User talk:Excirial/Archive 25

User: YoonYoungJo
I realize that this user made several mistakes, but I am willing to work with him towards helping him understand the wiki better and perhaps making it so he can be of use to the wiki. I understand and was TRYING to work with him before the block, but now that the situation is where it is, if he is willing, perhaps we can work something out with him? I firmly believe in second chances. Lets see if we can give him one? Andrew Wiggin (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you copy this message? Andrew Wiggin (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * As any other editor he can request an unblock using the unblock template mentioned in the actual block template. Note that this is something the blocked user must do himself or herself. Since blocks are not intended as a punishment but rather as a means to prevent further damage an unblock request should demonstrate that the user understands why the block was there in the first place. If that is not the case the same problem may occur right after an unblock - and that isn't a good situation for either party.


 * As for the edits - Wikipedia is not a soapbox one can use to list all forms of criticism in regards to some topic. Criticism is only added to an article if this viewpoint is substantially large and backed by a substantial amount of reliable sourcing. There is no need to add a separate header for a BBB rating in the middle of an company article - let alone on every article remotely related to that company. It is even debatable if this is information that should be added at all in the first place - is there any encyclopedic relevance for this rating for this particular company? Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 23:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, however a think a partial unblock with restricted rights, and I am willing to try adopting him even though I am rather new myself... I would say we put him through Adoption testing and if he understands how wikipedia works and passes testing he can be fully unblocked? If thats not a fair way to do this IDK what is... No effort on anyone here but me and him. Hows that for a plan? Andrew Wiggin (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as partial unblocking - either someone is blocked and cannot edit outside his own talk page, or someone is not blocked which in turn allows them to edit everywhere. I have no quarrel regarding an unblock as long as it won't result in the same "tag the article" editing style. However, for this YoonYoungJo should post an unblock template - for most part because this comment caught me on my way out.  Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 23:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

McDonald-Seer Computer Poll
A friend using my computer was making some changes to Wikipedia pages mainly regarding McDonald-Seer Computer Poll. He said it had been suggested for deletion and then said he was harassed by a user. The McDonald-Seer Computer Poll is an algorithmic sports ranking system developed in 2009. The poll and algorithm are owned by McDonald Sports Enterprises LLC, an Idaho based company. It has named three national champions and two quarterback of the year awards. It is published on a weekly basis at www.oncampussports.com/mcdonald and is currently working with a handful of billion dollar companies for future endeavors. Links were being added to update this page, so it could be viewed from past winners of both National Championships and Quarterback trophies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonRichers (talk • contribs)


 * JasonRichers, I suggest you read WP:SOCK. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * FYI - Both editors blocked as ducks (SPI case). Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 00:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

afc and deletion
Did you place a speedy tag on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Man's World By Rachel Crothers,? You correctly declined it for not being supported by sources, but that is not a reason for speedy deletion. Obviously, the point of articles being there is so they can get advice for what is needed. Or did the software for AfC possibly put it on automatically when you selected that reason? If so, we'll need to do something about it. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, this is actually a quirk in the AFCH script. If you accidentally select a deletion reason that defaults to a blank + delete tag (Copyright, BLP) and select another reason afterwards it will not uncheck the "AFC Cleared" checkbox. Nine out of ten times i remember it does that and correct it manually, but on occasion i forget to unset that box and thus it places a decline template alongside blanking / tagging the page. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 21:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That explains a lot. I've seen similar from time to time and not figured out what was happening. I suppose  whole  AfC process will get improved eventually.  DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * just happened again at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/International Center for Develpoment and Decent Work DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Some good news - This problem should be solved now (Both the article and the checkbox issue). Seems i was still running mabdul's debug version of the script which is rather handy for spotting errors before it is pushed as a release, but quite impractical if one starts reviewing a lot of article's since it can have some issues here and there.


 * If you happen to see anyone else having this problem have a look at their mono / vector.js and see if they are still using any script other then "MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper.js". If they do, they are likely running a debug or older version of the script and should update it to the aforementioned version (Or enable it via preferences). Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 20:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

St Paul's University (Kenya)
Hi Excirial, Not so much a question as a reply. I'm new to Wikipedia, I made my first article on St Paul's University, Kenya; you declined it and I noted your comments on notability of an organisation. (Disclosure: I once taught there, though the article is my initiative solely.) I made some changes - two references to the Universities regulator in Kenya and St Paul's University itself, and a change to the article head to include 'Kenya'. I hope it meets the standards! Otherwise, thanks for the guidance.Travellor (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Travellor.


 * Hiyas there Travellor,


 * Generally taken i try to review an article only once in a row, before allowing another reviewer to have a look at it. By doing so another editor can have a "fresh" look at the changes which tends to yield better reviews (If only due to the possibility that they spot an issue i missed or didn't comment on myself). The review queue is somewhat long though, so it could take a few days before someone will take a look at it. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Re submission of article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Navinkhannadssi/sandbox
hello Excirial,

As per your reviewing comment my article has lacking reference authenticate links. So I had edited the my article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Navin_Khanna) review page. So kindly reply after reviewing my article on navin khanna and suggest me if any change is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navinkhannadssi (talk • contribs) 11:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hiyas there Navinkhannadssi,


 * I placed the article in the review queue where it is waiting in line for a review. As soon as someone reviews it you will receive a notification.  Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Mayfield College page rejection
While the article you rejected was intended as a brief introduction to a more informative piece currently in the pipeline I'm wondering whether to give up now!? I was a pupil of Mayfield College in the 1960s-70s and am an active member of its alumnae via Facebook but being a defunct institution prior to the existence of the internet and no known books published on the school there is little or no physical documentation, other than photographs, Prize Day & School Play programmes, an occasional promotional pamphlet and a whole lot of collective memories from several thousand ex-pupils. How does one proceed in such a case? I have plenty of correct information, just no verifiable sources other than me. Fearless LeChien (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hiyas there LeChien.


 * In that case it may be quite difficult - if not impossible - to write an article about it. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia all its content should be verifiable trough the use of reliable sources. These sources are not only used to verify the article, but are also used to determine if the subject of an article is notable (That is, important enough) for encyclopedic inclusion.


 * If there are no published reliable sources available covering the article, it will continuously fail these two criteria. I don't doubt that the content of the article is correct, but one can never know for sure. If i were to change a line at random and feign that i was a student as well there would be a situation were there is no means to verify who is right. Still, i would find it strange if there would be no physical documentation left behind. A college is larger then the average primary school, and seeing it was founded in 1865 there must have been someone who wrote a reliable source in its 130 year existence as a college. It would of course be dated before Internet era so they would be harder to find, but historical newspapers or governmental archives may sometimes yield a lot of information. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

How famous does a person have to be?
Hi Excirial, You denied a page about the Finnish businessman Ilkka Tiainen I sent for approval earlier today due to notability. My question is: how well known internationally does a person have to be in order for him/her to have an article on his/hers own name on Wikipedia in English? Tiainen is well known here in Finland, for example all the major Finnish newpapers write about him. Thanks and cheers, Cillam78 (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The notability criteria for biographic articles is twofold - Par the general notability guideline someone is deemed notable if they have been covered extensively covered in reliable that are independent of the subject of the article (See WP:42 for a definition of a reliable source). Also, par ANYVIO someone is notable if they have been widely recognized for their contribution towards whatever they are notable for (A writer could have written a historical book, an athlete could have received an Olympic medal and so on).


 * There is no real need for someone to be well known internationally. An US Senator is unlikely to be covered by an Indian newspaper, and the same applies the other way around. However, any source must still be sufficiently sizable to be considered for notability. A mayor of a 100 man Indian village might be extensively covered by local newspapers but that wouldn't make him notable for encyclopedic inclusion. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Ab aeterno wooden watches
Hi Ecirial! I wrote a page about Ab aeterno wooden watches and it was said me that I have to add more references. I want to ask you which kind of information I should add because I allready inserted the brand official site and an article about it. it is also a registered brand and i think is a famous one. thank you very much!!Bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by SerenaCarletti (talk • contribs) 16:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello there Serena,


 * Any article must be backed by reliable sources that display why a subject is notable enough for encyclopedic inclusion - for a definition of a reliable source see WP:42. A brand's own publishing can never be used as a reliable source since these are not independent of the article subject. In other words - you will need to add references that meet the above mentioned reliability criteria, and whose prose back up what was written in the article. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the information! I have two more questions, is it right to add the number of the brand registration as a reference or isn't it iindependent? the last one, before you answered I tried to make changes in the references but now I can't see them. I don't have clear how to change the text. what can I do now for changing the contents? when i log in, in the "read" it says the article has not been accepted, then i go to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ab aeterno wooden watches and then i find the original article. should i change here again adding the right references? thank you again!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SerenaCarletti (talk • contribs) 21:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

George A Kessler article
Wow, that was fast! Thanks for the feedback. I've never tried submitting an article before on Wikipedia. The current Wikipedia article on Helen Keller International has always included a link to the wrong George Kessler and this has bothered me for a while. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Keller_International

(Now the link has changed to reference my "non-existent" article, since apparently my edits on that page WERE accepted. But this is probably better than referring to the wrong George Kessler.)

The article I submitted initially is a translation and minor adaptation of one that is actually on the German Wikipedia site, which you can find here:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Kessler

George Kessler’s obituary in the New York Times may be one of the best general references, since it mentions his champagne business, his philanthropy, the Lusitania, and the famous “Gondola party.”

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB081FF9355511738DDDAD0994D1405B808EF1D3

The following links refer to the famous Savoy Hotel "Gondola party.”

http://www.historichotelsworldwide.com/hotels-resorts/savoy-london/history.php http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/heartthrob-hotel-savoy-puts-its-treasures-up-for-sale-765279.html http://www.everyonesanoriginal.com/post_detail/?contentid=7091694029226039438&blogid=8898601089039392198 http://books.google.com/books?id=H5mtS07Qu48C&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=george+kessler+savoy&source=bl&ots=62dxL1c74O&sig=LbipN5910fVlL Htzq6HUW5dHm0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EpwaUaWsLNGsqAGx44DIDA&ved=0CFsQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=george%20kessler%20savoy&f=false

A link to a drawing of the Gondola Party is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GondolaPartyatSavoy.JPG

The Savoy Hotel also owns the original copy of a "painted" or colorized photograph taken during the party of the King Of England, Enrico Caruso, and George and Cora (Parsons) Kessler in their archive collection. My brother and I also own copies of this photo, but I’m not sure where my copy is.

The following reference includes some additional information about the Lusitania:

http://www.rmslusitania.info/people/saloon/george-kessler/

Diana Preston’s book, “Lusitania: An Epic Disaster,” also includes some info about George Kessler, but I don’t have the exact page numbers in front of me.

I’m not sure where to include these references in the article, so I’d love to have your suggestions.

By the way, while we share the same last name, George Kessler is, unfortunately, a rather distant relative; a first cousin, 3 times removed. (He died long before I was born, and I certainly didn’t inherit any of his great fortune!!)

Thanks again and I look forward to your additional comments and suggestions,

Warm regards,

Akessler53 (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Austin Kessler


 * Hiyas there Akessler53,


 * References themselves are included after a statement in the article. For example, if i were to have a reference called "My little math book" and wanted to state "The sum of 1 + 1 = 2" i would add the reference directly after this statement as a sign that the "My Little Math book" reference was used as a basis for this statement.


 * Of course referencing is a tad more complex in then simply pasting an URL after each line. Have a look at the referencing for beginners page or the short and more to the point reference example. Essentially the idea is to write the article, and then quote the information source you used for the various lines and sections.


 * I hope this helps! Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 20:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Mine was right
Mine was right stop changing that's not cool girl here's the website www.iraqsoccer.com so change it back now please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.93.211 (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Your edit was not correct. You just added India instead of Iraq in many places and also added some random numbers to the article which is vandalism. Torreslfchero (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Crearemarketing
FYI, I have unblocked this user to change username, given assurances which you can see on his talk page. I have also cut out the whole "book" section from his AfC submission as being (a) spam and (b) copyvio from the author's website. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info, with some luck the result may be a decent article. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 22:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Huub Kortekaas
Hello Excirial, Concerning the Huub Kortekaas page, an explanation is added. The intention is actually to completely remove the page while it will be replaced by a new Huub en Adelheid Kortekaas wikipage. The Dutch version is already realised and under construction. An Enlish version is worked on. Regards, Benedict Broere — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benedict Broere (talk • contribs) 22:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Working on a new version for a page is of course just fine, but blanking an existing page while working on a new version is not. For comparison, suppose that a group of editors would decide to rewrite the World War II article. Would blanking the existing article while it was being worked on sound like a good idea? Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 22:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Excirial, on your latest remark: you're absolutely right. But I'm trying to replace the Dutch and English Huub Kortekaas wiki Page by a new Dutch and English Huub en Adelheid Kortekaas wiki page. The Dutch Huub en Adelheid Kortekaas wiki page already exists, and right now I'm figuring out how to make an English version of it. I'm operating on request by Huub and Adelheid Kortekaas, who see themselves as artist couple and would like this to be expressed in also their wikipage. Also I'm trying to avoid the 'selfpromotional' character of the previous tekst in turning it into acceptable wiki-content. Regards, Benedict Broere  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benedict Broere (talk • contribs) 11:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/66.218.149.46
Warning you posted regarding user 66.218.149.46 Special:Contributions/66.218.149.46 He continued to vandalize if you are not aware. I know it is a school account but to avoid his hostile actions I would draw his edit history to your attention.Geremy.Hebert (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Fairly common amount of vandalism really. However, seeing the IP history and the lack of any positive contributions i schoolblocked it for a year. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

User_talk:Vejvančický
Hi Excirial. There's a discussion on my talk page regarding an article you deleted in September 2012, Dario Seixas. You are welcome to join the discussion :) Best regards. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you aren't confusing Excirial with Explicit? I don't remember every deletion i did of course, but according to the log Explicit removed the page you mentioned (And our usernames are fairly similar ) Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 07:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * [[File:Facepalm3.svg|]] Oh good gods, I'm an idiot. Yes, the darned Ex-names :) Sorry, Excirial! --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

In regard to the article I submitted on Jennifer M Lehmann
I am writing because the article I submitted - admittedly on myself - was rejected for lack of references. I am taken aback by this because I kept the facts to which I referred to academically published books and articles - in the public domain, with multiple references to them. In fact, I have a Google Scholars page (as well as pages by major book sellers) devoted to me, and that says that my work has close to 200 references. I do not know how to create references that would be suitable for Wikipedia! All I know is that when I Google myself, there are endless pages devoted to me and my work, both the books and articles I have written and the books I have edited. These are widely known and easily verifiable. Again, I don't know how to reference works that are published (by reputable publishers). I do assume good faith, and I am friendly, but frustrated. I see scholars in Wikipedia who are my juniors, whom I trained, who are quoting my work, who are published in the books I edited, et cetera. And while they may not have sent in their own Wikipedia articles, they had their graduate assistants, or significant others, or friends do so, as, again, they are junior to me. So, again, I am frustrated. And the process seems EXTREMELY complex, lengthy, and daunting. It seems to me about time I am in Wikipedia - I don't mean to be arrogant; I am not! I really need help. I hope that you can help me. Thank you! Jennifer M. Lehmann, Ph.D. jmlehmann@msn.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.69.66.120 (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

An Barnstar for You!

 * Thank you very much! Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 23:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

RE: Recent sumbmission on SML Charity Home Tour
I am the PR chair for subject charity event. I am trying to get it explained on Wikipedia. I have submitted a description, but it has been refused I gather due to lack of notability proof.

This has been covered extensively in the press in the past year. I can certainly send directions for finding those articles. But I don't know how/where to do that. A google search will produce references. Most extensive is Laker Magazine, Sept/Oct 2012, readable at www.smithmountainlaker.com

Also, I saw something about not accepting items from an "organization" user name....do I have to set up a new account personally? That seems counterproductive, as the organization will live on beyond my direct involvement in posting on Wikipedia on its behalf. I am confused about what to do next! Pls advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.203.160 (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

General Education Development
I made several updates to the entry for General Education Development (GED) test and you indicated that you removed one link from my revisions but it appears that most of the revisions were undone. Please revert.Pwmussell (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The multiple reverts were quite by intention. There is a difference between adding reliable sources, and adding the same (promotional) website 10+ times into the article. You may also want to read WP:42 Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Albanian Armed Forces
Hello, I'm an user of Wikipedia, and i wanted to make some changes or rather add on to more information to Albanian Armed Forces page.... i got a message from you a few min. ago.. by mistake i deleted some information, but i find it hard to edit or write more to the article. Can you give me a hand itno showing me how to do that. I'd be really thankful if you help me in this. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.83.98 (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hiyas there 68.226.83.98!


 * First off, welcome to Wikipedia! If you have trouble editing wikipedia, you may find the tutorial on editing useful. It is quite short, and should provide you with the most basic knowledge needed for editing articles. Of course there is a lot more information on editing, but the tutorial is quite a good start (If only because it is actually readable, since quite a few other help pages could fill half an encyclopedia on their own  Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

CorsetWholesale
Hi there,

Thanks for reviewing my write-up on CorsetWholesale. My first time so I made quite a few mistakes. Have re-written it and would reqquest your feedback again.

thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhilashapadhy (talk • contribs) 19:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hiyas there Abhilashapadhy,


 * Generally taken i try to review an article only once in a row, before allowing another reviewer to have a look at it. By doing so another editor can have a "fresh" look at the changes which tends to yield better reviews (If only due to the possibility that they spot an issue i missed or didn't comment on myself). The review queue is somewhat long though, so it could take a few days before someone will take a look at it. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive/Blocked/Banned Users
Hi Do you know how to find the page with the templates for about banned users are blocked or sockpuppets and template like that? Thanks AskhamBogs (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you report 90.205.179.20 for me for vandalism and disruptive editing. AskhamBogs (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hiyas there AskhamBogs,


 * The library of decline templates can be found at WP:WARN (There are quite a few variations), while vandalism reports can be made at WP:AIAV. Since you mentioned this user a day ago it is quite likely they are already no longer around, so currently the warning would be to stale for me to action it. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Avioane
Hi Excirial, thank you for the review. Airplanes (Avioane in Romanian) is a game played with pen and paper by school children during breaks, at parties, at gatherings etc. The game has been passed to us through previous generations, so one could consider it part of the Romanian folklore since it has been around for decades. How could I document folklore? Do I need to be an academician writing a paper on folklore? (a serious question - I do want to contribute to Wikipedia) There are no official rules or scholarly articles, but people throughout Romania play a couple of variations of the game, as you can see in the below links, all of them posted by different people. My assumption is that someone must have played the battleship game and improved it by using airplanes.

Assumptions aside, the following links are the closest things to "sources" that I could find (They are pages written in Romanian, mostly bloggers that reminisce back to the days where they used to play in school): http://www.latrecut.ro/2009/01/avioanele/ http://seintampla.info/jocurile-copilariei-recente-1/ http://jocurilecopilariei.blogspot.com/2009/12/biscuite-x-si-o-avioane-spanzuratoare.html http://www.activitaticopii.ro/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=20 http://forum.softpedia.com/topic/777448-avionase/ http://iluminisme.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/avioanele-pe-hartie.jpg http://www.placerea-de-a-calatori.ro/2012/12/bruxelles-alaturi-de-bloggerul-preferat.html http://vimeo.com/50741579 http://wildhoney33.blogspot.com/2011/07/jocurile-copilariei-avioane.html

I understand the sources requirement and I see where you're coming from. But I really don't have anything "official" other than the above links. Ggofthejungle (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have created the Romanian page - it has the same issue with references but it was approved. Let me know if there's anything else I should do.

http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avioane_%28joc%29 Ggofthejungle (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

about article of Emotinative - thalmo-cortical circuit sensory neuron prsevation
please sir permit this article,this article is very much essential for brain preservation in a inexpensiveness way and brain particles of deep region will subject of recreation in future.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Emotinative_-_thalmo-cortical_circuit_sensory_neuron_prsevation,please proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.k.sharmaemotinative (talk • contribs) 14:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello there sharmaemotinative,


 * Whenever an article is declined, a template is left on the page that is submitted detailing why the article was declined. If you can address the decline reasons there is no reason why there cannot be an article. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

{please sir permit this article,this article is very much essential for brain preservation in a inexpensiveness way and brain particles of deep region will subject of recreation in future.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Emotinative_-_thalmo-cortical_circuit_sensory_neuron_prsevation,please proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.k.sharmaemotinative (talk • contribs) 14:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello there sharmaemotinative,
 * Whenever an article is declined, a template is left on the page that is submitted detailing why the article was declined. If you can address the decline reasons there is no reason why there cannot be an article. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * my article need help of your(Excirial) or any other Wikipedian,please read my whole article at http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=291642784298208&set=a.291638897631930.72441.291607787635041&type=1&theater and tell me what i do for highlights,please tell real way for how my article become eligible for Wikipedia article.if you have no time for this article then simply reply me i have no way for your help.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.k.sharmaemotinative (talk • contribs) 14:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * Thanks you very much, and glad that it ended up being useful! even if it didn't fix the issue directly Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Message re. Kate Bush (HG)
Well, the edit is factual. I don't think a reference would say otherwise. 70.109.188.159 (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh indeed. And quite frankly my warning was quite factual as well when it stated that linking George W. Bush to Abomination (Bible) isn't constructive. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 20:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Article on slowest heartbeat in a healthy human
Good evening Excirial. I have sent you an email but am not sure if i have done it right so though i would shoot this quick message across. i submitted small article ref the record for the slowest heartbeat in a healthy human and linked the ref to guinness book of records. but it was rejected as not having verifiable sources?!?! (i think) I did look again at rejection letter thing the other day and noted that people shouldnt really have an article for one thing, but you will find a lerge article with pictures and bits on the guy who has the world record for most tattos and that is his only claim to fame. am i missing something here?? please help as i would like to resubmitt this article for a record that is not only of medical and entertainment value but is something that interests us many athletes. many thanks for your time $hady — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shady Space Pirate (talk • contribs) 21:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry i have reposted as last time it got tagged onto another conversation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shady Space Pirate (talk • contribs) 21:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hiyas there Shady Space Pirate,


 * The decline is somewhat of a combination of two decline reasons (Hence that it may seem confusing). In order for any subject to be considered notable it needs to have received extensive coverage in multiple reliable sources of sufficient size that are independent of its subject. Quite simply put any article needs three (Four) things:
 * It must have received extensive coverage - that is, all sources should be at least a paragraph or two in size (No passing mentions)
 * The sources must be reliable. For example: Large newspapers are considered reliable, personal blogs aren't.
 * The sources must be independent of the subject. Sources that are written by someone close to the subject fail this criteria - For example: if i were to write an article about myself i couldn't use it to source an article detailing myself.
 * And a subset of "substantial coverage" - Coverage must be long-term. If all the newspapers decide to write an article an article about a specific person on a specific day due to some random event this doesn't count towards notability. (For example: Falcon Heene is a redirect to Balloon boy hoax)


 * The last sub-criteria is also where WP:BLP1E comes around the corner. BLP1E deals with biographies detailing persons who only received coverage for one event, and are unlikely to receive further media attention. Now here is the tricky distinction - BLP1E only applies to low profile individuals, with low profile being defined as "They haven't attempted to receive as much media coverage as possible". Lucky Diamond Rich, the tattoo guy, is quite actively promoting his tattoos which means he can't be broomed in that criteria. The article on Martin John Brady doesn't display he has attempted to gain as much coverage as possible so it falls under the low profile criteria (Note: I can only base my assessment on the article - if he has actively promoted himself that would change this story).


 * Well, quite a long text. As for the article, you would need to demonstrate that Martin intended to receive attention (See Who is a low profile individual). Additionally, you would need a few more reliable sources covering him. While the Guinness book of records is quite a lot of fun, it also contains records such as "Most scorpions held in mouth" to "Most lightbulbs detected as on or off while blindfolded in a minute". So purely basing an article on it may create quite a few fringe biographies. Or to put it in a more... policy supported argument: The general notability guideline requires multiple sources. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Good evening Excirial. i am constantly disappointed by people not answering my messages or not bothering to read them properly. BUT i msut say i have never been happier to have something turned down than the recent rejection of my article. Many thanks for taking the time to read properly, understand the subject and then advise in a full and constructive manner. i know totally agree with you and will have a go at my next article and hopefully be more fruitful (but it is another record breaker from Guernsey - Richard Allsop ;) many thanks and take care $$P  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shady Space Pirate (talk • contribs) 22:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/George Couri
Hello, I have edited my article and made corrections. I hit Save Page and resubmitted it, I know you guys are backlogged, but it's been over two weeks, did I need to do anything else? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesearetrue (talk • contribs) 01:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I didnt know if I needed to do anything else, this article was rejected almost 3 weeks ago, we've been editing it and resubmitting. Any assistance would be appreciated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/George_Couri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesearetrue (talk • contribs) 00:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hiyas there Thesearetrue,


 * I just noticed that you submitted the article to the review queue quite a few times. One.. Drawback this has is that each new submission will reset the article's queue position. Effectively this will continuously bump the article up in the queue which in turn guarantees it will never be the oldest article that still needs a review. I removed the duplicates, and in turn the article in now third in line, rather then being somewhere near the newest article submissions.


 * As for the article itself, it really requires some wikification and sectioning as it is currently pretty much a large wall of text that is therefor difficult to read. Have a look at the article's in the good article section for an example. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 20:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

wrongfully deleted article
Hello,

I had recently submitted my article, and it has been tagged for speedily deletion, because the cited sources were from a website and newspapers. I personally wrote the entire article myself, and submitted it to those publishers. I own the rights, and I would like to give Wikipedia the right to list my article on their site.

The email tells me to click "contest the issue", but the article has already been deleted. Do I have to start over and re-submit the article?

Thanks.

Vincent Weber

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Weber_bo&redirect=no — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weber bo (talk • contribs) 03:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems solved, as the page is back with an OTRS permission received template. Either way, neither the copyvio tag or the deletion was done by me in the first place. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 20:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

my comment was deleted
Hello

I posted the fact that I spent a week on the internet looking for a person to write a business plan, I finally found SamplePlanz.com after sorting through 100 pages of Google paid sponsors. you deleted this in error, if anything take out the .com and publish SamplePlanz instead

thanks for your understanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.194.64 (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * . See WP:ELNO and WP:LINKSPAM. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 21:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Article: Vietnam American International School
Hi Excirial,

My article about Vietnam American International School was declined. I have edited it and now I would like to submit it one more time. Hope it's ok this time. Here the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Vietnam_American_International_School. If there is anything that I need to edit, could you please let me know and the next step that I should do. Thank you so much. Hope to hear from you soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamieha88 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi there Jamie,


 * I added the article to the review queue for you (Normally you can do this yourself by clicking the submission link on the decline template). In case you accidentally removed the page you can add the text to the top of the page. This will add the review template for you.  Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Moneylife
Hi, My article was earlier declined by you. I have made the changes, could you please review again? It has been pending over two weeks now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Moneylife — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mldonnet (talk • contribs) 13:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hiyas there Mldonnet,


 * The submission is already in the queue, and as of writing i estimate it is around position 250-300 or so of 2100. The oldest submission in the queue is well over three weeks old, so those are first in line for a review. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

ROSALIND FRANKLIN
The introductory paragraph is far too long and complicated; it was almost an article in itself! This needs to be integrated into the article: Franklin is best known for her work on the X-ray diffraction images of DNA which led to the discovery of DNA double helix. Her data, according to Francis Crick, were "the data we actually used"[1] to formulate Crick and Watson's 1953 hypothesis regarding the structure of DNA.[2] Franklin's images of X-ray diffraction confirming the helical structure of DNA were shown to Watson without her approval or knowledge. Though this image and her accurate interpretation of the data provided valuable insight into the DNA structure, Franklin's scientific contributions to the discovery of the double helix are often overlooked. Unpublished drafts of her papers (written just as she was arranging to leave King's College London) show that she had independently determined the overall B-form of the DNA helix and the location of the phosphate groups on the outside of the structure. Moreover, Franklin personally told Crick and Watson that the backbones had to be on the outside, which was crucial since before this both they and Linus Pauling had independently generated non-illuminating models with the chains inside and the bases pointing outwards.[3] However, her work was published third, in the series of three DNA Nature articles, led by the paper of Watson and Crick which only hinted at her contribution to their hypothesis.[4]

2.30.211.164 (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hiyas there 2.30.211.164,


 * All i can see when reviewing the diff, is that a large section of content was removed without a description as to why it was removed. Because section removal is often related to vandalism there edits are reverted most of the times with the request for a summary as to why it was removed. As for the lead itself: It is indeed somewhat longer than usual for an article this size, but it is still within the length suggested for an article.


 * I honestly don't mind if you intend to merge (part of) the lead into the article, but i would advise doing so in the same edit that removed the lead. Right now your edit removed content along with several references - if you wouldn't merge the content back in with a later edit it would effectively be lost (Unless someone would actually have a look at the history of the page to restore it) Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

?
I have written something i should not have on someones wiki- am i forgiven — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.122.90 (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As long as you don't intend to change "scientist" to "pornstar" or do anything else that is considered vandalism there is no problem whatsoever. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Inovateus Solar
Good morning,

I need your assistance with my article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mauricio.anon/sandbox I have edit all peacock terms and made it as informative and neutral as possible. I have no longer have an option to submit for review, is this like beisball?, three strikes and I am out. Please help me to successfully complete my article. Thank you, Mauricio Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauricio.anon (talk • contribs) 14:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No, this is not actually "By Design". If a new review is done by an editor the older reviews are collapsed for space sake; A full review template is roughly twice as long as the collapsed version, so after a few reviews this would result in a rather bulky mass of templates. For most part this is entirely automatic since virtually every reviewer uses a script to assist with reviewing pages. It seems the script managed to bumble up a bit by collapsing every review template instead of every template except the last one.


 * Long story short: I de-collapsed the template, and you should now be able to request another review. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

my movie page i modfied but some one is putting wrong information keep changing my onfo
my movie page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbai_Police_(film)

i am the co-producer of the movie and my name is nivas haneefa. i removed unwanted contents from the page and i also had some more contents before.... other users are keep changing it and putting wrong information. please do needful

Regards Nivas Haneefa nivaspm@gmail.com Nivaspm (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Article on Sons of Liberty
Good Afternoon Excirial. There seems to be a mistake i see constantly within this article. I attempt to correct it but I am constantly deleted for "Vandalism". The Sons of Liberty are indeed by definition a terrorist group and i provided a strong definition to prove that to be so. Although it seems some of Wikipedia's editors minds are completely corrupted by American history teachers, i try to provide a more critical view on this subject. I believe people can be much more educated if they can see an issue from different perspectives. I hope that you will help stop these wrongful deletions and make Wikipedia a more educational place that helps spark critical thinking.

Sincerely, Austin Powers  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.108.212.46 (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive. There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out! Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of Wikiproject Articles for Creation at 13:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Excirial/AFCBuddy
Just got a Bot notice about the March AFC Backlog Elimination Drive. I was going to sign up for the AFCBuddy, but noticed something weird about the linkage... the links all go to the January 2013 drive instead of March, so it looks like the Buddy is out of date. I see that another person has signed up today for the March drive and put January 2013 into their signup... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems that the previous backlog drive page was simply copied and updated so that it could be used for the March backlog (Actually, the default signup link still asked users to create a January backlog subpage). The AFCBuddy page had the same issue - since i only learned about the backlog drive when the bot send me a message i hadn't changed the signup page to accommodate sign-ups for the new drive. Either way, that issue should be fixed now. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I misunderstood the directions or something...Do I have to total up my AfC Reviews and place the links myself onto my WikiProject Articles for creation/March 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive/Shearonink Drive page? It's empty but I thought the "Buddy" did stuff automatically including putting my Reviews onto the page...  I noticed that most of the people who have signed up also have redlinked/empty pages and some don't... So are we supposed to be manually putting the links for our reviews onto our "Drive" pages?  Also, the Leaderboard is still up for the January Drive, so I am not sure how far behind or how far ahead I am... Shearonink (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok....hmmm...apparently the March 2013 Drive instructions are much more complete....I can do reviews but am having trouble following what I am supposed to do for the Drive I guess... Shearonink (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Block, please
is begging for a block and a kick in the balls. 207.157.121.52 (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Barek Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 21:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What about the kick in the balls? SpitfireTally-ho! 21:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Info box
The info box in the Griffin article wasn't working and was just displaying as plain text. I put it in a form that worked. 213.233.148.24 (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Understood. But that did have the slightly unfortunate consequence that you needed to remove part of the data as well. I fixed the underlying issue with the info box, and it should now be displayed correctly (Including all the content). Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 21:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

AFC status templates
Just a head's up with what's going on here ... I was starting to get a bit concerned about a number of comments on the help desk where the submitter thought they hadn't submitted correctly, where in fact they had, but more than two weeks had gone by without a review due to the backlog. With a "severe" 2000+ article backlog, the "Please wait a week" message should be more like two weeks. So I added the extra level in order to give a more manageable level of expectation. I think all the corresponding templates are now working - if any aren't, shout! Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   11:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
For reverting this vandalism to my user page. I am not, in fact, a dog. Thanks!

AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC) 

Removal of an existing article -- Family Scholar House
How might I remove Family Scholar House, as I've been requested to do by the organization?

Thanks!

Dug2600 (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clemmie_Moodie
Dear editor,

I have just received notification about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clemmie_Moodie  that the entry is being considered for deletion.

I am a complete beginner and would be grateful for any advice you could give me about how I should improve the entry to prevent deletion.

The comment is that all citations are primary and that secondary and tertiary citations are required.

Now I have looked at entries for other journalists and many seem to have many fewer primary citations let alone secondary citations than my entry.

I wonder if you could explain a little more about secondary citations and also I am not sure how you give a citation about date of birth; would you mind making a suggestion about this?

I am sorry if these questions sound naive but I am an old goger and a little baffled.

Many thanks

Dobbin1

Dobbin1 (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I passed this through WP:AfC as notability was borderline, but there is enough coverage around newspapers to make it stick (in my opinion). I have voted "keep" on the AfD with an alternative suggestion to merge / redirect to The 3AM Girls, which has a much stronger claim to notability. I don't think we need to worry about anything being deleted just yet. Just to be clear though, the notability of the article's subject is still borderline and it would help tremendously if you can find further mentions of her in the news outside of the Daily Mirror, like the Guardian source I added originally to make the article pass. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   12:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Reviews of reviews
...what happened to all the "Reviews of reviews"? It looks like they've been wiped out. Shearonink (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to the reviews marked as "Passed" or "Failed" by other editors? In that case they should have been listed to a specific "Checked Reviews" section on the users contribution page, provided that they were marked according to the instructions on the AFC page (For example: pre-update and after update). The "According to the instructions" part is somewhat of a pain though, since there are a ton of variations in the "Pass" and "Fail" notations between users (And even between reviews from the same user). On one side of the coin AFCBuddy need to catch as many different variations as possible, yet on the other hand it should not list every line containing a - to the reviewed list.


 * Right now it requires a line to contain a -, and then a -- someplace further along the line. In your case it couldn't match Rybec's review since the formating only contained a - (The -- was missing). it is impossible to match on - alone, since any article containing a - would also be seen as a comment in that case. I can't either check if it is present behind the article title, since stating "counter-intuitive" in a comment would also count it as a review. And even the simple "- and --" criteria is to loose since this will also match HTML comments (For example, those in ArisaMTC page where she tallies her edits). So i assume i will need to tighten it up a little again by requiring the words "Pass" or "Fail" to be present. (Which would have removed any "Not Sure" or "Perhaps" reviews from the previous drive).


 * Bottom line? If a review format follows the instructions it should work 100% of the time (And bring me one of those neat trouts in cases where it doesn't). If not, well, in those cases it may wipe out some reviews from the list. But after having tried a ton of different criteria with none being foolproof i gave up trying to find some magic solution for it. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 21:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Since the Pass/Fail Reviews from Rybec were missing from my Drive page I had assumed everyone else's disappeared as well, I'll go in and put the missing ones back on my page manually. I followed the instructions as I understood them on my Pass/Fails of others' Reviews, I have no idea if they have disappeared from those pages or not. Shearonink (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Additive Reviews
Also many thanks for the AFCBuddy updates, I also have a query about this - I sorta expected AFC buddy would do only additive changes to my list - there were quite a few I had manually reviewed as they were on userpages rather than on AFC and they seem to have been removed from my list but they should still count for the backlog drive? - a handful were already reviewed also. What is the best way for me to manually add reviewed pages that won't get deleted by the script? Sorry if this is a dumb question. --nonsense ferret  20:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, AFCBuddy regenerates the list of edits from scratch every time it is run, so it effectively overwrites any content previously present on the users page. In practice you shouldn't notice this, since AFCBuddy will detect the same old edits it did during the previous run - and all reviewed edits are saved by moving them to a separate section. Simplified the flow is the following:
 * Download all edit summaries a user made between a certain time period (The current drive month)
 * Check if an edit is made by the AFCH script.
 * If not, ignore and check the next summary.
 * If it is, check the rest of the summary for the default "Accepted" or "Declined" text for a review, and mark the edit accordingly in the contribution list.
 * Repeat the same for the users deleted edits, and specifically mark an edit as having been deleted. (It is always a good idea to see why an edit was deleted, when the article was marked as accepted).


 * In reality the process is longer and more complex, but the gist is that AFCBuddy cannot detect a review unless made by the AFCH script. Tracing manual reviews isn't possible based on edit summaries alone, so in those cases one would need to download every revisions content and check if an AFC template was manipulated (And how). This would greatly increase runtime since the amount of data to download would increase by several orders of magnitude (Not to mention the code that would determine how the AFC template was manipulated, as opposed to simply using an edit summary to detect this).


 * Long story, but i hope it illustrates the problem . As for the manual reviews, they do of course count for the AFCH drive, but AFCbuddy won't detect them and since it regenerates the edits page every time it runs it will simply overwrite manually added reviews. Generating the page additively instead of replacing it also has its own complexities (For example: What if an edit was deleted after review? Unless you remove the previous review it would end up being added as a "deleted" review, and thus you would have a duplicate "live and afterwards deleted review" in the list.).


 * As for a solution, i think there are two options. In cases of user space reviews you can move the page in question over to AFC space and review it with the script afterwards (Moving a there is actually preferred anyway). A second option would be to extend AFCBuddy. For example, If a user would place a HTMl comment stating "Manual" after a review AFCBuddy could be altered to detect it pretty much akin to the current reviews by other editors, and save those edits by moving them to a separate "Manually reviewed" section. That change would be simple enough, but in that case every manual edit would have to be manually listed and tagged with a comment (once). Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 21:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update. I can see as you say that a quick an easy workaround is never to review pages not in AFC, so move them first and then review them.  I was a bit reluctant to do that in cases where the article reviewed didn't seem much like being accepted anytime soon - I thought in those circumstances to move the page only to decline it seemed a bit counter-intuitive.  I started looking at the AFC helper script to see if I could modify it to work on all talkpages, not just AFC, which I guess would be helpful in itself, however ran out of time a bit at the moment.  I'd be happy to try and help look for ways to resolve this one.  Certainly the two solutions you mention sound like possibilies, I wonder also whether we could just allow two separate tables on the user backlog page, one which is 'owned' by AFC buddy and the other which is left alone for manual additions.  The AFC Buddy is also a .net app too I think? in which case I'd be up for having a look at that, but in a few days time at the earliest.  Thanks again for all the hard work you've put into making the process a lot easier than it used to be. --nonsense  ferret  22:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It would definitely be possible to use two separate sections for manual and automatic reviews. AFCBuddy already checks user edits list to find any reviewed reviews that need to be kept around, so an extra check for a "Manual Edits" page wouldn't be difficult to hard to implement. Equally i already wrote some code that could count a users edits if they review entirely manual (User:SpeedReader had some problems with the script and thus did everything manual). That same code should be able to count the manual reviews so the total count would still be accurate as well. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Fish and Chips Cookies!
New subsection, foodstuff should be kept in a clean space! Or rather: sectioned to ensure i don't forget to reply to nonsenseferret. On Numiaq's page I see XxX--shinjiro--XxX listed as a checked review (but with neither a pass/fail nor second reviewer's name). The previous revision doesn't show any secondary review.— rybec   23:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I saw people using the "--" but I stopped doing it after seeing that the directions just say "If you pass a review, include the word "Pass" along with your user signature.(only three not four tildes here)." Where I reviewed ArisaMTC's review of No Shame, the bot put Chinese characters into my signature. — rybec   05:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Article
Dear Sir,

I have written an article about Indian Institute of Fire Engineering, Nagpur few times but it has been declined by you. Kindly let me know what else is required so that this article can be approved. The institute is genuine with it's website and approved by two government bodies 1. Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education and 2. Director of technical education.

Thanks and kind regards,

Dolphouse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolphouse (talk • contribs) 06:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I see that the article is currently in the review queue waiting for a review. The review queue is currently about 3 weeks in length, so it will take some time before someone reviews the article. Once done the reviewer will leave feedback as to why it was or wasn't approved. Please be patient, someone will get to it sooner or later.   Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 17:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

AFCBuddy
Yo Excirial, 1. can you set me up with AFCBuddy stats for the AFC drive, adding all the stats by hand is just too much.

2. if there is any change of sharing the .NET code - it would be a boost for one of the other project which requires parsing user contribs. Also if you know some other project which does that it would be great. Thanks BO &#124; Talk 14:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Archival note: Both points are covered in a message on the AFC project. To long to cross post really. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 17:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

My submission at Articles for creation: Gulfam Khan: Notable On/Offline references added and notability issues have been taken care of
[Article on Gulfam Khan] Gulfam Khan Article: References added and notability issue taken care of. Can you please review and approve? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writerzakwynn (talk • contribs) 15:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems that User:OrenBochman already took care of this Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 17:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

another AFCbuddy glitch
I did secondary reviews of three of [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/March_2013_Backlog_Elimination_Drive/nonsenseferret nonsenseferret's reviews]. After AFCbuddy ran, neither the original reviews nor the secondary ones were recorded. — rybec   04:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Moved that to the growing "Things i really need to fix sometime" list i keep for AFCBuddy  Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 17:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Anna Dewdney
Dear Excirial: I've been trying to create a page on the noted author Anna Dewdney and I've had a few friends try to help me with this and my submission seems to be stuck in limbo-land. I think the original submission was declined because of lack of resources, but I have these now and every time I try to add these in and resubmit the new article I get stuck. Please help! The following is the updated text of the article with proper resources inserted into the text as well as listed at the end of the article. 209.134.47.38 (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)R. Duncan


 * What issue are you running into specifically? Based on the edit history of the article i see you added the new content to the article just fine. The only thing i do see is that you appended it to the original article, as opposed editing the existing copy (Thus technically, the article submitted contains three copies of it - the original article and two instances of the new page). Might that be the issue you are running into? Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 17:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Chewing gum accusation
Chewing gum?

Hey Mate...

A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing. You accused me of doing something to a chewing gum article/page? By IP address? My user name is Misterweiss. I don't do any changes/edits without it. I use Verizon Wireless Broadband via a USB modem for internet access - I have a different IP address every time I connect, like dial-up used to be. The only thing I can figure is someone else on Verizon did those changes, and today I happen to be on that IP address. If you check my history, you'll probably see a million different IP addresses in the last 5 years.

I understand you're using bots and such to check for vandalism, but it's quite obvious that it doesn't always work. You can't assume that someone always has the same IP address and accuse people of things.

I have no bloody interest in chewing gum anyway!

Thanks

Bill Weiss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterweiss (talk • contribs) 12:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess you connected to Wikipedia today, and immediately noticed the orange bar stating that you had new messages (Prior to logging in)? In that case the situation you are seeing is normal. If someone places a message on an IP users talk page any user connecting as that IP will receive the new message bar until the talk page is actually visited. In this case the IP who vandalized the chewing gum page two months ago didn't visit the talk wand thus you ended up seeing the new message bar even though the original IP editor was already long gone.


 * The good news? As soon as you are logged into your account you are recognized as a named editor instead of an IP user, and thus you won't see the the message popups for an IP address at all. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 13:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Glitch?
Could this be a glitch? I don't recall declining this particular article. Please have a look at this post. Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The AFC script uses the name of the page where the script tab was clicked in order to determine the article that has to be tagged. Unless there is a really oddball glitch somewhere i doubt that the script is even capable of tagging incorrect pages like this.  Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 13:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Might be an Eternal Sunshine moment FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Elly Kenner
Hello Excirial, This Article have been declined by you. Changes have been made to improve the referencing, I would appreciate it if you will review it again. Thank you! 194.90.169.2 (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have added the page to the review queue for you, so as soon as it reaches the front of the queue it will be reviewed again.  Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 13:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Virut
(Original message placed on Piotrus's talk page) Thank you for creating the Virut botnet article!

Article's describing specific botnets tend to attract very few editors so it is quite nice to see someone other than me interested in starting an article on them. Especially if they are so well referenced and written that i really don't have anything to add to it after discovering them. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 22:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. It was an interesting Poland-themed newspiece that didn't have a Wikipeda article, but as you say, botnets are notable. Glad you found it interesting :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Gilbert Luis R. Centina III
Hi, I deleted the article on Gilbert Luis Centina III since it was a duplication. There's another article with complete information one which adheres to the WiKi editing style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierceram@gmail.com (talk • contribs) 18:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between blanking an article (removing its content) and deleting an article (Actually removing the page). Blanking an article will result in an empty page that can still be found trough a search or by navigating to the page directly (Showing the reader a blank page). If an article should be removed entirely it should be deleted instead.


 * As for the page being a duplicate - what page is a copy of this one? Duplicate pages are often forked from the same source, which would result in copyright related issues if the original page were to be deleted. This is due to the copyright licenses Wikipedia uses for its content - the license requires every edit to be traceable and deleting would cause a share of the edits to be lost. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
--I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @ 18:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit
You said that you removed a link that I put on the Poultry Farming page. What are you talking about?Lee Tru. (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, this specific edit Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry about that, I was trying to do something else.Lee Tru. (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You've been
Quite vandalised today! Bugger... FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't help but think it is rather amusing that vandals start aiming for me instead of articles. And besides that - its more efficient! A hit on the Lightning rod is vastly preferable over actually hitting the building after all Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

MHO about a declined edit
I think you made a mistake regarding the Pork Barrel entry in Wikipedia, simply because there is no discussion page whatsoever on Facebook with that name, and participating in the Wiki writeup is essentially the only place to put some content that IS constructive, because Wiki sits at the top of results from almost every search engine. Oh, well.


 * I think you refer to this edit? If so, that is hardly constructive content. Its an opinion, and besides this, all caps additions are never a good idea because people interpret it like this Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

2A02:25A9:0:9463:0:0:0:1
Hello. You indefinitely blocked this, but it is an IPv6 address, not an account, so the block should be temporary. With that said, though, the address is an open proxy, so the block should still be long (just not indefinite).--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Now that is definitely interesting. That was intended to be a regular 24 hour block, but it seems that Huggle assumed that this was a registered user and defaulted to Indef over 24 hours. Thanks for mentioning it, reblocked as 72 hours instead. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 20:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Mark Dice
Well in my editing I changed the authors name cause I will show you that the real authors name is Mark Allen Shouldice and not Mark Dice

These two links shows exactly that the author Mark Dice is really Mark Shouldice aka Mark Allen Shouldice The author also in 'your' edited version tells that Mark Dice wrote these two books which clearly estates in these links that the authors name is Mark Allen Shouldice. Mark Dice is just his username and not biographical name.

http://arcc.co.san-diego.ca.us/arcc/services/fbn/search.aspx?FBNNum=2005022762 http://arcc.co.san-diego.ca.us/arcc/services/fbn/search.aspx?FBNNum=2008010467 — Preceding unsigned comment added by OneLonelyDesert (talk • contribs) 19:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, but this is where WP:COMMONNAME comes into play. Simply put an article should be located at the most common title for the subject. For example, the rapper Snoop Dogg is located at that title and not at "Calvin Cordozar Broadus" (his real name). Though it depends on the context in which the name was used, pages often refer to the subject using the most known name.


 * However, the edit has another issue. It seems you used Find&replace to edit any instance of the word "Dice" which introduced multiple errors. For example, [this youtube video reference] has is title "Danny Bonaduce on Oreilly Factor talking about Mark Dice confrontation". Yet after your change the title was mentioned to be "Danny Bonaduce on the O'Reilly Factor Talking about Mark Allen Shouldice confrontation" which is incorrect. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 20:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Forgiveness
Please forgive what may have been an attempt at spam. My intention was to add some additional insight into the articles, but yes, admittedly looking for some web traffic. I do not want to be labeled a spammer as I attempt to only operate in ethical ways in web marketing.

Again, If I went outside of the guidelines forgive me and it will never happen again.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesman70 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

admin
Is this your full time job? Do you get paid? I'm interested in seeing what you edit, undo or disallow. Are you unbiased in what information is available on this site which is viewed by millions? And how do you get to become an admin?

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.245.92 (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Multiple questions, so i guess a dotted list works best here:
 * Except for the Wikimedia staffers all editors are unpaid volunteers working on Wikipedia in their free time. This also applies to me - its a spare time activity for me.
 * Edits that i make can be seen at My user contributions. The only ones not present here are edits that are deleted since these are not publicly visible (These edits are a minority though so most is visible).
 * Admins are community elected in a process called request for adminship, at least here on the English Wikipedia. (Other languages may have different processes)
 * I would say i am unbiased as to what information is availible. The basis for any Wikipedia content is verifiability trough reliable sources. However, that does also mean that Verifiability trumps Truth, since Wikipedia effectively reports what other sources report . If every newspaper in the world would write incorrect information regarding a specific event Wikipedia would be incorrect as well as a result since it will use a reliable source to back up the content.


 * Hope this answers the questions.  Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 20:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)