User talk:Flat Out/Archives/2015/July

Today's articles for improvement weekly vote



 * Hello Flat Out:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaborations has begun at Week 31 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 09:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Ronald Rand
Dear FlatOut - I appreciated your comments on Draft:Ronald Rand and have been working on following your recommendations. I removed all links to external websites, have made sure all links are only used once, have removed all unreliable sources, discarded any "peacock" terminology, and edited down every section and content to a clear, concise encyclopedia format. I had also created a STUB as I was unsure which was the right way to begin, but if I can keep editing this further, I hope it can work. But I will follow your advice as to which is the best way to go - If you would advise to go with a STUB first, I will follow your recommendation. RonJayRon Jay (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Ron Jay (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I had left you a message on the other page where it said to respond to you. I appreciated your comments and suggestions and have done a great deal of editing and tightening and deleting and have removed all links to external websites, I believe I have made sure words are linked only once, I have removed all unreliable sources and have condensed sentences. I had also created a STUB not knowing which way was the way to go - if this article can be condensed further to be acceptable, I would appreciate your ideas. If you feel a STUB is the best way to go first, then I will follow your suggestion. Many thanks, Ron JayRon Jay (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Quint Studer
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Quint Studer. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement weekly vote



 * Hello Flat Out:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaborations has begun at Week 32 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 12:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Request on 18:07:46, 11 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Some Gadget Geek
Hello there!

I am the user whose draft above you rejected yesterday. This article was originally written like an advertisement for Bombardier's tram products, according to, who rejected the first draft. The initial version was referenced entirely from primary sources (Bombardier's official site). For the second draft, I reworded and shortened much of the content and put in some secondary and tertiary sources, but it seems that you think that there is not enough to meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Are you asking me to keep the references I have so far but add more (how many) WP:INDEPENDENT sources for WP:VERIFICATION while leaving the content essentially unchanged as it no longer reads like an ad? Or perhaps you are asking me to completely replace the Bombardier references with third-party ones? Please clarify, and thanks for doing this!

Cheers, &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello! I think this user is not available at the moment, so thank you for pinging me. As for referencing primary sources, that is fine as long as non-controversial statements are concerned, for instance when you reference what model the company produces. Now, regarding notability in general, you do need to provide coverage from independent sources. Hope this helps, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thaks FoCuSandLeArN, my issue with the draft Some Gadget Geek, is that there isn't enough coverage in independent sources. Primary sources are fine and they should stay but they don't help with notability. Please see WP:42. Flat Out (talk) 03:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Editing help
Hi Flat Out, You recently declined my recent submission (R&G (motorcycle accessories)), I was wondering if you would be able to help me by pointing out specific areas you think need addressing? Thanks! Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeAylwin (talk • contribs) 07:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please support every statement with a reliable source, including the section "products" which has none and appears to be copy-pasted from a source. Flat Out (talk) 03:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment
You left a comment on my Wiki page, Rolnald Shapiro, after deleting the article. The comment does not make sense, can you elaborate? Lakefist (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Lakefist, what part of the post doesn't make sense. Flat Out (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Sexual harassment
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Sexual harassment. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement – discussion about changing project processes



 * Hello :
 * A discussion is occurring at Change project processes regarding potential changes to the Today's articles for improvement Wikiproject. Your input is welcomed at the discussion.

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 11:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Daniel J. Caron
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Daniel J. Caron. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Matt Hannaford page
Hello Sir, Wondering why you rejected this draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Matt_Hannaford. I feel he is a notable guy in the baseball world and worthy of his own page. Let me know what I can do to get it approved. Thanks. Baseballfan26 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Baseballfan26 to be notable, sources that are independent of Hannaford need to have written about him - not just mentioned him. Most of your sources are passing mentions only. Please identify the reliable sources you have that are written about Hannaford, and I'll take another look. Flat Out (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Request on 00:59:43, 24 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Galileo IV
Hi Flat Out, Thanks for spending time to review my submission for the Asian Pacific Society of Respirology. I've read the notability guidelines and understand what is required, but slightly confused nonetheless. I added a prime notability that the APSR is one of seven regional societies (some of whom have Wikipedia pages) that form part of the FIRS. FIRS, as you probably know, represents (to federal and world bodies, such as the WHO) all the regional respiratory/thoracic societies in the world, and the regional societies in turn represent national societies. In terms of membership, the APSR is one of the three largest regional societies in FIRS, and indisputably covers the most densely populated part of the world. Considering the membership size, geographical coverage and populace of the APSR, and compare those with tiny societies in Wikipedia, such as the Irish Thoracic Society and the Kazakhstan National Respiratory Society, it is difficult to understand the page's unacceptance. I understand that "size doesn't matter" and importance must be shown, but could you help me and explain what sort of notability the small societies mentioned above have submitted? Many thanks again for your time and interest. Regards Galileo IV Galileo IV (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Galileo IV, the standard for notability is WP:ORG and specifically in thsi case WP:ORGDEPTH. To be notable the subject needs depth of coverage in secondary sources. Essentially, it doesn't matter how large the organisation is if no-one is writing about it. If you have reliable sources writing about the organisation please add them and I will take another look. Please remember the coverage has to be about the subject, not just a passing mention, routine communique, schedule etc. Flat Out (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Flat OutI've added a note about The Year of the Lung in the opening section, which introduces the APSR. Best regards, Galileo IV

Europe Prize draft Wikipedia entry - request for re-consideration of the decision to reject it (and please may I at least have my text back?)
Hi Flat Out, Thanks for reviewing my draft on the "Europe Prize" - though I'm of course rather disappointed at your rejection of it on copyright grounds, and even more so at your summary deletion of my draft. In response, I have two requests.

Request for a re-consideration of your rejection

I'd like to make a case for a second look at the decision to reject this new entry, if that is possible.


 * 1) The Council of Europe's main web portal contains the following information, on this page: "Unless otherwise indicated, reproduction of material posted on Council of Europe websites, and reproduction of photographs for which the Council of Europe holds copyright – see legal notice “photo credits” – is authorised for private use and for informational and educational uses relating to the Council of Europe’s work. This authorisation is subject to the condition that the source be indicated and no charge made for reproduction." I would suggest that the use of the material on the Europe Prize's web page is a textbook case of "for informational and educational use" - and that both of the Council of Europe's conditions are fully met.
 * 2) In line with the guidelines of both Wikipedia and my own organisation, I have been careful to attribute the information in my draft entry - via the reference links at the end - to the original sources, of which the Europe Prize page on our site is certainly one of the most accessible and relevant sources, but not the only one.
 * 3) As you can see from my User Page, I work for the Council of Europe and I regularly update the information on our site, which is directly under the control of myself and my colleagues. As it happens, the page you cite for copyright was drafted by me - you can therefore understand my frustration at being blocked from using my own material! I understand that your rules apply even when the Wikipedia contributor is using material that they themselves own the copyright to. However, as the original author of the disputed material, I can categorically guarantee that the Council of Europe will have no objection to the use of this material on Wikipedia - on the contrary, we want the Mayors of Europe's towns and cities to be aware of the possibility that they may apply for, and be awarded, this prestigious prize. The Council of Europe serves the 820 million citizens of its 47 member states, and - just like the Australian or any other government - we are a public service: the information on our website is MEANT for the use of these citizens, who have moreover indirectly paid for it through their taxes!
 * 4) If I have misunderstood your copyright point, or you are able to demonstrate conclusively that I am still in breach of copyright, I am of course happy to try and re-write the text so that it falls within your guidelines. However, I would respectfully suggest that there are only a few points that can intelligibly be made about the Europe Prize, and that some degree of overlap with the (excellently-drafted!) web page on our website is to be expected. But this leads to a further problem...
 * 1) As you can see from my User Page, I work for the Council of Europe and I regularly update the information on our site, which is directly under the control of myself and my colleagues. As it happens, the page you cite for copyright was drafted by me - you can therefore understand my frustration at being blocked from using my own material! I understand that your rules apply even when the Wikipedia contributor is using material that they themselves own the copyright to. However, as the original author of the disputed material, I can categorically guarantee that the Council of Europe will have no objection to the use of this material on Wikipedia - on the contrary, we want the Mayors of Europe's towns and cities to be aware of the possibility that they may apply for, and be awarded, this prestigious prize. The Council of Europe serves the 820 million citizens of its 47 member states, and - just like the Australian or any other government - we are a public service: the information on our website is MEANT for the use of these citizens, who have moreover indirectly paid for it through their taxes!
 * 2) If I have misunderstood your copyright point, or you are able to demonstrate conclusively that I am still in breach of copyright, I am of course happy to try and re-write the text so that it falls within your guidelines. However, I would respectfully suggest that there are only a few points that can intelligibly be made about the Europe Prize, and that some degree of overlap with the (excellently-drafted!) web page on our website is to be expected. But this leads to a further problem...
 * 1) If I have misunderstood your copyright point, or you are able to demonstrate conclusively that I am still in breach of copyright, I am of course happy to try and re-write the text so that it falls within your guidelines. However, I would respectfully suggest that there are only a few points that can intelligibly be made about the Europe Prize, and that some degree of overlap with the (excellently-drafted!) web page on our website is to be expected. But this leads to a further problem...

Request for a copy of my deleted draft

I was both surprised and disappointed that my draft article - which, as I understand it, is not yet public since it is clearly flagged as a DRAFT - was not merely rejected with a request for revision, but summarily deleted! While I fully understand that - as a beginner Wikipedia contributor - there may be issues which require to be ironed out, I feel that a summary deletion is an unwarranted over-reaction, given the circumstances of this case. This is a well-drafted article on a serious issue of general public interest, submitted in good faith. It would be perfectly possible to resolve the copyright issue you raise without resorting to the drastic measure of "speedy" deletion, which I suggest is intended only for urgent or gross breaches of copyright that require immediate rectification.

Morover, I have not kept a copy of my draft. As you will be aware from your own Wikipedia work, quite a lot of time and effort went into this (in particular the creation of the table of past winners of the prize). Therefore I would like to ask, irrespective of the outcome of my request above, if you can please send me (privately if necessary) a copy of my draft that you have deleted. This applies particularly to the table. If nothing else, this will enable me - in the event that my request above is rejected - to improve the text by, for example, re-writing it to deal with the copyright issues you raise.

Thanks in advance for your consideration of these points, and I look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards, GAKM GAKM (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So GAKM let me get this straight.. you claimed copyright of information and now you are complaining that we deleted that copyrighted information from Wikipedia? If you don't mind the information being copied then don't claim copyright. Please read WP:COPYVIO. I marked the draft as a copyright violation, but I didn't delete the article as I don't have that power. If you would like to request a copy please ask RHaworth but I suggest you refrain from the lecture on how we got it wrong. Flat Out (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

18:32:32, 24 July 2015 review of submission by Agnana
I'm assuming that the "lack of reliable sources" is because the material described in the text was not footnoted to the three articles listed in the references. I have now fixed those references and added more material from these articles (all three of which are published in journals affiliated with major scientific societies). Agnana (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Agnana and thanks for your question. Editors need to be able to verify the sources that you are citing. You have the information there now but not in a format that we normally go with, please see WP:REFBEGIN and you should be able to get all the information into citations that automatically compile into detailed footnotes. If you need any help please let me know. Flat Out (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of my edit
On May 6,2015,most of my article was deleted, because I edited it a few days before, and mentioned that all of my music are being Pirated, which is true, because I am Lloyd Daley, the owner of my music, that do not have any valued lease or contract with any one at this time, to sell my music, so it is strange that you should delete my edit, unless you have some interest in my music. Please let me know why it was deleted, thank you. Lloyd Daley {Lloyd "Matador" Daley).
 * Hello User:LLOYD DALEY. In a biography of a living person, every statement needs a source. The information you added did not have any source and that is why it was deleted. Please also read WP:COI. Flat Out (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

18:52:32, 27 July 2015 review of submission by Dithie
Hi FlatOut -- Just wondering if the external links were the only problem? Thanks. Dithie (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Dithie and thanks for your question. The other issue noted (in the large box at the top of the draft) is the style and wording - see Encyclopedic style and WP:NPOV. Flat Out (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, FlatOut. I will work on style and wording. I've read the two links you included in your response, and I think I would find it helpful if you could point out an example of where I've gone wrong. All the best, Dithie (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

04:10:48, 28 July 2015 review of submission by Beecee14
Beecee14 (talk) 04:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why Payne does not warrant a solo page while other members have received one. Why is it that two of the four members have a valid redirect page? It is frustrating to have my talks and petitions ignored without reason and no explanation given. Payne was the only member of the band to compete on a separate season of x factor of which all the artists have individual wikipedia pages, that has nothing to do with his time in One Direction. Yet, he is still not considered to have a separate page. Could you at least clarify why that is? Or how one can go about it?
 * Beecee14 - two issues. 1, the article was reviewed and declined and you resubmitted it without making a single change. 2. The existing consensus is that he doesn't warrant his own article. Flat Out (talk) 05:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, that is not the case I completely rewrote the entirety of the article with new sources and updates. Secondly, where is this consensus coming from as he seems to meet all the standards according to Wikipedia's own rules. It's quite ridiculous in fact that it seems whatever reviewers have a favoritism or biased view of sorts as 3 of the 5 members somehow warrant separate articles and the rest don't. Either different rules are being applied or there seems to be a flaw in your logic. Beecee14 (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * here. Flat Out (talk) 03:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Request on 23:15:26, 28 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by TKTSF
TKTSF (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)TKTSF TKTSF (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:MOS and apply to your draft. Also, the references need to support everything you've said in the preceding statment. Flat Out (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Previously warned user back at it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JamesEmirzianWaldementer

He re-added the entire text of the self-promoting profile that you had removed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JamesEmirzian2016

He also has an alternate account that was making the edits and has made many other fake edits since 2013.
 * Thanks, issue addressed. Flat Out (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Innovation 4 Impact Competition
Hi Flat Out, Can you please give me the reasons for declining the article. I see that you made changes to the article, is it now ok for submission or does it need further editing? Thanks for your help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Innovation_4_Impact_Competition — Preceding unsigned comment added by IFG (talk • contribs) 06:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)  06:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * @IFG : The press releases are not paid advertising, they published them on their own. Anyhow, what other sources are considered credible for this article, can you help me out? Regarding the Overview section, nothing is copy-pasted, I wrote it on my own from scratch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IFG (talk • contribs) 09:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Press releases OR paid advertising. Credible sources are news, articles, journals, reviews, interviews conducted by individuals not related to the company - i.e, independent. See WP:RS Flat Out (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

TAFI's List of articles



 * Hello Flat Out:


 * A discussion is occurring at the TAFI talk page regarding potential changes to the project's List of articles page. Your input is welcome at the discussion.

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 04:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)