User talk:Davidwr/Archives/Archive 9

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Question
I need another editors opinion, for the Tehachapi Unified School District, should the school name for the middle school and the three high schools be linked to the websites, since they don't have an article? Let me know. I'm going to take off the link to the website for now. There's an editor that I'm having a fued with, but I might let you deal with this editor. He just did that, not to long ago. Just wanted your opinion, since you helped me out at the beginning. Thanks. (JoeCool950 (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC))

PLEASE HELP
User:RHaworth keeps messing with the Tehachapi Unified School District page. All the pages that were not redlinked are now redlinked. He needs to stop, unless it's o.k. to have it redlinked. (JoeCool950 (talk) 07:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC))

WikiCup 2010 July newsletter
We are half-way through our penultimate round, and nothing is yet certain. Pool A, currently led by has ended up the more competitive, with three contestants (,  and ) scoring over 500 points already. Pool B is led by, who has also scored well over 500. The top two from each pool, as well as the next four highest scorers regardless of pool, will make it through to our final eight. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Planning has begun for the 2011 WikiCup, with open discussions concerning scoring and flags for next year's competition. Contributions to those discussions would be appreciated, especially concerning the flags, as next year's signups cannot begin until the flag issue has been resolved. Signups will hopefully open at some point in this round, with discussion about possible changing in the scoring/process opening some time afterwards.

Earlier this round, we said goodbye to, who has bowed out to spend more time on the book he is authoring with his wife. We wish him all the best. In other news, the start of this round also saw some WikiCup awards sent out by. We appreciate his enthusiasm, and contestants are of course welcome to award each other prizes as they see fit, but rest assured that we will be sending out "official" awards at the end of the competition. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 22:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 August newsletter
We have our final eight! The best of luck to those who remain. A bumper newsletter this week as we start our home straight.


 * Pool A's winner was . Awarded the top score overall this round, Sturmvogel_66 writes primarily on military history, favouring Naval warfare.
 * Pool B's winner was . Awarded the top score for featured articles this round, Casliber writes primarily on natural sciences, especially botany and ornithology.
 * Pool A's close second was . Awarded the top score for featured pictures this round, Sasata writes primarily on natural sciences, favouring mycology.
 * Pool B's close second was . Awarded the top score for good articles and topics this round, ThinkBlue primarily writes content related to television and film, including 30 Rock.
 * The first wildcard was . Awarded the top score for did you knows and valued pictures this round, TonyTheTiger writes on a number of topics, including baseball, American football and Chicago.
 * The second wildcard was . Someone who has helped the Cup behind the scenes all year, White Shadows said "I'm still in shock that I made it this far" and writes primarily on Naval warfare, especially U-boats.
 * The third wildcard was . Awarded the top score for featured lists and topics this round, Staxringold primarily writes on sport and television, including baseball and 30 Rock.
 * The fourth wildcard was . Entering the final eight only on the final day of the round, William S. Saturn writes on a number of topics, mostly related to Texas.

We say goodbye to the six who fell at the final hurdle. only just missed out on a place in the final eight. was not far behind. was awarded top points for in the news this round. contributed a variety of did you know articles. said "I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition", but was extactic to see Finland in the semi-finals. did not score this round, but has scored highly in previous rounds. We also say goodbye to, who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to for these.

Signups for next year's competition are now open. Planning is ongoing, with a key discussion about judges for next year open. Discussion about how next year's scoring will work is ongoing, and thoughts are more than welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. Also, TonyTheTiger is compiling some information and statistics on the finalists here- the final eight are encouraged to add themselves to the list.

Our final eight will play it out for two months, after which we will know 2010's WikiCup winner, and a variety of prizes will be awarded. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 September newsletter
We are half-way through our final round, entering the home straight. leads at the time of writing with 1180 points, immediately followed by with 1175 points. closely follows in third place with 1100 points. For those who are interested, data about the finalists has been compiled at WikiCup/History/2010/finalists, while a list of content submitted by all WikiCup contestants prior to this round has been compiled at WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions. As ever, anything contestants worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Despite controversy, the WikiCup remains open. Signups for next year's competition are more than welcome, and suggestions for how next year's competition will work are appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. More general comments and discussions should be directed at the WikiCup talk page. One month remains in the 2010 WikiCup, after which we will know our champion. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 October newsletter
The 2010 WikiCup is over! It has been a long journey, but what has been achieved is impressive: combined, participants have produced over seventy featured articles, over five hundred good articles, over fifty featured lists, over one thousand one hundred "did you know" entries, in addition to various other pieces of recognised content. A full list (which has yet to be updated to reflect the scores in the final round) can be found here. Perhaps more importantly, we have our winner! The 2010 WikiCup champion is, with an unbelievable 4220 points in the final round. Second place goes to, with 2260, and third to , with 560. Congratulations to our other four finalists –, , and. Also, congratulations to, who withdrew from the competition with an impressive 2685 points earlier in this round.

Prizes will also be going to those who claimed the most points for different types of content in a single round. It was decided that the prizes would be awarded for those with the highest in a round, rather than overall, so that the finalists did not have an unfair advantage. Winning the featured article prize is, for five featured articles in round 4. Winning the good article prize is, for eighty-one good articles in round 5. Winning the featured list prize is, for six featured lists in round 1. Winning the picture and sound award is, for four featured pictures in round 3. Winning the topic award is, for forty-seven articles in various good topics in round 5. Winning the "did you know" award is, for over one hundred did you knows is round 5. Finally, winning the in the news award is, for nineteen articles in the news in round three.

The WikiCup has faced criticism in the last month – hopefully, we will take something positive from it and create a better contest for next year. Like Wikipedia itself, the Cup is a work in progress, and ideas for how it should work are more than welcome on the WikiCup talk page and on the scoring talk page. Also, people are more than welcome to sign up for next year's competition on the signup page. Well done and thank you to everyone involved – the Cup has been a pleasure to run, and we, as judges, have been proud to be a part of it. We hope that next year, however the Cup is working, and whoever is running it, it will be back, stronger and more popular than ever. Until then, goodbye and happy editing! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 03:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011
Hello. You are being contacted because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup but have not yet signed up for the 2011 WikiCup, which starts at midnight. It is not too late to sign up! The competition will remain open until at least January 31, and so it is not too late to enter. If you are interested, simply follow the instructions to add your username to the signup page, and a judge will contact you as soon as possible with an explanation of how to participate. The WikiCup is a friendly competition open to all Wikipedians, old and new, experienced and inexperienced, providing a fun and rewarding way to contribute quality content to Wikipedia. If you do not want to receive any further messages about the WikiCup, or you want to start receiving messages about the WikiCup, you may add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the WikiCup talk page or contact the judges directly. J Milburn and The ed17 06:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to, who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by , with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to, who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, , who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm mostly inactive
If you need to reach me the best way is by email. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  21:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:SouthWalesArgus20070731cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:SouthWalesArgus20070731cover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Fixed.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

TVQ/FCC-TV-Station-profile
Since the TVQ template has different information than the FCC-TV-Station-profile template, I would have both in the external links sections of the TV station pages, for example:



This will allow the reader to have access to different information. I would ask one of the bot operators to help since that will be alot of to manually. User:Anomie usually has a bot available for tasks like these. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 09:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation newsletter
Delivered 00:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC) by EdwardsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the spamlist.

Youngshakespeara
Youngshakespeara- Hi Davidwr. Thank you very much for taking the time to look over my page. However, as you noted as a possibility at the bottom of your comment, you are indeed in error that this is the same article that was declined in 2010. This article is new and has no relationship to the previous article, which I was unaware of.

Based on your comments, I wasn't sure if you had any issues with the actual article or if you had just declined it on the basis of it having the same name as a previously declined article. I see that you recommended that I resubmit it if it was indeed a new article, and ask an administrator to look the page over. This is what I will do. However, I'm not sure how to do the second part, as I am a new user. Aside from resubmitting, if you have read the article, do you have any suggestions?

Thanks for your help, Youngshakespeara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngshakespeara (talk • contribs) 15:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've taken your word for it that the articles are different and revised my earlier comment and added a new comment to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ken Zaretzky. Since you don't need to access the deleted page, you don't need an administrator's assistance.  As you've already had a discussion with, I recommend posting to her Talk page.  Before you do so, please re-read the old discussions I linked to and any other old discussions you remember and make sure all of the issues that were raised have been taken care of.  If you need assistance with a specific issue, you can message me here.  If I don't answer within a week, send me an email using the "Email this user" link on the left side of my user-talk page.  By the way, you commented somewhere that it would be nice if old web pages were archived.  The Internet Archive archives many but certainly not all web pages.  It is generally just as okay to use sources from this or other archives as it is from a "normal" web page.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Joe sims submission
Thanks so much for your quick response. I completely understand that if you are from the us he wouldn't have sufficient notoriety. However, in the uk as a fan of radio especially and also tv and theatre this is not the case. His show on itv is about to become the biggest show on tv in the uk when it is released in spring and has been sold to the us already http://www.indiewire.com/article/television/bbc-america-broadchurch 94.173.125.231 (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)thomas306
 * Future events generally do not qualify someone as notable. However, the "pre-event" publicity may. I wouldn't count on it though. If the article is declined now even after review by people in the U.K., consider re-submitting the article after his new show has become notable in its own right.  Even then he may not qualify if his role is a minor character.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  15:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Back on Track (Overload album)
Hello. You prodded this and tagged it for notability back in 2008. The prod was removed by the creator. If you still think this doesn't meet WP:NALBUMS, you may want to take it to the Notability Noticeboard or AfD, or make it a redirect to the artist. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The same for Difference of Opinion (album), Boleyn (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. In both cases though, I edited the article shortly after the PROD was removed.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  05:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dimitri Mobengo Mugianis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Underground and Punk (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) 11:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Articles for creation Needs You!
 WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive! The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive. There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out! Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of Wikiproject Articles for Creation at 13:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:AfC submissions by age
Hi, have these categories been discussed anywhere? I'm not totally convinced they are a good idea. One concern is that every day, thousands of pages are going to be moving categories, which may put a strain on the job queue. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * These particular ones weren't discussed, but a different version of the same thing, with "dated categories" (e.g. "pending submissions by date/March 1, 2013") was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. There was a concern about bots having to maintain these categories.  I was unaware of the impact on the job queue.  I am open to suggestions.  I am going to copy this thread to  Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation so it can get wider discussion.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Please continue the above discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  18:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Eflatmajor7th

 * Hi Davidwr, I'm the editor whose article submission was just denied. I may have done things in the wrong order here...why was it denied? Also you are correct that I created the article in the article space after I submitted it for review, because I couldn't immediately figure out how to do that. That article still exists, and you took the AfC things out of it. Was the submission denied because it was a duplicate of the article I had already created? Thanks for your help, Eflatmajor7th (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You can ignore the confusing "duplicate" message. You did the right thing copying into article space when you gained the right to create articles.  The only thing you could have done different was to "blank" the submitted article before it was reviewed.  Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  00:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks! Eflatmajor7th (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

What about this one?
Hi, thank you for your comment. You said "Internet speed test utilities are generally not notable"

So why this one is notable? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedtest.net

Thanks

Adila1360 (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Good question. I just did a Google News search for "speedtest.net." A Google search alone is not enough to "pass" or "fail" a test of notability, but it's a rough "first look."  Speedtest.net has 183 results in the past 30 days, and at least a couple of the results in the top 10 are from sources that I consider reliable and which I know to be independent of the company behind speedtest.net.  So, even without looking further, I can say that speedtest.net probably meets Wikipedia's Notability guidelines.  On the other hand, Speedof.me had 0 news results in the last 30 days.  Expanding the search time back 10 years still has 0 news results.  On a Google Web Search, "speedof.me -site:speedof.me" has 6,100+ results, which initially seems like the jackpot.  However, of the first few dozen, most are either promotional web sites, directory-type web sites, or other web sites that are irrelevant in considering notability.  Unless there are other things like printed articles from reliable non-web-searchable media such as a non-Google-searchable article from a major newspaper, I would have to say that speedof.me's notability is at best marginal, but likely not even that high.  Oh, by the way, a Google web search of "speedtest.net -site:speedtest.net" yields millions of results. Millions vs. thousands, that's probably a good indicator of relative notability.
 * Now, please don't think that "The Google Test" equals "a valid test for notability." It's not.  In fact, for many subjects, there will be little or no information available online beyond bare-bones information.  Many article on obscure kings or nations or historical events in Medieval Europe were sourced entirely from books that are considered reliable sources for that subject matter.
 * When reviewing articles for creation, I use the guidelines here. The notability and suitability tests are somewhat subjective.  My general "rule of thumb" is:  If this article already existed and it had been nominated for deletion (aka "AfD") for lack of notability or suitability, would I be in favor of keeping the article or deleting it?  I use this rule of thumb because if I would be in favor of deleting it, odds are that sooner or later someone will nominate it for deletion and odds are that the consensus will be to delete the article.  It is far better to not create the article in the first place than for it to be deleted through the AfD process, because re-creating an article that is substantially similar to one that has already been deleted after an AfD discussion can create major headaches for the person trying to re-create the article.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Mista Blessington histmerge request query

 * In your histmerge request in Cut and paste move repair holding pen, you seem to ask me to history-merge page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mista Blessington with itself. Please correct any typo. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Why did you delete the page of Durga Prasad Kachroo
Why did you delete the page of Durga Prasad Kachroo

It is very unfortunate to know that Wkipedia till stood for the reason of adding up eminent personalities and giving up information about them. Infact wiki has been one place to found the long lost literature scholars too. I found it very dis ambiguous that, my efforts to create page about a long lost scholar who needs world recognition, are failed by deletion of the page created by me, about 'Durga Prasad Kachroo'. Very unfortunate. I need an answer for this, as you are playing with the sentiments of the people. I know my knowledge if creating a page maybe limited but it doesn't mean that the valuable information shared should be deleted here & then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.37.221 (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The article was created with an AFC submission template at the top and the article clearly did not meet the quality standards of Wikipedia. So I moved the article to the Articles for Creation submission area.  You can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Durga Prasad Kachroo (new submission).  Note that the name "(new submission)" was added because there was an even older, less-complete draft of the article at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Durga Prasad Kachroo.  That draft has been "declined" due to lack of reliable sources.  I encourage you and others to improve the "(new submission)" version above.   Even if this version is "declined," the editor who declines it will provide a reason and you and others will be able to go back and improve the article and re-submit it.
 * Had it just had that template but met the quality standards, I would have removed the template and been done with it. Had it not had this templates but failed to meet the quality standards, I would have either put cleanup templates on it or possibly proposed that it be deleted if nobody objected or nominated it for deletion and starting a discussion about the article. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject India
Thanks for posting at WikiProject India noticeboard. I hop you'll like that place and decide to participate more actively. Anyway, your question has been answered here and I have left a comment on nthe AFC page too! Let us know if you have questions. Best, Tito Dutta (contact) 03:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Happy Easter!!!
So a print encyclopedia, a strawberry shortcake, and a sycamore walk into a bar - wait, have you heard this one? (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Avelina Florendo - Article for deletion by Davidwr (question)
Hi I have created an article about Avelina Carbungco Florendo, Philippine Cake Queen, I would just like to know why it was subjected to a speedy deletion by Davidwr, if the article needed editing because the article did not meet the rules and regulations/requirement of wikipedia I will make the necessary edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccsbakeshop (talk • contribs) 07:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There were two separate copies. The copy at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Avelina Florendo (Avelina Carbungco Florendo) is still there and will eventually be reviewed.  The one I requested deletion of is/was at Articles for creation/Avelina Florendo (Avelina Carbungco Florendo).  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  14:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

AfC
Hello there! Would it be possible for some of my AfC reviews to be examined by you? User Ryan Vesey raised some concerns and I would like to receive third-party opinions on this. Please highlight any errors in my talk page. Thank you for your trouble! Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I can do a few, list them here and give me a few days. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No rush. Thank you! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please list them here. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  21:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You want me to make a list of articles I want reviewed? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  22:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant for you to make a random sample, but I guess I can try and do that. I'll be back then. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Article list

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Responses to 1 through 6
I think 6 is enough for now.

1. Good, but authors of biographies of living people which don't meet WP:BLP requirements should be directed to read that page before re-submitting. In particular, WP:BLP says "... any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation..."

2. Good. You could - and probably should - have also mentioned that the submission does not clearly indicate that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability requirements and that reliable sources are required to establish notability. No sense in encouraging the editor to re-submit if the subject is not notable. On an unrelated note, the username appears closely related to the subject. I would post a note on the user's talk page encouraging him to change his username to conform to WP:Username policy. Since he seems to be advertising and he has a promotional username, I would check his edit history for possible conflict of interest editing.

3. This one could have been better. I would've declined it for not clearly explaining why the person is notable. In particular, I would have asked the author to explain which if any of the awards listed are considered notable major awards and either wikilink them or create an article on the award itself. If none of the awards were major awards, I would ask the author to add material to clearly indicate notability. As above, I would remind him to read WP:BLP, WP:NOTABILITY, and WP:RS before re-submitting. I wouldn't mention it to the author, but since you declined the article for lack of reliable sources, I'm going to mention that it's unclear to me if the sources are reliable or not, particularly the book. It's also unclear to me if the sources are independent of the subject. The distinction is important: A source can be reliable but not independent of the subject. Such sources are often used for undisputed facts but they cannot be used to establish notability.

4. Good. I would have directed the author to the usual BLP policy pages I mentioned above and to Jane (comic strip) with the suggestion that he read WP:ONEEVENT and consider creating a short section about the comic's author instead of creating a whole new article.

5. Good, but I would also ask for snippet-translations of all non-English references so it's clear to the English reader what facts each reference is backing up.

6. Good, but I would've mentioned that Wikipedia requires that articles use reliable sources to show that the subject is notable.

davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  03:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Corrected Jane (comic) to Jane (comic strip). davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  18:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the valuable feedback. As per item 3, a book should be cited by its ISBN, etc., not its amazon page, right? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Citing sources should answer your question.  However, citing Amazon, Google Books, Barnes and Noble, etc. is an often-used shortcut as those destinations clearly show the major elements you need in a citation.  Sometimes the Wiki editor is citing an Amazon, etc. page not merely for the book or the book's bibliographic information but also other information, such as user comments.  For example, if there was a "public acclaim" section in the article Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, some editor might write "One of Amazon.com's 'Top 1000 reviewers' said 'Overall, there are numerous memorable scenes in this novel'" (by the way, such user-generated content is rarely appropriate for Wikipedia, this is just an example).  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  18:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)