2 picture and a small description of his collections.

my article name : Selim Mouzannar was deleted with reason: Unambiguous advertisement.

I read Wiki help and then removed the Collections paragraph and the pictures and then resubmitted the page.

Unfortunately I found it was also deleted today. can you please help.

thank you,

Issam Khatib — Preceding unsigned comment added by Issam.khatib (talk • contribs) 07:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Your article was deleted as blatant soapboxing. You can resubmit the page for review if you write with a neutral point of view, avoiding terms meant to show off the subject, and respecting copyright (writing in your own words and not uploading copyrighted pictures to Wikipedia). Thank you - CharlieEchoTango (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

History Section- Georgia Department of Defense
I understand why it may have been removed when I was creating the page, however I actually work for the office that created the webpage that houses the information I transferred to the Wikipedia page. I will revise how it is written for Wikipedia if that is necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgiaGuardsman (talk • contribs) 03:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that will be necessary, unless you want to donate the material to Wikipedia (that means releasing under a free license, knowing that the material could be used by anyone for any purpose, including commercially). If you accept to release the material under a free license, see Declaration of consent for all enquiries, otherwise, please rewrite the section in your own words (no direct copy, no close paraphrasing). Cheers and thank you for your contributions - CharlieEchoTango (talk) 03:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

About the City of Knowledge Wikipedia Article
Hello, thank you for reviewing the article. I have one question though; is it possible to be more specific regarding the parts in this article that are lacking the proper tone for a Wikipedia entry? The City of Knowledge is a translation of an article that has already been approved by Wikipedia in Spanish, you can access this article at this link: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciudad_del_Saber I will try and modify everything I can so it can be submitted again for review.

I thank you for your time,

Martín — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.218.255.3 (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Martin,
 * When I reviewed the article, I came accross a few paragraphs that are not written in a neutral fashion. An example is : "The City of Knowledge is a space for innovation, and Communication and Information Technologies (IT), are a driving force for that. Companies, research centers, and public and mixed projects live together in the park, with a focus on innovation, a state-of-the-art technology component and qualified human teams". "space for innovatio", "driving force", state-of-the-art" according to whom? There are numerous examples of this in the article, this is just a small sample of the promotional tone of it.
 * But now I have found something that is much more concerning : some of the text is copied from the organization's website (http://www.ciudaddelsaber.org/). This is a copyright violation, and Wikipedia takes it very seriously, therefore I blanked the submission. If you work for the organization, your organization can donate the material to Wikipedia at WP:CONSENT, releasing under a free license. Please note that if you chose to do so, the content will be available for use by anyone for any purpose, including commercial redistribution. Otherwise, please write the article in your own words (no direct copy, no paraphrase). Also note that even if you decide to donate the material to Wikipedia, you will have to rewrite the parts that promote the subject to comply with the neutrality policy.
 * Thank you. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. I also notified the Spanish Wikipedia of the copyright violation. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And, I just noticed that an article already exists on the English Wikipedia (since 2005) at Ciudad del Saber! CharlieEchoTango (talk) 05:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok now you have manage to put a hold in both articles. I understand the english one and will proceed to change the parts you don't find suitable, yet the spanish one was already approved and if you had taken the time to actually read the website you would have found that it has little to do with the tone used at the Ciudad del Saber wikipedia article. This leads me to think that you don't know how to speak, write or read in spanish and you are therefore the least suitable candidate to be putting restrictions in articles. Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marts13 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have taken the time to read the website. I have taken the time to see what was in the article, both the English version and the Spanish version, was a copyright violation, either a direct copy or a close paraphrase. So I informed the Spanish Wikipedia, including the person who approved the article, and they acknowledged their mistake, and now the article is tagged as a copyright violation, as it should be. This is a legal issue and it has little to do with my ability to speak, write or read in Spanish... or English for that matter. Thank you. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It definately does not look that way at all, the Spanish article was approved after a discussion that gave me the benefit of the doubt. Now this just seems like a dictatorial step towards restraining an article that had already been approved and reviewed. If it is a legal matter I will have no problem in getting the copyright and the article up. Just wished that there could be some other people involved in reviewing this article which are not so clearly biased. martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marts13 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My only bias is towards Wikipedia, and while I can understand your frustration, you shouldn't take it on me, I have been very cordial with you, so far.


 * Now, let me tell you what looks like copyright violations :


 * From the article : "La Ciudad del Saber constituye un espacio para la innovación utilizando Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación (TICs) como un motor para ello. Empresas, centros de investigación y proyectos públicos y mixtos conviven en el parque implementando una orientación innovadora, un componente tecnológico de última generación y equipos humanos calificados. Desarrollo de software, telecomunicaciones, electrónica, multimedia, aplicaciones para el sector logística, desarrollos para el e-gobierno, seguridad informática, outsorcing y soluciones corporativas, constituyen las áreas de desempeño de las empresas e instituciones de la Ciudad del Saber."
 * From the source : "La Ciudad del Saber es un espacio para la innovación y las Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación (TICs) son un motor para ello. Empresas, centros de investigación y proyectos públicos y mixtos conviven en nuestro parque siempre con una orientación innovadora, un componente tecnológico de última generación y equipos humanos altamente calificados. Desarrollo de software, telecomunicaciones, electrónica, multimedia, aplicaciones para el sector logística, desarrollos para el e-gobierno, seguridad informática, outsorcing, soluciones corporativas... las áreas de desempeño de las empresas e instituciones de la Ciudad del Saber son múltiples y complementarias."
 * From the article : "Desde la Ciudad del Saber operan instituciones nacionales e internacionales en educación ambiental, hay centros de investigación sobre el cambio climático, monitoreo ambiental (como el que ha desarrollo la NASA), empresas que trabajan en reforestación, en diversas vertientes del sector energético o en gestión de mecanismos de desarrollo limpio (MDL)."
 * From the source : "Estamos en el puente de las Américas y el Istmo de Panamá es, sin duda, uno de los tesoros medio Ambientales del planeta. Desde la Ciudad del Saber operan instituciones nacionales e internacionales de primera línea en educación ambiental, hay centros de investigación sobre el cambio climático, monitoreo ambiental (como el que ha desarrollo la NASA), empresas que trabajan en reforestación, en diversas vertientes del sector energético o en gestión de mecanismos de desarrollo limpio (MDL)."


 * This is pretty clear paraphrasing, I'm not making it up.
 * The website being copyrighted ("© Copyright 2011. Ciudad del Saber. Todos los derechos reservados."), this is simply not acceptable on Wikipedia. It has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with bias. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Los ejemplos que me has dado constan de información técnica que no se puede cambiar debido a que constituye la realidad sobre lo que es, y lo que se hace, en la Ciudad del Saber. Cambiarlo sería simplemente una manera de mentir y faltar a la realidad que es y que debe ser preservada siempre, sobretodo en Wikipedia, teniendo en cuenta que lo importante es informar al público. Lo importante en este articulo en cuestión es que se ha cambiado el tono de manera absoluta para que el artículo pudiese entrar dentro de los requisitos que requiere un espacio enciclopédico de información y educación como lo es Wikipedia. En ningún momento el artículo aspira a ser el mismo que se puede sacar de la página web pero si aspira a contar lo mismo con un tono parcial. Requisito sin duda para que pueda estar en Wikipedia y para que pueda ser leído por lectores que necesitan saber lo que es la Ciudad del Saber. Sugiero que se tome en cuenta de nuevo el artículo en español y el lúnes realizaré las modificaciones al artículo en inglés. Gracias. Marts13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marts13 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not speak Spanish, but from what I understood from the Google translation, you are saying that there is no other way to present the information. This is not exactly true : facts are not copyrighted, but the way to express them is. You have to write in your own words, this is not optional. And it can be done, see the current English Wikipedia article on the subject Ciudad del Saber. I strongly suggest you take the time to read WP:COPYOTHERS and WP:COPYVIO. This is a very serious legal matter. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles for creation - Clogau Gold
Hello, thank you for reviewing my article and providing feedback for how to improve. I have made amends according to the feedback left and resubmitted the article, however, after about a week the article has not been reviewed yet. I wonder if you could return to my article to re-review it, or could advise me how to attract the attention of someone who can. Apologies if I am just being impatient. Welshgolder (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ - See the decline reason on the page. Thank you - CharlieEchoTango (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for re-reviewing my article. I would be very grateful if you could give me some more specific feedback on the reason for declining the article, and how I can improve it so that it will be accepted? Many thanks for your time. Welshgolder (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there!
 * You'll need to address the tags I inserted in the article.  indicates that the statement must be sourced with a reliable, third-party source. Otherwise, the statements may indicate a non-neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV), or original research (see WP:NOR). Once you have addressed the concerns by replacing the tags with appropriate citations, feel free to resubmit and ask me to re-evaluate the article, I will be happy to do so. If you feel I haven't been clear, please ask for more clarifications; I'll do my best to help you. Cheers - CharlieEchoTango (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for this but....
I didn't create the article as can be seen here. Don't want Pfxwikiuser to miss out on getting their successful AfC notice. Thanks anyway, Shearonink (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You must have added the  yourself when helping the editor. When the template is substituted, it uses your username. When I review the article, the script automatically notifies the user that is in the substituted template. To avoid this, enter the whole thing manually or have the user add the submission template. Cheers ;) CharlieEchoTango (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

debtquity submission
Hi,

You recently rejected my submission based on lack of verifiable sources. Could you please help me understand this? I put two sources in the submission, one was an article by The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston...in terms of financial sources this is not a shabby source considering that it's a governmental entity and tasked with monetary policy in the United States. My second source was an article by a partner at Ropes & Gray a well known bankruptcy law firm, a firm at the forefront of fixed income and equity definitions and rights as they litigate the same in US Courts.

I looked up 2 sources on amazon.com with an alternative spelling which I noted in my submission (dequity) and perhaps they will prove the validity of my submission as they are two published sources; Innovations in Dequity Financing by Andrew H. Chen and John W. Kensinger and The Mechanisms of Governance by Oliver E. Williamson.

I think these four sources more than suffice. If you require additional verification I could give you the names of capital markets professionals at Citigroup, UBS, JPMorgan and others as well as portfolio managers at very large institutional investors who already use the term. The term is here to stay. If concepts like junk bonds back in the 80s were submitted perhaps they would receive the same reticence by those not in the industry but that would not indicate a lack of importance.

Regards, NP Nmp8 (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi ,
 * At the moment, the article only cites two sources, none are third-party.
 * To comply with the policy on no original research, a variety of additional sources are needed to back up the claims made in the article. Additionally, please note that Wikipedia is not the place to publish theories or essays. Thank you. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * And thanks for your help! CharlieEchoTango (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * One cream, one sugar, please. Red Slash - Smily.png CharlieEchoTango (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ricq
Thank you for reviewing my article.

However, the text needs improvement but I haven't seen any feedback posted by you.

Can you please advice?

Thank you!

H.-- Herby984 (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herby984 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi there, thank you for your contributions!
 * I placed a cleanup tag on the article for the following reasons :
 * All the sources are stacked in the last paragraph. You should add or move some of the sources to verify the claims in the article. For example, "He is the co-founder of the band HUMANS" is currently unsupported by a citation.
 * The citations are a bit of a mess with spaces, and inconsistencies. See WP:REFSPACE to correct this.
 * No need to link to a Wikipedia article more than once (Montreal, Quebec, Vancouver)
 * Montreal does not need an accent aigu in English.
 * I believe that is all for the moment. If I'm not clear, don't hesitate to ask for precisions. Cheers - CharlieEchoTango (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

about declined AfC
Hi Chalrie, You have recently declined my AfC located at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Kiros_Alemayehu. I don't agree with your reason for declining it as I have included verifiable, reliable, third party references. Specially, the reference from Ethiopian National library archive is a very good reference that satisfies Wikipedia's criteria.

I have modified some of the phrases as suggested and hope you will give it a second look and accept it this time.

regards,

Brillaking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brillaking (talk • contribs) 23:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello, thank you for your contributions and good job on the article.
 * I still have some concerns about some of the wording in the text and the citations used to back these statements :
 * "was one of the favorite songs of Addis Ababans and other southerners who do not speak Tigrigna" - according to whom?
 * "Some of his famous songs include" - famous according to whom?
 * These statements may very well be true, but they are not supported by reliable, third-party sources. See our policy on verifiability and no original research. Please rephrase these statements in a neutral fashion, source them to a reputable publication, or remove them.
 * Additionally :
 * According to the association that is building the library "Kiros Alemayoh was the icon, soul, and father of tigrnya music. Kiros was a teacher, a singer, an artist, and a fighter through his music. He was sensational, loved his people and was loved by his people. Kiros was one of the very famous people not only in his birth place Kilte-Awlaelo/Tigrai but also in all over Ethiopia."
 * A quote that is not sourced from an independent publication should not be on the subject's article, as it is not a neutral statement and puts undue weight on the appraisal of the subject.
 * I or another reviewer will be happy to review the article again once these concerns are addressed. Thanks again for your work! Cheers - CharlieEchoTango (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review and feed back. I look forward to working with you. Brillaking (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello!
Can you PLEASE PLEASE create a page about Ian Bernardo. He is super famous. he has been on every major show. just google him. His name USED To be Ian Benardo but he legally changed it to Ian Bernardo.
 * See Requested articles. Cheers - CharlieEchoTango (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Achievements
Hi,

Thanks for reviewing my article. I'm grateful that it was finally accepted, however I have one question: what happened to the recognition & achievement section? All of the information I included was factual and was properly referenced, so I'm curious as to why it was deleted. If you could let me know why, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalexander11 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi there, thanks for your contributions!
 * My initial assessment is that it adds undue weight to the article. It kind of screams "look, this company is so great it was mentionned in the New York Times", which is somewhat of a red flag. Choose the most notable ones from here and reinsert them (not under a 'achievement' header...), but I don't think a mention in the Brand Packaging Magazine or so-called best-selling books is worth mentioning. I removed the whole section, because if I didn't, I would have declined the article as non-neutral / advertising. I hope this explains it, if you have any further question, please ask! Cheers - CharlieEchoTango (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia references are not beeing considered as reliable sources!" !
Hi,

About my article on Jean-Philippe de Lespinay, I receive this message from Mabdul : "I removed the French Wikipedia references since Wikipedia (similar to IMDB, Facebook, Linkedin, Forums, Blogs, etc.) are not beeing considered as reliable sources!" Can you explain that ? Wikipedia references are no longer valid ? Or it's only french Wikipedia ?

Thank you

Pat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pat Grenier (talk • contribs) 15:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there, Pat. Thanks for your contributions!
 * Sourcing to Wikipedia was never valid. See WP:CIRCULAR and WP:RS. Notwithstanding the fact that it amounts as self-reference, Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source, because it is user-submitted content (anyone can edit it!) and has little to no editorial control. As a general rule, the same goes for other user-submitted content sites, such as IMDb. As for citing sources in French, it is not disallowed but somewhat discouraged - see WP:NOENG. I hope that explains it, let me know if it doesn't. Cheers - CharlieEchoTango (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability of a recently approved AFC
You recently approved Cleansing Service Group and moved it from the Articles for Creation process into the live article space. In doing so, did you give any regard to the notability of this company? From the description given in the article, it seems rather run of the mill, with nothing to distinguish it from any other waste management company. I'd like your feedback on the process before I move forward with a deletion process. Thanks! WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A quick Google search showed a variety of mentions, and a quick review of some of the sources seemed to indicate a certain amount of notability, but I'll admit it's probably a borderline case and I didn't make a thorough check on its notability/etc. Feel free to submit for deletion to see what other editors think (I will not !vote). Cheers - CharlieEchoTango (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Exeter outRAGeous
Hey CharlieEchoTango Thanks for reviewing the aforementioned article - Just wondering which elements i need to alter to improve this article enough to be accepted! Hopefully there is no longer any fluffy language used, but am wondering which bits are still not neutral! - It's hard to see the problem areas when you're the author!

many thanks

Nkd202 (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your efforts.
 * The article has multiple issues, the first one being that the organization doesn't seem to meet the guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia. You added a variety of references, but none are from reliable, third-party sources. What I mean is that all the references added are in some way affiliated with the subject or have an interest in promoting it. What is really needed here is for you to show that the subject has received significant coverage in external publications : for example, has it been talked about in the press? If you try to, but can't find such sources, than it's likely that the subject doesn't meet the inclusion criteria into the encyclopedia. The question you need to answer (not to me, but in the article via the sourcing, etc) is : "Why is the subject worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia", keeping in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
 * As for the neutral point of view issues, it's probably mislabeled, as you have done good work at removing the 'fluff'. Basically, the article just says too much, in a somewhat promotional format (but this is probably not intentional) : the breakdown of the committee is not encyclopedic material, the description of the events could be merged into one paragraph of prose, same thing for the charities section.
 * Thirdly, no external links in the body of the text, per WP:ELNO.
 * I'd say that right now, your priority should be to address the first point. See WP:GNG for the notability guidelines, WP:RS for what constitute a reliable source, and WP:V for the verifiability policy.
 * If I haven't been clear and/or you have more questions, feel free to ask. Cheers - CharlieEchoTango (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks - will do my utmost to see what i can find in the way of other links and try and resolve the other issues mentioned - i thought by breaking open the section, and making the information more transparent and informative, it would be more encyclopedic than in paragraph form, but can revert to my drafts to find a suitable layout (if there are enough external links to substantiate it in the first place!)
 * thank you for your help!


 * Nkd202 (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles for Creation - Cleansing Service Group
Hi CharlieEchoTango

Many thanks for reviewing the article and highlighting the areas needing additional information or clarification.

I have since amended the article, however, there is one element which I feel I am unable to quantify: ''Cleansing Service Group is a privately owned waste management company in the United Kingdom. Cleansing Service Group provides services in the collection, treatment, recycling and disposal of numerous waste streams''.

This is because the company treats and disposes of literally thousands of different waste types.

Please take a look and let me know what you think.

Best Regards

Reliag1 Reliag1 (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for your contributions!
 * The word "numerous" could be interpreted as a peacock term, but in this specific case, I don't think it's so bad. Please try to reformulate, otherwise simply remove the  tag.
 * Perhaps more importantly, if you can support the article with third-party sources, it would be great. Right now, three of the four references you added are primary sources, which is not sufficient to indicate notability. An editor has expressed concern that the subject may not be notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia (see two sections above), and I don't entirely disagree with him. What I suggest is that you add sources from reliable, third-party references (as in independent media publications), to show that the subject has received significant coverage. Reliable sources do not include self-published material, press releases, or the like.
 * Let me know if there is anything I can do to help or if you have any more questions. Cheers - CharlieEchoTango (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi CharlieEchoTango. Thanks for that - makes perfect sense to me. I'll add to the article and ask you to check back if that's okay. Many thanks for your guidance. Regards Reliag1 (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Review of PackML(with comparison to S88)
Thank you for reviewing our document, PackML (with comparison to S88). The objective of this article is to provide clarity to a common question in the Automation Industry.... What version of PackML is considered the current standard and how does it relate to S88-Part 5, Make2Pack. The chair of the S88 Part 5 Committee (Dave Chappel) and the co-chair of OMAC (Rob Aleksa) are both contributors to this article and have reviewed it, both providing their approval of the article and content. This article has been published in Control Magazine which serves the automation industry where comments were taken. This article has been reviewed and approved by the technical experts and the broad community. In addition, we have added citations and links per the wiki guidelines and have removed text that sound promotional. Both the ISA-S88 Committee and the OMAC Committee desire this wiki page to be activated so that this information is available to engineers, industrial OEM's, educators and students.

Again, thank you for your review and input on this page. Please let me know if the changes made will allow this article to be published.

Dbstrunk (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi.
 * With all due respect, you seem to operate under several misconceptions here, let me explain a bit :
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, i.e. a first reference with a broad view of the subject at hand, not a place to publish scientific papers or synthesis. See what Wikipedia is not.
 * Wikipedia does not publish original research. Wikipedia only publishes what is already known and well established by a variety of publications.
 * Wikipedia articles are never final. They can be improved as time goes by and are open for editing by anyone.
 * Wikipedia is not a web host. Organizations that 'desire' a page 'activated' on Wikipedia have a clear conflict of interest, see WP:COI.
 * The article, in its current form and to the best of my knowledge, is written as a paper, and not as an encyclopedic article. As such, it is tagged for cleanup and for the attention of an expert on the subject (I am not one).
 * Remember, there is no deadline on Wikipedia. The article is live and will remain so, unless it is challenged for deletion by an editor (who will give a clear rationale and open a discussion). Other editors who come across the page can edit the article to make it more compliant with the style guidelines and the policies on original research.
 * I will notify the relevant Project for expert attention (expert meaning someone knowledgeable with the subject and knowledgeable with the way Wikipedia works)
 * In the meantime, please do not remove the cleanup tags, as they indicate to the reader that the article does not fully comply with encyclopedic standards yet.
 * Thank you for your contributions - CharlieEchoTango (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Steve Lieberman the gangsta rabbi article
from the wikipedia notability section qualifications (at least on of the following)

1.--Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1] This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following:

(THIS artist had both verifiable sources from Newsday(the 11th largest paper in the US as well as the AllMusic Guide )   and 5-Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable

(THIS artist was signed to JDub Records--the original label of Matisyahu and other notables) i'm not really understanding. the notability guidelines are clearly stated by Wikipedia and this artist adheres to them and you say he's not notable. are these guidelines not fulfilled?

Please see instructions last editor RHaworth sent me.

contribs) 22:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Sorry about that, i've been writing this letter so much i forgot to put the link this time. Steve Lieberman the Gangsta Rabbi. Not sure if that one's right, well as the article has been, well deleted. and my confusement (wikijargon?) is if i get a speedy deletion warning for 'non-notability' shouldn't i have the chance to prove notability before deletion occurs? just asking. 'contestment' is not correct? the button said 'contest speedy deletion', therefore a 'contestment' sorry to have angered you. — 613codify (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 613codify (talk • contribs) 22:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

'''OK, contestment is a valid word but it is not used very much in Wikipedia. If you saw a lot of the stuff that gets speedily deleted, you would agree that the author should not be given any chance to discuss. But yours was at the other end of the scale where other deletion methods could have been used. I suggest: re-word the first sentence in encyclopedic tone demote the external links to the end of the article using markup format the external links properly - read this re-submit via AfC. I can let you have your text - read this. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 613codify (talk • contribs) 19:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ CharlieEchoTango (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

thank you sir 613codify (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * the quote was not from me, sir but from Jdub Records so not really self-published praise, no? 613codify (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * So I could say Microsoft is a "the best company in the world, hands down", and source it to Microsoft? Please have a look at WP:NPOV. Jdub is the publisher of the subject's works, of course it has a conflict of interest. And yes, "A legend in his own right" and "a snarling, savage beast on stage and in his home-studio" is praise. If you're going to introduce such blatant puffery in an article, it must be sourced to a very reliable and authoritative third-party source (but it's best to simply avoid it, see WP:UNDUE). CharlieEchoTango (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * oh ok i understand now. quotes from the subject's publisher are the same as the subject saying it themselves. thanks for clearing that up. have a wonderful night! 613codify (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources are independent (one is Pubmed and other a university website). The subject is notable in academics for his vast series of publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nashsingh (talk • contribs) 15:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)