User talk:Excirial/Archive 21

Sandbox
Good evening Excirial,

I am annoyed and a little angry.

Up until this evening, I had thought that one's sandbox was a private space. Then this happened – somebody that I had never even heard of before now. I feel invaded. Kind regards, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This gives an explanation, but my concern is still the same.
 * Any thoughts? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Good evening Mr. Gareth Griffith-Jones


 * From a technical point of view a sandbox is just a regular user subpage, and as with any page it can be edited by all editors if they choose to do so - hence, some editors share a sandbox if they are busy working together on a new article. Most times it is a common courtesy to leave other users sandboxes alone, though this mostly applies to large changes. Sometimes an editor might notice a typo or a redlink in a page, which they decide to correct for a person. (An editor was so friendly to check my own subpages for grammar once without asking me - i tend to mangle the words "to" and "too" rather often so for me it was rather convenient).


 * If on really wishes to prevent others users editing their sandbox, one can add a note to the page asking a user not to (There is an example on my own sandboxes: User:Excirial/Playground2). This is just a request, but virtually all editors honor it. Alternatively one can just revert the editors edit - since it is a user subpage there is no real reason to explain a revert. Of course with the sidenote that this doesn't apply if a page breaks some rule or policy. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 21:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for clarifying this to me – or should it be, clarifying this too!
 * Apologies for the poor joke, but at least I have my usual good humour restored now.
 * Question: I seem to recall something in my early days on Wikipedia about an "official" Excirial Day as declared by you. Wasn't it sometime during July?
 * -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * *Laughs* Oh yes, Excirial day. My, your memory regarding that day is better then my own! But yes, 22 July 2010 was indeed Excirial day (It is listed somewhere in the middle of User:Excirial/Awards), though i have to add that these "Username days" are nothing official. Instead they were created by another editor (user:Rlevse), and function pretty much as a 1" editor a day barnstar initiative", and they are non-recurring event. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 07:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Peripheral Subgroup
Thank you for reviewing and creating my article peripheral subgroup. I hope people like it and improve it. --Gallusgallus (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome of course, and thanks for writing such a decent new article. Since my own knowledge of mathematics and algebra has never been that great i think i had to click more Wikilinks in this article then in any other to figure out what i was actually reading; Still, that does make reviewing something rather interesting.


 * On an entirely different matter - if your interesting in Mathematica related articles, you might be interested in WikiProject Mathematics. Wikiprojects themselves are groups of editors with an interest in a similar topic, which collaborate on new or existing article's. Even sans the community aspect of it a wikiproject is often nice to have a look at in case you need some inspiration for a new page. (I do note that your account is rather old, so this might actually be all old-hat for you. Still, better to mention and figure that someone already knows, then just assuming one does know but actually doesn't :) )  Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 21:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Croquet Foundation of America / RELIABLE SOURCE VERIFICATION
The reliability of my sources has been questioned. I am the ultimately "reliable source" on croquet, and beyond myself, the sources for information are first-hand.

In the space at the bottom of the page, I identified myself as the editor and founder of Croquet World Online Magazine, www.CroquetWorld.com, which is the sole independent worldwide magazine for the sport of croquet. I have been publishing CROQUET WORLD for 17 years. It is cited often in mainstream media as the primary source for much that is reported on the sport. Very seldom does Newsweek or CBS or other major media report on croquet without consulting me at some point, often to ask for additional references or photos.

In addition I have published books on croquet for the US Croquet Association, and I consult with all the US croquet organizations, including the Croquet Foundation of America. My background includes organizing the San Francsico Croquet Club in the 80's as the first two-lawn public facility for croquet in the U.S. I then wrote a three-volume series on CLUB BUILDING AND MANAGEMENT.

All the facts have been gotten from FIRST-HAND SOURCES in the Croquet Foundation of America, including the president of the organization, David McCoy. His email address is McCoy1165@aol.com. He will confirm the reliability of Bob Alman as a source and the accuracy of the information in the entry.

My "objectivity" has been questioned. Perhaps it's because I said the National Croquet Center is the largest and finest in the world of croquet? It is, without question. I cited the acreage and the square footage of the building and its architechtural type and characteristics, without using "peacock" adjectives. If you need another source to check this or any of the facts or characterizations, let me know how I can help you find it.

I am the founding editor of www.Croquetworld.com and several other websites. I am a trained journalist, writer, and editor. I am also something of a techno-phobe. So I do apologize if I'm missing something here in the process. (I have a webmaster and layout editor to handle these things for me on CROQUET WORLD.) I am following directions here by rote, the same way I edited (successfully, it appears) the page CROQUET HALL OF FAME a few days ago.

Please help me through this process!

Bob Alman, Editor CROQUET WORLD ONLINE MAGAZINE www.CroquetWorld.com RealitySports (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello there Bob,


 * Before anything else, let me quickly state that i am not questioning your credentials and knowledge regarding Croquet, and that this was not the gist of the "Lacking reliable sources" decline. The core of the raised issue is that the article currently isn't verifiable because no reliable sources are included. Please keep in mind that everyone can edit an article once it is posted, so anyone can change the presented information. I could, for example, change the line "USCA founder Jack Osborn also set up the Croquet Hall of Fame " to "USCA founder Margaret Thatcher also set up the Fries Hall of Fame", and the article's references section would still state that it was written by Bob Alman, even though it would be bogus information. Note that this change is of course quite clearly nonsensical, but others would be less clear (In example: Changing date by 1 year).


 * Because of this every article needs to be supported by reliable third party sources that can be used to verify the article content. These sources have to be cited in the article, so that any reader can read the source in order to establish that was written is correct. Primary sources or content that is hearsay (Thus cannot be verified by readers) are not considered reliable sources for an article. In other words: What needs to be done is citing reliable sources such as magazine entries, newspapers article's and so on to the article to verify its content (See WP:REFB for assistance on how to do this).


 * As for the neutrality issue - you correctly mentioned one of the issues. As a few examples:
 * owns the largest and finest facility for croquet in the world (Non neutral, promotional)
 * not just great players but also the well-known celebrities who kept "serious croquet" alive as an ideal in America (Non neutral / promotional)
 * See the complete listing and references for the Croquet Foundation of America's Croquet Hall of Fame. (LINK) (Promotional, linkspam)
 * Special free and low-cost programs and events for these casual forms of croquet are regularly produced at the National Croquet Center (Promotional)
 * Keep in mind that neutrality translated to "It is not an opinion" in these cases. Wording such as "largest and finest" is still a judgment \ opinion, regardless as to whether or not most people would agree with it. Just evade these terms altogether.


 * Hope this helps, and with kind regards, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 08:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Declining The Raddigan Brothers Noise Experience
HI, Excirial

The reason The Raddigan Brothers Noise Experience page was made was to link it with The Silence and the Serenity band/music page, after the page was edited by Phil Bartsch the drummer of both of the bands that have Wikipedia pages.

2/3 of The Raddigan Bros. are the founding members of Bless the Fallen, and The Silence and the Serenity. The Raddigan Bros. haven't had too much publicity as of yet but have picked up a lot of speed in the last year and are starting to get recognition in local newspapers and Punk Zines. and have played many shows in the Tri-State Area. There were a few reputable references to cite information from, and The Silence and The Serenity. And there are some reviews and feed back from the last album that are still to be added.

Thank You for reading. The Raddigan Bros. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.50.175.162 (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hiyas there 173.50.175.162,


 * Based on the above i would think that the band would have a hard time to pass the notability criteria for inclusion. Since Wikipedia itself in an Encyclopedia it doesn't include subjects unless there was already some substantial coverage about them in external sources. Right now the sourcing doesn't seem to pass the reliable sources criteria, as these are to localized or self published.


 * I would advice having a look at WP:BAND, followed by a check if the band can meet any of the criteria set out there (And if that criteria can be supported with reliable sources). If not it will be better to hold off the article until the band received some more coverage, since it would currently be rather difficult (if not impossible) to have the article accepted unless changed to meet the above criteria for notability and reliable sourcing.


 * With kind regards, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 09:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

My submission "HOERBIGER Holding AG"
Dear Excirial,

thank you for your reply. Please, can you specify the passages in text, where more reliable sources will be necessary? As an example, the introduction: Who else but the company itself can provide information about financial figures or the number of employees? Regarding history, i think we agree to each other, that no free newspaper or the like would publish a whole company history. Nevertheless Hoerbiger Holding should not only have a record in German Wikipedia, because the group has thousands of workers round the globe who only speak English.

So can you help me and tell, which sources would find your acceptance?

Thank you in advance!

Direct link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Hoerbiger_Holding_AG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr John Miller (talk • contribs) 10:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hiyas there John,


 * To put it rather bluntly: The entire article actually needs reliable sources since all the sources inside the article were written by the company, or they were press releases written by another company. As mentioned, reliable sources pass the following criteria:


 * It is of sufficient size
 * It can be trusted
 * It is independent of the subject of the article


 * The currently added sources all fail the third criteria, since they were written by the subject or someone close to subject.


 * Examples of reliable sources would be quality newspapers such as the New York times, Major magazines, News websites, University published books and so on. Right now the article only contains self-publised sources, blogs, a wikipedia article and a webshop, and none of these pass the above criteria. Primary sources may only be used to verify trivial information such as Employee count, Current CEO and similar non debatable static information. However, an article may not be based entirely on primary sources, quite the opposite actually. A few primary sources for minor data as above is allowed, but the rest must be cited with secondary sources


 * Besides being used to verify the article content reliable sources are also the basis for the notability criteria that determines if a subject is important enough to be on Wikipedia. Sans reliable sources it fails the general notability guideline, which means that reliable sources are actually a requirement in each and every case. I would advice looking around for reliable sources first - for a company this size at least something must have been published in a newspaper or magazine (Which wasn't sponsored by the company)? I would also recommend using an article from the good article list as an example for writing your own article, as these are checked and found to be of good quality - thus making excellent examples for writing your own article.Personally i tend to recommend Pearson's Candy Company and Pike Place Fish Market since they are well written, decently sourced and most importantly not overly long. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 12:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

TKPBOK User/ 1st page for Ashley O'Connor Declined
Hi thank you for your help with this I was just curious how I can write a biography page and meet your neutral terms. I am open to suggestion..and very appreciated Thank you Ted — Preceding unsigned comment added by TKPBOK (talk • contribs) 19:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hiyas there TKPBOK,


 * There are actually multiple issues with the article, though the neutrality issue was the most prevelant troughout the article. For example, take the following lines:
 * Ashley, along with business partners Stuart Stevens and Russell Schriefer, have brought some of the most prolific advertising to the political world over the past 15 years (Non neutral, advertising)
 * Thru her first political cycle in the 1996 she learned that she had a passion and talent for production (Non neutral - also the statement doesn't add much to the article).
 * Production Highlight's and the entire list of political credits. (Not exactly encyclopedic, and it makes the article looks like a resume).
 * Besides that there really shouldn't be any external links in the main article body. Those go in a specific external links section at the bottom of the page, if the links are relevant.


 * Another issue is that the text isn't supported by reliable sources. I see two references are included, but those are non-independant campaign sites (Considered not reliably), and don't even contain all the content stated in the article. For a so called BLP page (a biography of a living person) literally all content must be sourced with reliable sources, for the simple reason that anyone will be able to change the page content later on, and because incorrect of libelous information in a biography can have repercussions for the subject.


 * Besides these two there are some minor issues such as a need forwikification, a change of the sections in level 2 headers and some basic formatting stuff, but those don't tend to be show stoppers. I would advice looking in the good article section for a biography, and using that as an example for your own article. A Good article has been checked for its quality, and therefor serves as a very decent example for writing an article yourself. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 06:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your insight I have made a major edit based on your recommendations to make it completely neutral and also added a few references from outside news ect. Thank you for your help and I hope it can be reconsidered. Thank you again.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TKPBOK (talk • contribs) 14:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Your very welcome of course. Personally i try to evade reviewing the same article multiple times in a row since a fresh opinion from a different editor is often quite useful - and besides that it prevents any "Not the same guy who already declined X times in a row" issues :).

Steve Daily > Kingdom Adventism
Greetings, Kingdom Asventism belongs to Steve Daily and is the author of the site, Also his book Kingdom Adventism is on Amazon. I may have misunderstood, the copywrite rules but the Steve Daily is the owner that is why I referenced it. Thank you, please explain what I can do to include Kingdom Adventism on the Steve Daily submittal. Again, Thank you.

Here is a look with Steve Daily > http://kingdomadventism.com/?page_id=2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dailyrevival (talk • contribs) 20:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hiyas there Dailyrevival,


 * I declined the article as a copyright violation since the text of the article was directly copied from another source (http://kingdomadventism.com/?page_id=2 in this case). Under US law copyright is automatically granted on all written texts, and is therefor present unless the writer specifically waives these rights. Copyright restricts what one can do with a text - for example, it may not be freely altered or reproduced, which is necessarily for Wikipedia. Due to this Wikipedia only accepts texts that are either licensed under GDFL or CC-BY-SA (or a more lenient license)


 * Having said that i would equally point out that it is rarely a good idea to copy content directly, even if the license allows it. An encyclopedic text requires another structure and writing style then most other texts, and thus it is rare for these texts to be accepted as an article. I would recommend looking in the good article category for an article with a similar subject as your own, and using that as a basis for your own article. However, before spending time it is best to read WP:BIO, WP:V and WP:RS, and checking if your article can meet these policies requirements. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 07:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello again Excirial


 * I cannot find my edit page for Steve Daily. It looks like the whole article has been deleted I do not understnad why the whole article has been deleted. Where do I go from here? Was any of the article acceptable? I am confused as to why it wa completely removed. Can I have an article about Steve Daily? If you compare Bill Johnson or Rick Warren it seems comparable. Sincere thanks, Dailyrevival. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dailyrevival (talk • contribs) 22:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Article Not Accepted
Hello,

I have created an article 'Kristina Galea' and it was not accepted. What should I do please? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovemcfly (talk • contribs) 10:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hiyas there Lovemcfly,


 * The article was declined because the article gave no indication that the subject ('Kristina Galea' in this case) would pass the notability criteria for biographical article's. Have a look at the second linked page and at the general notability guideline and determine if the subject had any chance of passing these criteria. If they cannot, then i fear there is little that can be done in regards to the article, as those are the criteria that determine if there should be article in the first place.


 * One tip: Be critical when assessing notability.Sometimes a subject is simply not notable, which means that it will have a snowballs chance in hell to be accepted. Essentially one could spend a lot of time writing something for no return at all, so if you believe it cannot pass the criteria, it is better not to try. If If the subject can pass the criteria, you will need to cite reliable sources that can verify that claim to notability. For information on how to do this, see WP:REFB. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 13:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Amelkis SAS
Hi,

I am trying to create the page Amelkis SAS, I have attempted to be objective, however obviously i have not been enough. Could you kindly recommend on any standing out major issues with the post which i can amend in order to have a solid article?

i have tried to create the article following a similar patter as 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAP_AG' and 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sage_Group' which are two firms in the industry.

Any help would be highly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jciniamelkis (talk • contribs) 11:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hiyas there Jciniamelkis,


 * To be entirely honest - while the article has seen a rather large amount of edits and reviews its quality had only marginally improved (In some aspects the initial version was even superior to the current version). To list a few of the worst issues:
 * Don't use external links in the main article text. External links go into the external links section at the end of the page, IF they pass the external link criteria.
 * The article is written in a promotional tone. Take for example the following lines.
 * The consulting team originates from top level consolidation positions through the world. (Promotional, adds no real information)
 * The trams vision was to create a software following a similar logical pattern as the major competitors, however the focus is usability, flexibility, transparency and efficiency. (Promotional)
 * Despite being a reletivley young company, it has established a good foothold in the French market. (Subjective conclusion - One person might deem 0,1% market share a good foothold, another would see the threshold at 25% or more. Use facts, not opinions).
 * The article is not supported by reliable sources. A reliable source is defines as:
 * It is of sufficient size - This means that the source has sufficient following. If i were to write my own blog it wouldn't be a reliable source, whereas a large news website would be.
 * It can be trusted - The source has a good reputation for decent writing. The above mentioned blog wouldn't pass this criteria, since it would just be me writing it, without editorial control.
 * It is independent of the subject of the article - A somewhat trickier one. If something is closely related to a subject, it might not be entirely objective. For example: If a company would write a shareholder report they wouldn't mention that they are heavily polluting the environment and expecting a major loss.
 * The currently included sources are PR releases, the companies own website, profiles on random sites et cetera (Due to the amount of unreliable sources it is difficult to tell if there are any reliable ones). What you need are newspaper article's, in depth article's on major technology websites and so on.
 * The article contains a list of references, but those should really be changed into citations, See WP:REFB for help with that.


 * I think this more or less sums it up. If you are looking for an example to write your article, use an article from the good article list, as these are checked and found to be of good quality - thus making excellent examples for writing your own article.Personally i tend to recommend Pearson's Candy Company and Pike Place Fish Market since they are well written, decently sourced and most importantly not overly long. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 13:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Medic to Medic article
Hello there,

Many thanks for reviewing the article I submitted on Medic to Medic! It seems I have come across the common problem of copyright meaning my page was deleted. Two things I would appreciate your feedback on are: 1. How can I best make sure that what I have written won't be deleted again? It was not clear to me which parts of the article were unacceptable and would like to rectify that. 2. I've tried saving my edits but I come across a message saying: "This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 20:47, 12 July 2012 Selket (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Medic to Medic (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement)"

As I am new to wikipedia, I am not entirely sure what I am being asked or how to continue editing my article for re-submission. Hope you can help.

Thanks! Teresa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teresa Due (talk • contribs) 13:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hiyas there Teresa ,


 * I declined the article as a copyright violation since (Part of) the text of the article was directly copied from another source (http://www.who.int/workforcealliance/members_partners/member_list/medictomedic/en/index.html in this case). Under US law copyright is automatically granted on all written texts, and is therefor present unless the writer specifically waives these rights. Copyright restricts what one can do with a text - for example, it may not be freely altered or reproduced, which is necessarily for Wikipedia. Due to this Wikipedia only accepts texts that are either licensed under GDFL or CC-BY-SA (or a more lenient license). The reason that the "This page has been deleted" pops up is because the page has been deleted for the above reason. Copying a copyrighted text is against the law, and as a result the content itself must be deleted if found.


 * Having said that i would equally point out that it is rarely a good idea to copy content directly, even if the license allows it. An encyclopedic text requires another structure and writing style then most other texts, and thus it is rare for these texts to be accepted as an article. I would recommend looking in the good article category for an article with a similar subject as your own, and using that as a basis for your own article. However, before spending time it is best to read WP:CORP, WP:V and WP:RS, and checking if your article can meet these policies requirements. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 07:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Remote Support
Hello Excirial, thank you for your review of mine Remote Support submission, and let me say that in fact there is an overlap with desktop sharing. However, it's not correct to say that remote support is possible due to desktop sharing - its the other way around (and that's exactly why I felt the need to write this submission). It's perfectly possible to provide remote support without using desktop sharing; desktop sharing is just one of many possibilities. For instance, you can provide remote support just by using command lines (powershell), thus solving the issue without ever seeing or sharing the client's desktop.

Long story short, desktop sharing its an IT tool used by remote support services, but not the only one. Remote Support is much more than that. Please take this in consideration and let me know what I must do to make my article approved.

Best regards, Gonçalo Filipe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzalix (talk • contribs) 08:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hiyas there Gonçalo,


 * Now that you mention the distinction between remote desktop and remote support, the above does make a lot of sense. Guess i'm just to used to remote desktop sessions these days - nothing like the joy of trying to explain someone what to do over the phone if they barely know that the computer mouse isn't powered by a block of cheese (Though one could argue that "Remote Torture" would be a more fitting term to describe that method).


 * As for the article itself, i would have a few suggestions. First I'd suggest structuring it somewhat differently. Article's always start with a 1-2 line lead that summarizes the entire article (Intended for people who are just looking for a definition, but don't need more information). After that it is best split the article into sections - i presume that a history section might be interesting to detail remote support over time (From the good ol phone to session sharing). Note that such a section is of course not a requirement for the article, just an idea if you feel like writing a bit.


 * You might also want to create a section out of "Security issues", detailing the trust and security issues. Perhaps "Security concerns" might be a slightly better header, but that is entirely up to you. Besides this the current references should be changed into inline citations. These are placed in the text itself, and display which reference backs up a certain section of the article (Imagine trying to check some random fact, while having 50+ references available where the fact may be discussed). Some help on creating citations can be found here (No worries, its easy to do once you get the hang of it. )


 * Hope this helps, and with kind regards, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 14:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Gledden
You declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Gledden twice for a lack of reliable sources. The author asked about the rationale on the help desk. I'll reply and address some issues with the articles, but since the article gives as sources several newspaper and magazine articles and some BBC and Radio Sheffield radio coverage, it does not seem to lack reliable sources, and I believe the lack of inline citations on its own is not supposed to be a reason to decline a submission. Could you please explain your rationale at the help desk? Huon (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hiyas Huon,


 * I think i can explain this one rather easily - the review in question is 25 days old as of current, and the article has since been improved by the editor. The revision i reviewed was this one, which didn't contain any reliable sources. As far as i can tell the article is currently waiting for a new review of the changed content. Perhaps the editor is simply a bit confused that the old decline templates are left behind? Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 15:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks! Huon (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NYC Outward Bound School
Hi Excirial-

This is in regards to the decline of my submission: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NYC Outward Bound Schools. The reasoning given was that it wasn't written in an encyclopedic tone, didn't use unbiased sources, and used value-laden language (my wording, as I can't find the decline page right now!). I'm hoping you can help me by giving me a few specific lines and/or particularly problematic sections? I've used 28 published references in the article, including 3 New York Times articles, a New York Times Magazine article, a New York Observer article, a New York Post article, 2 Newsday articles, a Miami Herald article, several articles from academic journals, and several books from established publishers like Teachers College Press, Public Affairs Books, and Middle Atlantic Press.

There are about 3 sections where I try to describe the organization's mission, values, goals and results, and I will admit that it was harder there to keep an encyclopedic tone. In the few places where assertions are made without references, I've tried to qualify the language using terms like "The organization espouses a goal of doing XYZ" rather than "The organization delivers quality educational experiences", etc. And I have really tried to not use superlatives and value-charged adjectives. Can you please give me some sections and examples for me to look at and suggestions for how to improve?

Thanks, Carol NYCOBuser NYCOBuser (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Copied from the Article's for creation helpdesk.
 * You indeed use lots of reliable sources; the organization is clearly notable.. But there are several issues:


 * 1) The draft has lots of external links to primary sources (the organization's own websites) among the text. External links should not normally be used in the body of an article (see WP:ELPOINTS); instead we should add an "External links" section at the very end and there provide one or maybe two links to the organization's websites (I'd suggest nycoutwardbound.org and maybe elschools.org). Furthermore, some of your references are primary sources, too.
 * 2) To me the article seemed to contain an inordinate amount of buzzwords and comparatively little content. It often refers to "Outward Bound techniques and practices" or "the pedagogy of Outward Bound", but I found it rather difficult to find out what those techniques, practices and pedagogy actually are. The most extreme example was the "School Model" section, where the first paragraph was almost wall-to-wall buzzwords and the last sentence finally gives some details on the model.
 * 3) The draft sometimes (rarely) uses unduly laudatory language; an example would be "the well-known European educator Kurt Hahn" - well-known to whom? Who says so?
 * 4) The draft repeatedly emphasizes the organization's mission. I haven't read the secondary sources (since they aren't available online, that would be quite an effort for me right now), but I expect they focus more on what the organization does than on what it wants to do. So should we. That doesn't mean the mission shouldn't be mentioned at all, but right now it's more prominent than their achievements.
 * 5) Some critical parts of the article do not have any secondary sources, such as the section on school results. I would expect that a secondary source such as a newspaper aricle noting their above-average graduation rates exists; why don't we provide one? In a similar vein, maybe I took the reference placement too literally, but apparently the last sentences of several paragraphs, despite providing factual information that should be easy to source, have no reference. Examples are the last sentences of both paragraphs of the School Model section and the last paragraph of the History section.
 * All of these issues should be rather easy to fix, though it's quite some editing work. My general advice would be: Aim for a dry tone, unembellished facts, and content that closely follows the secondary sources. Huon (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything i would personally state is in here - for the moment i'm going to consider this one done :). Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 17:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violation
I recently created an article which was not accepted because it contained copyrighted information. I am not sure what the violation was. Could you explain? I am new at this. The article was to be entitled 'Melvyn Goodale' or Melvyn A. Goodale'

This is the message I received:

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. The submission has not been accepted because it included copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

"If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Melvyn A. Goodale. To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the reviewer's talk page. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!"

Alan thistle (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello there Alan,


 * The problem with the article was that it was a copyright violation, as the text of the article was directly copied from other sources (Among, but not limited to http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/goodale/biography/index.htm). Under US law copyright (Which Wikipedia is governed by) is automatically granted on all written texts, and is therefor present unless the writer specifically decides to waives these rights. Copyright restricts what one can do with a text - for example, it may not be freely altered or reproduced, which is necessarily for Wikipedia. Due to this Wikipedia only accepts texts that are either licensed under GDFL or CC-BY-SA (or a more lenient license).


 * In short you can write an article based on external pages and you can paraphrase them, but you cannot directly copy outside content. This is mostly a bad idea regardless, since most external texts are not written in a tone and style that an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia requires. The best way forward is rewriting the submission in your own wording, while making sure that you don't paraphrase the original source to closely (Changing a word or two in a text and then posting it, for example)


 * With kind regards, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Kreemo
related discussion in archive 19 Hi Exciral,

Thank you so much for your response.

Since I own a PR firm am I banned from writing articles for Wikipedia? I took an interest in Kreemo because of what they represent, not because of a paid relationship. They are college students in Atlanta where I live and I respect 21 year old college students who generate millions of dollars of revenue while in school. When I met them I was in awe that they didn't have a page, that's why I submitted a request for one. I had a Wikipedia account long before I met them.

I do think that since I own a PR firm, my tone tends to be corporate in format...LOL I'm guilty there. Please let me know if publicists are banned from writing articles. I hope that's not the case. I work with celebrities but I don't know them all or have personal relationships with them.

Thank you so much :-) Clorissawright (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hiyas there Clorissa,


 * Being the owner of a PR firm naturally doesn't entirely disqualify someone from editing altogether, and i do realize that it is also possible to join Wikipedia under the assumed identity of "Jarvik Jones" the professional athlethe who simply loves using Kreemo sportswear every day and has "no involvement" with Kreemo whatsoever. However, if one finds a promotional text on a subject and actually notice it is written by someone who owns a PR firm working for that subject, you have to admit that does raise some conflict of interest eyebrows. Personally i don't really mind who writes an article, as long as the end result is decent. And while not every editor agrees with that stance, it is a lot easier to talk with Clorissa the PR firm owner who also has professional has involvement with Kreemo, then with "Clorissa who is also known as Jarvik, the kreemo loving athlete with no professional involvement whatsoever".


 * Joking aside - as far as i am concerned you can write an article on Kreemo, regardless of whether or not your paid to do so, as long as you remember that the end result is supposed to be a neutral, non biased article. Since your submitting the article trough AFC it will always be checked before being accepted, so the worst case scenario would be a non accepted article and some review time spend on it. Do note that it would also be a good idea to declare that you have a professional involvement with the article's subject on your user page - having that out in the open is always better then figuring out afterwards.


 * Having said all that, I'd finish with the recommendation of modeling your article after an article that is marked as a good article. Those article's have been quality checked, and tend to be good examples to model an article after. Also: keep in mind the promotional wording. Writing an encyclopedic article is pretty much the straight opposite from writing a PR release, and as they say - old habits die hard.


 * Kind regards, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 17:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey there!!


 * Thanks so much for the advice. Re: Jarvik Jones, I don't know who that is at all. I felt an insinuating tone in your last reply so I wanted to clear that up :-) These guys have 18k Twitter followers and over 20k facebook friends....Everyone loves them, including the celebs who wear their gear...LOL


 * Re: the article, thanks a million for the direction. I'll try to start over from scratch. Do you suggest that or should I modify the previous article with fresh content??


 * Thanks so much! Have a great weekend. Clorissa Clorissawright (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hiyas Clorissa,


 * The entire "Jarvik Jones" comment was just a reply to your first line ("Since I own a PR firm am I banned from writing articles for Wikipedia?"). Jarvik's just an made-up example of what would happen if all conflict of interest editing would be outright forbidden. If that were to happen you can be sure that every PR employee paid to edit would just create some pseudonym to edit under, (Our "Jarvik" example) instead of stating who they really are, which makes things a lot more complex in regards to new article's, edits et cetera. Not saying it applies to you, mostly just a generic comment.


 * As for the article itself, it may be easier to rewrite then to fix. Best way to start is finding a load of reliable sources, reading them, and then constructing the article based on their contents. Before writing it may be easy to think of some sections to add in advance, and while you are writing it is often practical to add inline citations along the way. (See WP:REFB for that). This may take a bit more preparation time then just starting to write, but once your done you should have a decent article (Rather then having to worry about citing the content or citations afterwards)


 * Kind regards, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
Do I need reliable sources to post my company page if its just informational? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.116.127 (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hiyas there 66.65.116.127,


 * Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, all the content on it has to be verifiable trough cited reliable sources, which means the short answer would be yes. The longer (but equally important) answer is there is also an inclusion threshold an article's subject has to meet before being acceptable as an article. This is what is called notability, or "How important a subject is". If an article isn't important enough, the article on it tends to get removed. The basic criteria for notability is being covered in reliable third party sources - which means that without such coverage an article fails this criteria by default. For company's there are also some specialist criteria so make sure to read these as well. If your company can pass these criteria, and if you can source the content, the article should be ok to write. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks you very much! I can always appreciate a shiny new star :) Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matthew 25: Ministries
Hello,

You recently reviewed an article I have been working on about Matthew 25: Ministries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Matthew_25:_Ministries. You told me that the article reads like an advertisement and not like an encyclopedia. I was told this once before and was told to make it more dry. I thought I had removed any flowery wording and felt I added enough outside, reliable sources to back up the information. I have been declined several times and am doing my best to rectify each problem. I was wondering if you could give me some specific examples of where the article gives an advertisement feel and how I might fix that? It is not my intention to create an advertisement I just want to provide information on the organization. Should I remove all links to the organization's website? These are in place simply to provide the most updated information of the given topic; however, if they are the reason for the advertisement feel then I can certainly remove them. Again, if you can please give me some examples of advertisement and how I could go about fixing that I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you for your time. Joodia (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Joodia


 * Hello there Joodia,


 * I can definitely point out some example's for you, but before doing so i would suggest having a look at the list of good quality article's. The article's listed there have been quality checked, and while they are not the very best there are on Wikipedia, they tend to make excellent examples for one's own page. You might want to have a look at a few of them and compare the writing style to your own.


 * As for the promotional issue, here are a few examples (These aren't the only ones in the page though).
 * General issue - don't link external pages inside the article body, this is considered linkspam intended to draw a reader to a certain page. External links go into a separate external links section, and only when they are warranted. Note that you only need 1 link to a certain page (EG: a link to the official site only, not to various sub pages as well).
 * His experience in material handling enabled him to develop an efficient system to rescue (Non neutral, promotional - goes for the entire line)
 * Matthew 25 seeks to address the comprehensive problems of severe poverty worldwide by helping create (Promotional, Peacock terms)
 * Matthew 25: Ministries has developed an efficient, effective, adaptable template for deploying humanitarian aid that works successfully for local, regional, national and international relationships and for ongoing aid or disaster relief. (Entire line is promotional, and riddled with peacock terms)
 * Matthew 25: Ministries is unique among organizations with similar missions and ministries in many ways: (More promotional lines, and the entire section under this line is a downright advertisement).
 *  Matthew 25 helps the poorest of the poor nationally and internationally regardless of race, creed or political persuasion.  (Non neutral - true or not, it is another promotional line).
 * Note that in this case the entire article's structure and content have a rather promotional feeling, as opposed to just having promotional or non neutral sections. This is mostly due to the way the article has been set up: Mission statement, a list of programs, a "Strategic Planning and Sustainability" which honestly seems to read as "We are better then them because" and two lists: "Recent Accomplishments" and "Matthew 25: Ministries and Disasters" which for most part showcase recent accomplishments.


 * I am aware this is a rather large list, and i have to be fair and say that content-wise the article is in quite a bad shape. Ignoring the content for a second i do have to state that (Sans the promotion) the article is in a very decent shape otherwise. References are definitely good, it has been properly sectioned and the writing itself isn't bad. It just lacks some category's and wikilinks but that is really a very minor issue. If it is any consolidation: I believe that the organization itself passes the notability criteria, so if the excessive promotion is taken care of, i wouldn't see a real reason to reject the article.  Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Marc Ericksen
Excirial,

I felt the page I submitted is covered by the notability statute in as much as the art for videogame packages were only actually PAINTED ( caps for emphasis Excirial...not emotion, honest) for a very finite amount of time. That window covered the very early games wherein the pixelated characters were so primitive as to actually require definition by an outside source, ie: the illustrator. This was processed in creative meetings between game developers and illustrators for the purposes of packaging and selling the product. There occurred over the ensuing 20 years (1980- 2000) an actual crossing point, where the skills of the artists melded into the technical: Going from the hand drawn and hand painted; into the Photoshop end cg world, while the skills (and more importantly, the hardware and software) of the programmers began to accelerate more and more quickly into cg realms that no longer required definition by an outside agent, again, the illustrator.

At that point illustrations began to be extracted from the actual game employees, ie: programmers and animators, and the old line concept of ILLUSTRATING COVERS BY HAND AS PAINTINGS DISAPPEARED.

Make no mistake, the illustrations used today for gaming are far advanced over the work my compatriots and myself used to produce, but here is the telling issue: TANGIBLE PAINTED ILLUSTRATIONS ARE DISAPPEARING. Today I work in Photoshop. I send my files to clients as data.

And this is not only true in gaming, but in all walks of illustration. IF I were to walk into a design firm today with a painting under my arm, my clients would literally not KNOW what to do with it.

By naming my entry 'retro videogame artist', my example presents a notable milestone regarding the demise of the physical painting in the illustration world. Should I perhaps describe more fully the loss of hand painting and tangible paintings?

The Notability is this: While computer gaming gave illustration a great boost in 1980, within the technology itself, were the seeds that ended illustration as it had been known since the dawn of civilization. There are no longer physically extant paintings being done for the illustration market as we know it, outside of boutique editorial applications.

Additionally many of the companies and personalities I mention already have Wiki entries: Broderbund. The Carlston family. Kieth Zabalauie, Ed Rains, Activision, Sega, and many many of the games I illustrated can be found in Wikipedia, and many of my original illustrations are found there in graphic manner as well.

Further, can you let me know how to use sources not indicated in your sourcing drop down menu (journals-web-papers-books)? Things like military records, DD-214 etc.? Or college records for graduation and degrees, etc?

Wow! ...Thanks for the time, I appreciate all your efforts with wiki. It's a fantastic tool and platform for the new world in which we live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C0martman (talk • contribs) 23:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hiyas there C0martman,


 * Whew, that was a whole lot of text to read - somewhat rare to have someone around on my talk page who is as much into verbosity as i am :). Before anything else i would have to say that the page itself is a bit of an oddity - or perhaps exotic is the right term to use in this instance. I have seen quite a few article subjects being submitted, but I'm fairly sure this is the first video gaming related artist that i ever saw. In cases where art is involved, one would have to pass the criteria set in the artist notability guideline. Yet the artist criteria are mostly intended for the museum / gallery type artist, which is quite different from video game related work.


 * Because of that, I'd would say that the general notability guideline applies there. This means that (to be included on Wikipedia) the subject of the article must have received nontrivial coverage in multiple works that pass the reliable sources criteria. This would be newspapers, magazines, books - anything that can be considered reliable.


 * In cases where you wish to cite something not present in the dropdown list, you can use the citation template. The citation template is more or less the "parent" of every citation substyle. The downside of it is that you have to paste and fill it manually, rather then using the interface dropdown.


 * With kind regards, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

OGC WCPS page, again :)
Hi Excirial,

it's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Web_Coverage_Processing_Service again: think I have learnt that standards texts cannot be quoted, so I have rewritten the passages I believe have offended review. Can we give it another try please?

Thanks for your patience, Pebau.grandauer (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Guess you might have already seen the "Article accepted" banner on your talk page, but yet, that is definitely well written and not to closely paraphrased. The only direct match i could find was "digital geospatial information representing space-varying phenomena" in some sources, but i would say that goes into the "1 line doesn't matter" bin, especially since i don't see how it could be altered without the text becoming unclear or losing its meaning.


 * In other words - Good job! :) Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * many thanks, Excirial - your patient and friendly support is greatly appreciated. You gave me opportunity to learn. Looking forward to our next encounter! Pebau.grandauer (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

AFCH suggestion - marking article as high quality for WikiProject Abandoned Drafts
Hiyas there Mabdul,

Another suggestion right on your talk page rather then on the dev page (O well) for AFCH. I was thinking that it might be an idea to have an extra option in AFCH that allows one to mark a page as potentially high quality for WikiProject Abandoned Drafts, just in case the creator abandons it. It would mean less sifting trough old stuff, and allow one to keep a backlog of promising pages. I was thinking about a template on the page, but it may be easier to let AFCH record it on some project subpage, just in case the editor replaces all the content in the article. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting idea: I would like to see a discussion at WT:AFC and of the Abandoned Drafts projects page (on one page together!) on what basis an draft should be marked. As far as my reviewing standard is: if it includes three good sources: move it - so only drafts with unreliable and/or non-notable are left over. so which kind of drafts should be marked? The technical implementation is rather easy, independent of using a template, a cat, or a separated page like the /recent. mabdul 19:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll try to create a section on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation to discuss this this evening, and I'll transclude the section on the abandoned drafts talk page so that everyone can see and edit the same thing. A set of guidelines would be a good idea, to prevent clogging the process with useless article's (A few check boxes to mark common problems might be useful, since not every editor might like searching sources or Wikifying). Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 09:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Rachelle_Clune
Hi there,

Thanks for the quick response, I only joined wikipedia on Friday so a lot is still new to me, I will continue (and hopefully improve!) W — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wleikertas (talk • contribs) 09:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Your very welcome of course, and best of luck with the article! :) Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 12:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Submission declined for article on Made.com(Retailer)
Dear Excirial,

Thanks for reviewing my submission. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Made.com_(retailer)

Your review said it appears to be more of an advertisement, article being not set up in an encyclopedic format and also questions the subject’s notability. I have improved the article including few changes to source references.

I would further like to mention that the references provided are from notable and reliable news sources like BBC, Guardian, Techcrunch etc and the awards mentioned have been reported in publications like telegraph and goodwebguide.com.

Please reconsider accepting my submission.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JulesMajor (talk • contribs) 09:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hiyas there Jules,


 * Just a very quick note to start with (not that this truly matters, but i figured i'd best mention it) - the advertising decline was mine, the notability decline was done by another editor, avs5221


 * Looking at the article itself i would say that the sources themselves are quite decent, at the very least the publishers are considered reliable, and the coverage of made.com is more then a single line. Still, the promotional concern remains. For example, these lines:
 *  It also asserts to find skilled craftsmen to build its furniture; the experienced workers are often the same people who create products for the UK’s famous high street brand (Advertising, "Buy made.com, even celebrities use the same designers")
 * The company claims to provide high quality, made to order furniture at low prices by grouping together orders of the same item and producing items every seven days (Advertising. The company might claim it, but its still a promotion for themselves")
 * Made.com now connects over 100,000 customers directly with prominent British designers including Steuart Padwick, John Stefanidis [6] as well as many other leading design partners. (Same as the first line - "Buy made.com, made by the cream of the crop designers")
 * While these lines may be sourced, their content is still promotional, and as of such non neutral.


 * As with all the article's detailing companies i recommend modeling it after a GA qualified article, since these have been checked for quality of writing, references et cetera. my favorite examples are Pearson's Candy Company and Pike Place Fish Market, because they are well written decently referenced, while also being quite short (thus reading them doesn't take ages)


 * Hope this helps, and with kind regards, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 17:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Excirial,


 * Thanks for your time and for sharing your thoughts on how to improve this article. It was very helpful. I shall look into implementing these and resubmit the article for your revision at the earliest.


 * Thanks, Jules — Preceding unsigned comment added by JulesMajor (talk • contribs) 09:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Your more then welcome of course, and best of luck improving the article :) Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 13:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Excirial,


 * Thanks for your support. I have made few changes and re-submitted the article.


 * Kind regards,J ules — Preceding unsigned comment added by JulesMajor (talk • contribs) 16:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Porceln
Question was cross-posted to User talk:Nyttend Hello, you deleted my article because I used copyrighted work. I will change it, but where can I find the deleted article, because when I try to open it, than I just receive an empty editing box. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porceln (talk • contribs) 07:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hiyas there Porceln,


 * The page in question isn't accessible because it has been deleted due to the copyright violation. Knowingly having any form of copyrighted content publicly available on Wikipedia is against US copyright laws, and as of such these pages are removed once sighted. If the article would have been deleted for notability or otherwise non-legal issues i might have been able to restore the article to a subpage for you, but in cases where the deletion reason is a copyright violation this isn't permitted - both by Wikipedia policy and the law. In this case i fear my only advice is rewriting the article from scratch, taking care not to literally copy content or to paraphrase it to closely. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 17:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

re-review please
Good morning, Excirial. I have addressed your comments in an article I'm trying hard to get right and have removed peacock terms and added more references in support of the person's work. Would you mind having another look, please? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Anthony_Wile Related question... There appears to be an old page that was begun for this individual sometime in the past but never really finished. You recently reviewed it, too, and it's now showing up on my watchlist. I assume that one should be deleted? It's here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Anthony_Wile [old] Finally--if this is NOT the best way to request a re-review or re-submit, please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GatorHalcon (talk • contribs) 11:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello there GatorHalcon,


 * The second Anthony Wile article shows up on your watchlist because Wikipedia simultaniously watchlists a article and article talk pages. It seems someone else started an article on the article page, while yours resides on the article talk page (Causing you to see two of them on your watchlist). For now i would see it as a minor inconvenience, since keeping AFC article's is preferable over removing them altogether, just in case a contributer returns or someone decides to adopt the article.


 * As for the article itself, i fear it still suffers from the old non neutrality and peacock issues. For example:
 * Incorporating a perspective based on more than 20 years of financial and business experience working with growth-oriented companies in a variety of sectors (Puffery)
 * The Daily Bell remains on the cutting edge of alternative news publishing (Non neutral, peacock)
 * Harry Browne, were an enormous success, with more than 500,000 people logging on. (Subjective - success is a conclusion, enormous is not neutral).
 * Editor to several leading free-market thinkers. (More peacock words)
 * I only checked a few random sentences and sections, so there are bound to be more.


 * As for the review requests - it is best to place the article back in the queue for another check when desired (Reduces dependence on a single editor - i tend to have vacation every now and then). To do this, just click the "When you are ready to resubmit, click here." link in the bottom template.


 * Kind regards, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 17:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Kasissikai karate kissi-do or some such
PS, maybe you had better have a look: he says he's willing to rewrite to avoid copyvio, but I've blanked his AfC...

Hi Excirial, I realise you're busy and you don't need to respond to this unless you feel like it. The issue is repeated copyvio by a new user on his karate article, see: User_talk:Robinjamesshort. I just mention it because you are one of the editors who picked it up earlier, and I would like your view, only if you can spare the time, on my latest response to him. Regards,  David_FLXD  (Talk) 11:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see to much i can do here to be honest. Marking it as a copyvio with AFCH or Twinkle should be all that is needed to have it removed. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Another copyrighted version (yay). Deleted the article, and salted the title, though i doubt it will do much good since it is a dynamic IP editor who can simply move to another article title if desired. I figure this will likely become a matter of having the longest attention span, with the editor eventually giving up on publishing the copyvio. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 21:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Enigma NMS
Hi Excirial

I have written article about Enigma NMS, publishing of which was declined by you on the basis of absence on independent, reputable sources. In references for the article I have included Product Review done by "Network Computing UK Magazine", where they have actually installed and trialed my software. Could you please advise if above reference does not meet Wikipedia's definition of verifiable source. Regarding the way material is presented, I can validate every claim which I made, but it may still look like promotion material. I may need to ask you to point me to whoever can help me to modify my article so it gets published on your web site.

Thank you very much for your assistance

Kind regards

Mikhail Chelomanov NETSAS Pty Ltd Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelomm (talk • contribs) 12:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hiyas Mikhail,


 * The decline i placed on the article was because the article was written as an advertisement, though the notability issue still applies. Par the notability criteria for companies a product is placed in the companies main article, unless individually notable. In that case there must be multiple reliable sources that back up the article. Product reviews on minor websites don't pass these criteria, and thus don't count towards the notability threshold. So before changing anything else in the article, it would be best to accertain that it can pass the notability criteria. Can't pass means no article - thus voiding any extra work.


 * As for the advertising issue, have a look at (for example)
 * Enigma provides network managers and engineers with wide range of capabilities, which are used to manage and monitor all facets of enterpise network environment, including performance, availability, inventory, configuration, carriage, events, billing. (Advertising)
 * and specialises in innovative and effective enterprise network management (peacock wording)
 * Enigma is a truly enterpise network management solution (Enterprise i guess? Also non neutral wording)


 * The article isn't as bad in the promotional department as some, but it definitely needs more reliable sources before it will ever to fly.


 * With kind regards, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DR PETER MARSHALL Method of citing TV and radio programmes and amending citations after insertion
Dear Excirial I have taken on board your comments on my submission and have redone the citations using the citation tool and neutralised all the evaluative terms. If there are any others that you feel are not neutral please inform me and I will amend them.

The citation tool only provides for Websites, newspapers, books and journals, though. How do you cite TV and radio programmes?

A second question I have is can citations be amended after insertion if, for example, a page number has been inadvertently omitted? Kind regards Populotradit Populotradit (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello there Populotradit,


 * If you believe an article is ready for another review, just click the "Click here" part in the "When you are ready to resubmit, click here." line in the decline template and save the page - This will put the page back in the review queue for another check. I try to evade reviewing the same page multiple times in a row, since a fresh pair of eyes tends to be helpful most of the times (And it prevents cases where editors are stuck with the same reviewer declining something over and over).


 * As for citations: The links in the interface are in essence a visual aid to help editors place templates. What it actually does is generating a filled-in template with the data the editor provides, rather then requiring them to create one manually. As of such the template can always be adapted, though it is manual modification work in this case. For example, have a look at Template:Cite book, which lists all possible parameters for the template (You can add these to your own template as well). In cases where you wish to cite something that doesn't have a specialized template, you can use the basic citation template, which should be able to hold most other types of content. However adding these is (As with altering references) manual copy + paste + fill in work.


 * Kind regards, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Request details from an angle as an outsider to improve the article
Hi Excirial,

Since the first submission, I sincerely thank you a lot to help me realize some main problems which make the article not neutral enough. I did the modification and revised almost all the content based on the suggestion you gave in order to make it more be a wiki entry. However, the second submission was declined again although I thought it should be perfect this time. I think maybe you would be so kind to re-exam the article I did and tell me from the point of view as a third person about the content which need to be improved. Actually I reviewed the passage "read more like an advertisement" several times and I find by far the problem may be the description about the SERVICES part because the content may look like sales-oriented. Anyway, I am expecting from you more details of advices.

Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Transport_Marketplace

Best regards, Foncion (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting that i actually managed to review it twice in a row - normally i try to evade doing so to allow a fresh pair of eyes to check the article. Regardless of that i think i can be rather brief this time, mostly because the article has definitely improved when compared to the previous review.


 * You already correctly spotted my main issue with the article - the services section, which is written in a style that i would except in a sales brochure. The first line "Transport Marketplace closes the gap between supply and demand of shipper and carrier in the field of transport by introducing new tools to connect shipper and carrier via cloud computing." is quite promotional, and the rest of the section is mostly a summation why Transport Marketplace had advantages for its customers. Don't draw conclusions - just describe the services they offer.


 * A second section that could use another look is the "Prospection" section. It starts with the slogan of the company, and then suddenly states: "It means the total business is “international” and “environmental friendly” thanks to the feature of the web". That is what they intend with the slogan of course, but it again sounds promotional (Use Transport Marketplace! Its web based, so its good for the environment!). The best method to include such information is by simply weaving it into the article itself. In this case i would mention that Transport marketplace provides middleman services, and therefor doesn't take part in any form of goods transfer. In fact, there isn't a real need to mention this is environmentally friendly since it is mostly a generic conclusion that runs true for many websites selling goods.


 * Kind regards, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Excirial
Hi, I have just recently created the Kodenshi America Inc. Site and was just wondering which parts of my article were non-neutral so that I can change those and include some references before I resubmit the article for creation. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Peter An — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anpeter (talk • contribs) 22:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Peter,


 * Often the easiest thing to do is quote a few example lines from the article, and explain why they are an issue.
 * With over three decades of experience and expertise behind, Kodenshi AUK is opening up the door to a new future, in which human beings and nature can peacefully co-exist and is now rapidly growing into a leading position in its field (promotional / subjective content, with multiplepeacock words. )
 * They are also in charge of developing plans for new products, targeting top multinational companies in the United States, and to become the technological leader in the high-tech industry (Same as above line)
 * Kodenshi AUK realizes its brand value, future value, and product value with its products and dedication, and is writing a new chapter with its customers in the history of convergence technology. (And again, same as above).
 * Note that these are just three examples, and that the issue itself is prevalent throughout most of the article. Try to focus on finding decent sources first though - Without reliable sources an article simply won't be accepted under any circumstance, which means that any other work on it is mostly futile unless that is dealt with. Also, As with all the article's detailing companies, i would recommend modeling it after a GA qualified article, since these have been checked for quality of writing, references et cetera. my favorite examples are Pearson's Candy Company and Pike Place Fish Market, because they are well written decently referenced, while also being quite short (thus reading them doesn't take ages)


 * Hope this helps, and with kind regards, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

American Friends of Rabin Medical Center
Hi my article was deleted about a legitimate non-profit organization. Site: afrmc@afrmc.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.100.9 (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hiyas there Afrmc (Note: Your editing while not logged in),


 * Your article has not been deleted, it has simply been declined and is available for editing at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/American Friends of Rabin Medical Center. There is also a template on your talk page that contains the link, and the decline reason itself is present in the article.


 * With kind regards, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Submission Error
Dear Excirial: Thank you for reviewing and commenting on an 'Article Submission' from me titled 'Delegates from ...'. I apologize that the item did not resemble an article. I believe now that the item should be sent to my talk page as a section. The item has a user name consisting of numerals. There is very little content in it, so about all I'm doing right now is trying to reserve it's title. in the late nineteenth century there was a Canadian politition in a presidential delegation from Washington DC to Gettysberg. there was also a delegation from North-West Territories, Canada Headed by Gabriel Dumont to Montana which brout back Louis Riel to Canada where Riel was executed. Such things deserve better coverage. I have been noticing redirecs and am wondering if a rejected article can be sent to my talk page.

Sincerely,RCNesland RCNesland (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello there RCNesland,


 * A talk page is mostly intended for communication between editors, so i have instead moved it to a user subpage, which is present here. Still, i don't entirely understand what you are trying to do by "reserving" a page title. Any article can be edited by anyone, and a page itself is never owned by a specific editor. So if you feel the content of a page should be different, you can edit it. The same goes for redirects - if there is a valid reason as to why it shouldn't redirect to a certain article and should instead have its own page, you can simply develop a page at that page name and remove the redirect from it.  Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

tips for ARTHUR JEFFES (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Arthur Jeffes)
Hi, I had our ARTHUR JEFFES page declined, but I'm not sure why, please could you briefly give me any pointers for how to improve it to get it on line.

Arthur has a big concert at somerset house on saturday for the olympics and we really wanted to get this page live before then.

thanks very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenbanshee (talk • contribs) 10:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hiyas Xenbanshee,


 * For any subject to be on Wikipedia, it needs to pass some criteria before inclusion itself is warranted. One of the most basic policies is that the subject must be notable, or important enough to be included. The criteria for musicians and biographies are listed at WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BIO respectively. There is also the general notability guideline which states that if a subject has been covered in multiple reliable sources it is presumed notable. Note that these reliable sources are mandatory in any article (And especially biographies of living persons), as they are used to back up the content that was written.


 * Right now the article has issues in both these departments. Based on the text alone i cannot see a real indication of importance (The notability guidelines linked above), and there are no reliable sources that could help it to pass the general notability guideline.


 * King regards, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Faye Snyder
Hi Excirial, It looks as if you reviewed the original version (twice) that was submitted a couple of days ago. I tried to resubmit but it seems that I cannot (or I'm probably not doing it correctly) I keep getting redirected to another page saying that it's been declined. My new submission is just the intro section (first 2 sections).

How can I resubmit? Any help you can offer to get this up would be greatly appreciated. Thank you BeeDazzle BeeDazzle (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello there BeeDazzle,


 * Submissions that are declined are kept so to allow a writer to improve them, unless there is a specific reason to delete them (Copyright violations, libelous content and so on). The page you wrote is still present on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Faye Snyder, and you can simply edit this page directly if you wish to change its content. The old decline templates will also still be present on the page, though you can just ignore those (Those are simply informational for the people reviewing the article, and a means to quality-control past declines). Just edit the page so that it contains the content you wish, and then press the Click Here part in the "When you are ready to resubmit, click here." line to resubmit it for review.


 * Note that you should see the page as you intend to submit it before pressing that link, because that is the version that will go in the review queue. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 17:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

AMS REALTIME Article feedback
Hi, Thank you for your feedback. I will try to get some more references (I did add some but they seem to not be good enough) if I can find any more. I must admit to being a bit frustrated with the process of getting a simple factual mention in Wikipedia of a company and of software that does obviously exist and is used by many users around the world. I am not sure if we have any further references from creditable publications, so if I cannot find any, I guess I will have to give up! I will do a bit more searching first though :-). Regards, Ervin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heavy66 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem really is that there is a near infinite amount of topics people could write about, and there must be some form of restriction as to what can and can't be on Wikipedia (Which is why the notability criteria exists). Also, since an encyclopedia is technically nothing more but a giant summary of all these topics, everything needs references. If those can't be found then there is technically nothing to summarize :). Reliable sources themselves tend to have 3 criteria they must pass:


 * The publisher of the source must be of sufficient size. This means that you can quote major newspapers, large websites or otherwise sizable publishing organisations. You can't quote a personal blog or a minor website with 10 readers a year.
 * It can generally be trusted to tell the truth. Major newspapers and large websites tend to have quality control, but some sources such as some tabloids tend to be sensationalist over accurate, so those don't pass the criteria.
 * It is independent of the subject of the article. Simply put: The subject can't have a direct relation with the source itself. So nothing they wrote themselves, or someone close wrote for them. Also nothing that the subject paid for to get written.


 * The problem is that two of the added sources (The company website and the PRnewswire release) are created by the company itself, and thus don't pass the third criteria. I did a very quick search myself, and it is indeed difficult to find reliable sources for this one (Not in the least case since "Advanced Management Solutions" is in use as a phrase by many companies). Having said that - offline sources such as magazines are fine as well as long as they pass the above criteria. Perhaps you have some luck with those?


 * Kind regards, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Safety Regulations Governing the Transport of Radioactive Material
Dear Sir, I wrote this out as best I could as an article and my writing style has been used as the criteria to reject the article? You say my style is like an essay? Shall I write it as bullet points. I was trying to make it interesting. I've looked at dozen of otehr articles and they seem written the same way. I feel this is a little critical. It's taking along time to create this. Any feedback gratefully received. Regards. Articles for creation/Safety Regulations Governing the Transport of Radioactive Material. unsigned comment signed for user:Vinette algasse


 * Hiyas there Vinette,


 * I am not sure why you think the article was rejected for being an essay, since the decline i did myself was because the article was a copyright violation as the text of the article was directly copied from another source (http://www.dounreay.com/site-closure/transports/fact-sheet in this case). Under US law copyright is automatically granted on all written texts, and is therefor present unless the writer specifically waives these rights. Copyright restricts what one can do with a text - for example, it may not be freely altered or reproduced, which is necessarily for Wikipedia. Due to this Wikipedia only accepts texts that are either licensed under GDFL or CC-BY-SA (or a more lenient license)


 * Having said the above, i do notice that the article was previously declined by another reviewer on the basis of being an essay. Yet this AFC response was placed at user:Bettywonutrain's talk page (The editor who originally created the article) So i am wondering, are you and Bettywonutrain the same person? Or did you just notice the decline in the article before it was removed on copyright violation grounds? Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Lawrence Tenney Stevens
Hi Exicrial,

You recently reviewed my submission on the sculptor Lawrence Tenney Stevens, and I got back a notice saying that you reviewed it and declined it, but I'm having a real issue figuring out how to view your comments and fix what I did wrong, as the notification was pretty unclear as to how to do that. Could you either recommend the correct way to do this, or even just repeat what your comments were? Thanks so much!

Gretchenea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gretchenea (talk • contribs) 15:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hiyas there Gretchenea,


 * The decline reasons for an article are always left on the article itself, while the editor just receives a note that the article was declined. The article itself is present Here, and there is a red box on top that contains the decline reason itself (Note that it will always be there if someone declines an article, so if it happens again, just look there first :) ).


 * Since i'm writing anyway, i might just as well explain the comment a little further, and give a few examples as to why it was declined. The decline reason was that the article's tone isn't encyclopedic in some places, and has a tenancy to use some WP:Peacock words. For example:
 * Stevens amassed a large body of work over his lifetime that is indicative of his commitment to embodying the spirit of the west in sculpture (Subjective, promotional)
 * A dedicated patriot all his life, Stevens volunteered for the armed forces in 1917 to fight in World War I (non neutral, peacock wording)
 *  Stevens took this to heart, and made it his personal artistic mission to use his sculpture to glorify that which was uniquely American (Mostly the same issues as above)
 * Having said the above, i feel i should also mention that the article does a lot of things entirely right, and i defiantly think it is going to be accepted after a little bit of polish (Or should i say: After a bit of natural Patina?).


 * Kind regards, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your feedback! After I asked this question I actually found your comments, and I really appreciate your clarifying your decision specifically for me. I went back through and removed or reworded the offending content, and I just resubmitted! I hope the changes help it sound less subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gretchenea (talk • contribs) 19:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)