User talk:Dcshank/Archive 10

Thanks!
Thanks for moving my page (Brandon Steiner). But I want to save it for submission? What did I do wrong..

````Jesse Golomb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golombjesse (talk • contribs) 17:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Geeze, I'm not sure, but there are 3 copies of your article floating around. I will round them up.  The one you want is here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brandon Steiner.   You can continue to edit it where it is.  To submit it follow the instructions near the center top of the template that says, "If this submission is ready to be reviewed, click here and press Save page".  I will clean up the other stuff floating around.  Good luck.   :- ) Don  18:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I just submitted for review. I'm a bit of a newbie...so anything you could do to help would be much appreicated!!!

````Jesse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golombjesse (talk • contribs) 18:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. If have a problem, ask me, ask someone else, or ask at the AfC Help Desk.   :- ) Don  18:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey again Don, I'm a little confused. My article got deleted again this morning with this deletion message: (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Article still at AFC). What does this mean, and how can I get it fixed!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golombjesse (talk • contribs) 14:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Brandon your article is still at the above address. You must have been working on one of the copies to be deleted.  I checked and it is still at:  Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brandon Steiner.  71.39.34.86 (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey once more,

The article just got declined. Was wondering if you had any suggestions on how to improve for resubmission. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Brandon_Steiner&pe=1&#References — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golombjesse (talk • contribs) 13:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems you have chopped quite a bit out of the article already. I do not think it sounds too bad at this point.
 * You have 3 citations with problems.
 * This is confusing: Steiner told Robert Levin in 2008 that "he grew up extremely poor. I had no money."  I think the quote is wrong.
 * The first 2 paragraphs under 2.2 Stiener sports, need to be combined.
 * Let me know when you are done editing. I might want to touch up some things, but it will have to be later today.   :- ) Don  15:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey again Don, Sorry it took so long on this! I was on vacation for a couple of days and haven't had a chance to look back. I took some time to make some edits you suggested, as well as ones that some others have recommended. Was wondering if you could go through and take a look? Maybe even give it a review? Would be much appreciated! As always, thanks for your help throughout! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golombjesse (talk • contribs) 13:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Golombjesse, I did a little more touch up, nothing major I hope. Everyone mentions lawsuits and other troubles.  Since is has been brought up, to be honest, you probably will not get it approved without mentioning something about them in the article.  I had a very hard time awhile ago trying to get an article approved because nobody could find anything bad about the guy.  He might become a saint if he was Catholic, but finally it got approved.  Nobody becomes this big without having some trouble.  See if you can find out about it and include as much as necessary to balance the article, then it will probably sail right through next time.  Also, that quote near the beginning about being poor, should probably be expanded or deleted.  It just seems like it was thrown in. --  :- ) Don  14:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay so one more time! Thanks for getting back to me and continuing to be such a help! I edited the piece, put in some negative stuff and changed the quote. Honestly, I like the quote but if you think it's out of place then go ahead and delete it. Would you be willing to review? Would love to get all this done so I can move on and devote my time to a second article! I've really liked doing this, more than I ever thought. Golombjesse (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that should do it. The quote has no lead to it and beginning with the end of a sentence sounds very strange.  Maybe something like, in an interview with Joe Somebody, Steiner said about the time after leaving school, "I had no money."  There must be something you don't want to write before the "extremely poor."  --  :- ) Don  15:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Article at a stand still.
This has now been a few weeks How do I find out how this is progressing, it all seems to have come to a stop. Kevin Mills — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinJMills (talk • contribs) 07:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Neuro-Muscular programming? It does not have an AfC template for review. --  :- ) Don  14:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I restored the template if youare ready, it says: "When you are ready to resubmit, click here." --  :- ) Don 19:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Geist
Sorry--I was trying to resolve our edit conflict. I'll fix up any of the ones I messed up. The ones I added from a ref list he supplied need some work also, and I will get to them as well. They all need a little further work.  DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * btw, what I am currently doing at afc is looking for rejected articles that should have been accepted. My basic criterion is that they would pass afd if submitted directly. I think it wrong to require more--it discourages beginners. This is especially true for those people who are not prepared to offer detailed and specific advice--I'm not thinking of you, for I see you are trying to do as good a job of it as the number of articles allows.  DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * and ,as it happens, DAV Public School, Koyla Nagar was one of them. All secondary schools whose existence can be verified are considered notable at Wikipedia--see WP:COMMON. You may not agree--some people still do not agree--but not a single one of them has been deleted for lack of notability in the past 3 years now.  DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ha ha just had an edit conflict. I'm not happy with DAV and a lot of others, but there seems to be some political pressure to keep such things.


 * Before edit conflict:
 * Totally understand. I hate when that happens, so I usually stay away from the front of lists a bit. I did not do that this time, the article just looked interesting and in need of some touch up.  There is a lot of variability in what get accepted and rejected at AfC, especially when we get people with an edit count of 42.  I don't have much time the last few months, so I review very little, just touch up for a few minutes here and there when I need a break from real work.   --  :- ) Don  18:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Question about an AFC submission
Hi Dcshank - this is in reference to Lawrence Tenney Stevens, which you passed from AFC, but then you added a close paraphrasing template. I'm not sure that I entirely understand why you passed this article from AFC if you have close paraphrasing concerns. Could you please take a few minutes to detail on the talk page of the article what exactly those concerns are, so that others can try to address them? In this case, the primary editor is very new to Wikipedia and may not understand what is needed to address your concerns. Thanks. Risker (talk) 05:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey Risker,
 * There is an ongoing discussion in AfC exactly about this issue. It seems that sometimes AfC is judging newbies harsher than articles that are simply generated in or moved into Main space.  I'm sure you understand the meaning of close paraphrasing, I believe that much of the article is very close to the first citation in structure and wording.  The question under discussion at AfC is, "should we pass articles that would survive AFD or be more conservative."  The close paraphrasing option exists in Twinkle, I know that is not a valid excuse, but close paraphrasing survives AFD all the time.  I felt the article was good enough to survive AFD with the editing which normally occurs during such a senario. AfC is the probably the primary portal to the Wiki for newbies and often takes the blame for WP:BITE.  With this in mind I tend to be more liberal with good faith efforts and extremely nasty with players at AfC.  I will leave a comment on the talk page.  Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I guess I was a bit negligent in that respect.  Also, I hope that I have given you some insight into my reasoning and judgement.  --  :- ) Don  06:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Dcshank - I don't disagree with your view that there is close paraphrasing here, and you're probably correct that the article would likely pass AfD. I don't even think you're being terribly "bitey" here. I'm just thinking that some pointers and examples of the problem for the new editor, probably on the talk page of the article, will help *that user* understand why the close paraphrasing tag has been added. As an aside, thank you for working on the AFC queue; it's not always easy work, and some fine lines to walk. Risker (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Lawrence Tenney Stevens page
Contact me please at email address on Lawrence Tenney Stevens Trust website. john

I have concerns about the Lawrence Tenney Stevens page and don't know how to communicate with you or anyone else on the Wikipedia site. I'm just hoping you get this, as I stumbled upon it. I don't have the time to learn the ins and outs of Wiki-world, I just want the LTS page removed at least until it is accurate, has no copyright issues, and is non-libelous. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.36.172 (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, I can not email to an external email address from the Wiki. And, considering the tone of the above, I do not care to contact you directly. We can discuss your concerns here, or I can point you to the correct area. It must be a coincidence that another IP in Arizona tried deleting the article last night. You also have the option of establishing a Wiki account and adding an email address to it. That is easy, only takes a minute, and requires no personal information. The information is here. --  :- ) Don 14:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You can also contact me directly by email at the link in the yellow box at the top of this page. I must have accidentally deleted that link while doing some edits on the page top. --  :- ) Don  14:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

RE: Lawrence Tenney Stevens
Thank you. Greetings. —Jmvgpartner (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Do not worry about it! Both options help... Greetings. —Jmvgpartner (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Abdullah Baqui
I've declined your speedy deletion request for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Abdullah Baqui. Although you tagged the request as non-controversial maintenance under G6, the rationale you provided (article already exists) falls under CSD criterion A10. However, this criterion only applies to actual article pages, which means that articles in AfC Project space aren't eligible.--Slon02 (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then how would you suggest it be deleted?  The MfD discussion was just closed with no result.  --  :- ) Don  21:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suggest letting it be and not deleting it.--Slon02 (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

article of creation declined
Dear Sir,

Thanks a lot for reviewing the article for creation Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Abul Kalam Azad Pattanam.

I agree with you. I am intent on creating this article and more such for wiki. This is my first. Could you please provide any other specific guidance to edit this page??

Thank you,

Tulsi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tulsi swarna lakshmi (talk • contribs) 03:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Tulsi,
 * You wrote a very interesting essay on Abul Kalam Azad Pattanam, but there are many problems. The Wikipedia is not for essays, like other encyclopedias it is supposed to be boring.  We state the facts, only the facts, and all those facts are backed up by references to other material or research.  The material or research must be reliable and from a reliable source.  We can not copy anything from another article, that is explained at WP:CV.  I see that much of your material was copied, and by the rules here, I should have deleted your article.  The next reviewer may not be so kind, so please remove any copied information immediately.


 * A good Wikipedia article will have references for every paragraph or assertion. For a good example see:  Beagle.  All the little blue numbers are references listed at the bottom of the article.  I know it is a lot of work, but many articles take months or years to write. My first took about 5 months and not very long.  My suggestion is, if this person is notable, (that is another requirement, the person, place or thing must be notable:  WP:NOTE) there must be some reliable third party information available about him.   That is the material you must use to write your article.   I'm sorry, you should also understand WP:SOURCE.  Don't be discouraged.  Your article will not be very long compared to what you have now, but if it is accurate, and the person is notable, and it is well referenced, it will be accepted and become a part of the Wikipedia.  --   :- ) Don  04:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You've Got Mail
Lynn Savatch (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Rejected article
Hi,

Thanks for taking the time to look over my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Institute on the Environment. You rejected it because of a lack of sources, I recognize that the sources could be better organized. I was wondering if the sources such as MN2020, TED Talks, and MPR were unacceptable, or if by concentrating on the information given in those sources I could avoid future issues.

Thanks, Kmerna (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey Kmerna,
 * I may have to do some research. Just left a comment at article.  Normally we need independent sources.  This appears to be some kind of academic research project, so third party sources may be a problem.  Then again if third party sources are hard to find, then it would fail the notability requirement.  I have to have a look in WP:NOTE and WP:ACADEMIC.  Sources outside the University are the best.  Get back to me if you like, I will look into this a bit, but I don't have a lot of time right now.  --  :- ) Don  02:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * IonE is an inter-college research institute that has done dozens of research projects. Under Google Scholar, which you suggested, articles tend to only discuss the individual projects, not the organization as a whole, which I felt was more appropriate for the subject of the article.  Also, the article included sources from the Chronicle of Higher Education (source 13), TED (source 15), and MN2020-a think tank (source 19). Is there a reason these are not considered independent?Kmerna (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what Google Scholar is. I will have to do some looking into this, unless you can point me to the correct information and procedures on the Wiki.
 * YouTube is not generally allowed.
 * I look at your cites and I see a url with a umn.edu in it and "California, USA: NoodleTools, Inc." As far as I can tell from the information in the citations, it's all coming from the same place.  Let me have someone in the college scene have a look at it. --  :- ) Don  03:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to do a full review of this, but this is a case where the YouTube video is easily allowable. It is a TED talk video.  That being said, we might want to use this link instead. Ryan Vesey 04:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ryan,
 * I don't really have time to get into it either, deadlines and all that stuff. I think I said generally not YouTube, I do webinars on there once or twice a month.  I will try to spend some time tomorrow, but I'm still not sure that this makes notabiliy, unless this Google Scholar enters into it somehow. Everyone has a research project. I only have a dozen or so going for the last 10 years. --  :- ) Don  04:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar is a specialized search of academic journals and articles (and of patents and "legal documents", I believe, but I never used that function). The search results tend to be academic sources published in peer-reviewed journals, but sometimes (rarely, in my experience) it's fooled by what looks like an academic journal but isn't. Rather nice to find sources, but not a source of its own. I hadn't heard of NoodleTools before, but apparently the company offers a reference management software. For all I can tell, you could just ignore the "NoodleTools, Inc." part in the references; maybe those references were in some form supplied by NoodleTools, but it isn't itself the source and didn't publish it. Huon (talk) 04:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I assumed some similar senario but did not want to spend the time digging into the nuts and bolts. I still have notability to deal with, but I will deal with it when awake.  Thanks Huon. -- <span style="color:rgb(60,200,200);font-weight:bold;"> :- ) Don  06:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, noodle tools is a research site not unlike JSTOR that I used for research in this project. I don't know who provided links to JSTOR/Google News/Google Scholar but they were on the page with the rejection notice.  Noodle Tools brings together outside sites and it is suggested that Noodle Tools be included in the reference but I can go to the origional sites and ignore Noodle Tool altogether if that improves the sources.  Kmerna (talk) 14:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that would really be better, as Ryan mention with YouTube. Seeing the same source repeated over and over is a automatic red flag, however if credit needs to be given to the source, then it is necessary.  But is it a source or simply a tool.  If a tool, then we would theoretically list Google in cites that originated from there.  I still need to study your article and cites more in a attempt to fully understand the situation here, as to the notability issue.  It might be best if you could hook up with a reviewer more familiar with research groups. Ktr101 comes to mind, but he may be as busy as I am.  I know you have already put the effort in to doing the article, but if you could explain the case for notability, I would put in the effort.  You can also move it to Main space yourself and take your chances amongst the wolves.  Thanks for you sincere efforts.   -- <span style="color:rgb(60,200,200);font-weight:bold;"> :- ) Don  15:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Institute on the Environment is a cross-departmental organization at the University of Minnesota that supports research projects and hosts the sustainability studies minor. The organization has a publication with thousands of subscribers around the world and each year supports dozens of new projects. I guess I just don't see how it's any less notable than things like University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index or Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law and both of those have articles have similar or less citation. Kmerna (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Kmerna. I will dig into it, as soon as I get some time. I don't want you to think I'm being short with you, or sloppy, we just have so many reviews and so few people, we don't always spend the time necessary for a through investigation of every article. I don't want to drop the ball, but you may be better off in resubmitting it and getting a reviewer who is more familiar with your project. If you feel you have the time to wait, I would love to work on it, but real life is very limiting right now. -- <span style="color:rgb(60,200,200);font-weight:bold;"> :- ) Don 19:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

From what you have said, I have not doubt that it is a notable organization worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia, I just need to see it with my own eyes. Thanks for your patience. -- <span style="color:rgb(60,200,200);font-weight:bold;"> :- ) Don 19:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I know you want your article approved, but as I have tried to explain, I DO NOT have the time to dig though your 1st person citations.  I would discount them in any case.  You should take this to WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk.   If you want to call me "asshole", I have been called much worse.  If your article deserves to be approved, that is the important part.  My reputaion is not important, the Wiki is importantant.   I really do wish you the best of luck.  -- <span style="color:rgb(60,200,200);font-weight:bold;"> :- ) Don  05:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry my article has been such a negative experience for you. I hope you have a more enjoyable time with the next. Kmerna (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Kmerna,
 * It was not a bad experience at all. I'm sorry for being short. It is not my area of expertise, and I have been so busy in real life, so I was a little frustrated.  I probably should have passed over it and left it for someone more experienced in the area like Huon or Ryan.
 * Bad experiences have been with editors who have been declined 15 times and still argue with me. :-p  I'm sure it will be approved, maybe with some changes or maybe not.  Good luck.  -- <span style="color:rgb(60,200,200);font-weight:bold;"> :- ) Don  14:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nayeem Khan
Hello, Shank! I was in the process of reviewing a sandbox... you moved it to article space but the submission already existed. Please check submissions without middles names to make sure there isn't already an article or submission. Thanks for all your hard work and diligence in reviewing articles. ''Cheers! Stella'' BATPHONE<sub style="margin-left:-8.3ex;"> GROOVES  03:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for stomping on your toes. I never review in sandboxes, prefer to have it under AfC banner.   I'll keep that in mind, but I am still finding 2 or 3 of the same subject in sandboxes from time to time...   Becoming a bit of a mess, I don't know how this sandbox thingie started, but it's becoming a real pain.   TTFN.  -- <span style="color:rgb(60,200,200);font-weight:bold;"> :- ) Don  03:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a headache, but it's one of my specialties. My twinkle toes shall dance again. LOL Cheers! Stella BATPHONE<sub style="margin-left:-8.3ex;"> GROOVES  03:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * @don to answer your question: user sandbox got a "submit!" (click here) link. <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">mabdul 08:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mabdul. I assume there is not any title checking?  When articles were started in AfC this was not a big issue?  I envision a new revolutionary product coming out and 100's of sandbox entries.  Will we get into copyright issues if one persons started his article 5 seconds before another?  My hope would be that people form group to work on identical articles.  But, we know that is not going to happen very often because of egos. -- <span style="color:rgb(60,200,200);font-weight:bold;"> :- ) Don  14:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have on my AFCH "to do" list something like: decline and move/Accept and move with reviewer input on where to move the page. To include an AI is too hard to do. (the reason why AFC bot is dump) And yes, the mankind is dump -.- <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">mabdul 14:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Two articles!
I need to publish only the one with the title Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hope For Children UNCRC Policy Centre. I accidentally wrote the first one without the title and then created another one. Sorry for the confusion! Could you help me out on how to publish the one I want?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infouncrc (talk • contribs) 07:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Your other article has been deleted. I think your article is good, but it has a few little problems.  You should write it in the third person, do not use first person words such as "we", "us", or "our".  You need to add at least one, preferably two third party references about your organization.  Possible from news, public affairs organization, magazine, or government source talking about your organization.  Both of your references are from UNCRC Policy Centre.  Good luck and thanks for your efforts.  -- <span style="color:rgb(60,200,200);font-weight:bold;"> :- ) Don  14:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

How I Braved Anu Aunty and Co-Founded A Million Dollar Company
I recently reviewed and edited the article How I Braved Anu Aunty and Co-Founded a Million Dollar Company. However it seems to be linked to User:Mayank067/sandbox. Request you to kindly check. Thanks. KaranJoseph (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is redirected from User:Mayank067/sandbox but currently exists at the above link. User:Mayank067 can delete the sandbox redirect, or I can do it at his request. Let me know if you have any other problems. -- <span style="color:rgb(60,200,200);font-weight:bold;"> :- ) Don  16:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

My Wiki Article not showing on Google
Hey Don,

My Wiki article How I Braved Anu Aunty and Co-Founded A million Dollar Company doesnt seem to show on google. Any reason for this?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayank067 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Mayank067,

You would probably have to ask Google for an exact answer. But from my understanding, the Google spiders crawl the web all the time. ALL of the web, so new items may take up to a week sometimes 2 weeks to appear. It just depends on where they happen to be scanning at any time. They could have just passed by your article a minute before it became live. My guess would be that it should appear within a week. -- <span style="color:rgb(60,200,200);font-weight:bold;"> :- ) Don 19:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

New Article
Hey Don,

Firstly would like to thank you for all the help and support. As a new Wikipidean you've made me feel completely at home. I've taken the bold step to write another small article. Here's the link. Was just curious about the no of days it takes to get reviewed. Thanks again Don. You rock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Varun_Agarwal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayank067 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Mayank067,
 * If what I suspect is true, you should probably read WP:AUTO. AfC theoretically should work as first-in/first-out, but it does not.  There is no fixed order assigned, so it may be 5 minutes or 2 weeks.  If it is WP:AUTO, to be honest, unless it is impeccably written, it will probably be declined.  But, good luck. -- <span style="color:rgb(60,200,200);font-weight:bold;"> :- ) Don  20:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * P.S., you may also want to have a look at WP:COI. -- <span style="color:rgb(60,200,200);font-weight:bold;"> :- ) Don  20:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Don, thanks so much. Its definitely not WP:AUTO. Hope its gets reviewed and I get some feedback irrespective of its being approved. Thanks again Don. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayank067 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)