User talk:FoCuSandLeArN/Archive 15

2002 Venezuelan coup
Thanks for your expansion of the article. However I am concerned with two sources you have recently added.


 * Anonymous. "A strongman's overdue exit". April 14, 2002. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 13 May 2014.

The article contains false information: according to the article, Chavez resigned. Such a claim was common in the media during the days of the coup, but later it was established in reliable sources that Chavez had in fact never resigned. It also claims that the "armed men" who "killed 14" consisted of Chavez supporters, and the injured consisted of the opposition, even though newer reliable sources established this claim as false.

Additionally, the article is obviously biased: it openly praises the fact that Chavez was removed from government by military intervention, qualifies his government and governments of his style as "populist", "demagogue", "arrogant", and "inept", and considers the history of such governments "miserable" and "painful", calling it "progress" and "better things" to move on to a different style, calls him a "strongman", indirectly labels him as illegitimate, accuses him of supporting dictatorships, names him an autocrat, manipulates the information to make it appear as if the "armed men" who "killed 14" were Chavez supporters (even though newer reliable sources state that this claim is untrue), accuses him of "making war on his own people", openly praises the new government as a result of the coup d'etat, noting that they consider it "welcome", and accuses Chavez of performing "damage" which won't be "easy" to "repair", also calling his legacy "disastrous".


 * The New York Times April 20, 2002 Saturday, Venezuela's 2 Fateful Days: Leader Is Out, and In Again, BYLINE: By LARRY ROHTER, SECTION: Section A; Column 3; Foreign Desk; Pg. 1

This article, on its last page, confirms the fact that the other article contained false information, stating that Chavez had indeed never resigned. However, this article also manipulates information to claim that the gunmen who killed over a ten people were Chavez supporters, and that the killed and injured people were only: members of the opposition, a policeman, and an intelligence operative. So I question whether it can be used to source that Chavez "called out tanks and troops to repress the demonstrators".

I understand that "The New York Times" and "Chicago Tribune" may be considered reliable, but I am questioning whether the articles themselves suffers from reliability or not, as WP:RS demands that the "piece of work" (the article itself) must also be reliable no matter whether where it is published on is or not, as I understand it. Zozs (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand the point you make, but you must realise those articles were used as references for non-controversial statements, such as the attendance at the march, or that they planned the coup for about a year. These are non-controversial facts, and as such they don't need exhaustive referencing and cross-referencing as would facts regarding biographical or contended information like the examples you mentioned. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources are being used to source the following statements:
 * "Chávez directly contacted “the army's 3rd Division commander in Caracas to request that tanks surround Miraflores, the presidential palace."
 * "Chávez “ordered soldiers and plainclothes guards to stop” protesters marching on Miraflores"
 * According to the New York Times, “the highest commanders of the armed forces disobeyed an order from Mr. Chávez to call out tanks and troops to repress the demonstrators.”
 * It definitely seems as potentially controversial to state that Chavez called on army soldiers and tanks to repress the demonstration - which I don't know if he really did or not, - but if it is true better sources could definitely be found. Seeing as the tanks and soldiers seemed to actually never have got there, apparently because "they disobeyed the order", this looks like it could be information which could easily have been manipulated or misreported, in line with the rest. I'm not sure about the Washington Times source because your link to it doesn't work and I can't find it elsewhere. Regards. Zozs (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I share Zozs's concerns with your contributions to this article. Not only is the reliability of these news sources itself in question, but issues like the identity of the shooters, etc. are/were the subject of investigation and much debate.--Riothero (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As you rightly say, they are and were the subject of much debate, such as the one we're having. Ain't the world great? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Band
Re: Altared article rejected - Hello; I read your comments, and the notability/verifiable rules, and it seems that my article has met the criteria. There are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia bands that have lesser notability and verifiability. Please advise. Thank you.Contributor4376 (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it does not. See WP:EXISTS for your other fallacious argument. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Notification of a June AfC BackLog Drive
 Hello FoCuSandLeArN:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a  month long Backlog Elimination Drive!

The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014.

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 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

The AfC helper script can assist you in tallying your edits automatically. To view a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Sent on behalf of (t) (c) by &#123;&#123;U&#124;&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) using the MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:AFCHRW
Hi FoCuSandLeArN!

As you may be aware, for the past few months I've been working on a complete rewrite of the Articles for creation helper script. I've now reached a point where the new script is relatively stable. Since you're a highly active AfC reviewer (in fact, one of the top three most active users of the old helper script by my counts), I figured I'd reach out to you before further publicizing the script to ask you to give the new script a whirl in your day to day reviewing. Complete installation instructions are here (don't worry, it's not hard :) ), and I'll be happy to hear any and all feedback you have to offer! There's a "Give feedback" link visible on the main script panel, which you can click to easily give feedback without having to leave the page you're reviewing.

Thank you so much for taking time to look at this and help shape the future of AFCH and AfC!  Theopolisme ( talk )  22:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Chaco sanjuanina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Chaco


 * Chaco socos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Chaco


 * Rhodoplanes elegans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Phototrophic

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Rejection of Better CMS page
Hello, I see my post on Better CMS was rejected due to inadequate sources. I listed the github page as I saw that many other CMS pages had that as a reference. Would including a link to the Windows App Gallery Better CMS page serve as a reference as well? http://www.microsoft.com/web/gallery/bettercms.aspx

Thank you. Mrsavage84 (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid not. You must explain why it's notable and provide the appropriate evidence. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Happy to help
Please do drop me a line if I can help with the draft of that very promising article you put together. Invertzoo (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Heliothrix oregonensis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Phototrophic and Chloroflexi


 * Cytodeme (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Sterile

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Mating in slugs
So... both JoJan and Snek feel it should be accepted, so I would say go ahead and accept it and then we will try to work on it some more to improve it. Invertzoo (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Let me know if I can help in any other way. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC: Guerin Report
Hi. I'm not sure if you're watching the WikiProject Ireland talk page. In case you're not, I'm just letting you know that I've left a comment there regarding the above. Regards, Scolaire (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elementary Cycles
Hello FoCusandLeArN

My article for submission has been rejected for publication for notability reasons. The article was motivated by the fact that among the interpretations of quantum mechanics the voice Elementary Cycles was one of the few without a dedicated article.

I have provided a list of published peer reviewed papers related to this interpretation. This represents extensive independent, third-party, reliable sources. I think it is sufficiently notable subject as, for instance, it has been awarded in the FQXi contest in 2011, voted by a large general public. The artcle is also relevant for the related interpretation of the problem of time in physics and applications to modern physics.

How can I improve the article?

Many thanks,

N4tur4le (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello there! I suggest you take the matter to the link provided (WikiProject Physics), as I was acting under their purview. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Lamellibrachia barhami (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Epidermis, Nerve cord and Lamella


 * Triphora trianthophora (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Triphora

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Wildfire Retreat
Hello FoCusandLeArN,

Thank you for your review of the Wildfire Retreat page. I understand your rejection, based on insufficient references. I am having a problem meeting Wikipedia's criteria for references, and I was wondering if you might be able to help me.

Wildfire Retreat is a training event for fire spinning. They have a 'no spectators' policy similar to the Burning Man event. Reporters and authors have requested to attend in the past, but lost interest when they were not allowed to attend simply as an observer.

There are no news articles that cover the Wildfire Retreat event, nor are there books, nor magazines that would reference the event. There is only one notable exception - a single magazine dedicated to fire spinning (Fire Arts Magazine), which does reference Wildfire, and I use it as a source.

As far as I have found, there is only one magazine in existence that mentions the Wildfire Retreat event, and because of the 'no spectators policy', I believe there is only one magazine that could.

Are the following references sufficient?: An on-line festival guide that mentions the event: http://festivalfire.com/festivals/flow-arts-regionals/ A YouTube video who's title mentions the event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClVPj3k3-7Q A link to the event's Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/events/130948270309830/ A link to the event's Flickr page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/Wildfire+Retreat/

The event is certainly notable (to Wikipedia's standards), but I have no material to support that claim. I have first-hand experience, verbal reports from other attendees, etc. but no documentation.

The statements I make in my article are true, but again I have no material to support that claim. I have first-hand recollections, etc. but no public 3rd party documentation.

What do you recommend I do to in this unusual instance?

Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.143.241 (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but from what you're telling me it certainly does not fulfill Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Simply put, if there's no extensive evidence about it's notability, it won't be accepted, no matter how good your submission is. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Qmee
Hi,

I would like some feedback on the page I submitted to be reviewed - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Qmee

Thanks.

Yelaness (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello there! Basically, the references you presented do not attest to the notability of the app. Furthermore, it seems non-notable in any case, due to the fact that it does not satisfy the conditions stipulated by WP:NSOFT. If you're involved with the app in any way, you might need to understand Wikipedia is not a means for promotion; see WP:COI. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Photographer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jesse_Hill_Photographer Hello, I have removed the sections in the app that are not verifiable according to Wikipedias standards. Many of the citations in the app link to notable celebrity portraits on Getty images. This professional and notable work can be independently verified by clicking the links. The awards that were given to the photographer by GDUSA are verifiable also. GDUSA is one of the leading graphic design industry publications. Please review at your convenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spilloneous (talk • contribs) 05:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Guerin Report
Again, I'm not sure if you're watching the Irish WikiProject page. I have suggested that you go ahead and create Draft:Guerin Report as an article. This will make a merge more straightforward. The draft, as far as I can see, is accurate, well-sourced, and deals with a reasonably notable event. Scolaire (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It doens't seem like there's broad concensus to do so... FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a broad consensus to merge. I don't know if I can just copy material out of a draft article when doing the merge, but for sure most of what is in that draft should go in the merged article. Can you suggest an appropriate procedure for doing that? Scolaire (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There's one support and one oppose vote, how is that concensus? In either case, I'll ask around at AfC and see what the fellows think, in which case they might help with the merge. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, the section is a bit difficult to read. Immediately under your brief note I said, "I think that this [and other named articles] should all be merged..." Under that, Snappy said, "I agree, merge and redirect the rest." Then Laurel Lodged, the first one to use bullets, said Merge. At that point, it was three out of three in favour of a merge. Then the IP said Oppose. Presumably he is the draft article's creator, so his opposition is hardly surprising. So, not one support and one oppose. Of course, I've no intention of riding roughshod over the IP. Any merge will follow a formal discussion. Scolaire (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --Scolaire (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Article
Dear FoCuSandLeArN

As requested, more reliable independent sources have been added to the article for your considerations.

Kindest regards, Mazgan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazgan (talk • contribs) 05:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi FoCuSandLeArN
My article is declined by you .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Drivespark

Can you help on this ple?? From my end what to do... I am not getting in detail ..

Regards, Karthick.R — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imkarthick (talk • contribs) 06:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello there! You haven't provided extensive coverage in independent nor reliable sources. It reads as ad-like and certainly seems non-notable. Why is the website so important? See WP:CORP and FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Chaco tecka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Chubut and Chaco


 * Bollobás–Riordan polynomial (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Variable


 * Chloroflexus aggregans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Phototrophic


 * Co-option (biology) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Antiviral


 * George Coffin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Squeeze play

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Alchemy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alchemy_Festival

Hello FoCuSandLeArN, I'm just wondering why my article for Alchemy Festival was declined? I tried to add some more sources after being declined the first time however after seeing it was still unsuccessful I was wondering if you could point me in the right direction for what I need?

Thanks

Fungimedia (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You've provided no extensive coverage in independent nor reliable sources to establish the festival's notability. If you can't find proof of notability, it's because the festival is simply too new and small to be notable at this time, and references will be impossible to find. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Elementary cycles
Dear FoCuSandLeArN I have resubmitted the article adding explicit citations in every section. If needed more citations can be added. Please see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics. Best regards, N4tur4le (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Maias Alyamani
Hi FoCuSandLeAr, I would like to inform you that I added many references and two sections to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MAias_Alyamani: with resource links to many official media sources in Arabic, English and French like Qatar Radio, many Qatari newspapers, France 24 (Arabic) and many others.
 * Events, Concerts and Media Coverage
 * Contributions

These resources show the artists accomplishments and some of them talk about his recent album release. Also some Syrian official media sites talking about the artist.

I hope they are quite sufficient and thank you very much for your help and dedication to the Wikipedia project and the efforts you make for reviewing and approval. Much apprciated.

Hisham Qaddoumi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hqaddomi (talk • contribs) 22:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Oxford Brookes Conservative Association
Dear Person,

What do I need to do to get the Oxford Brookes Conservative Association accepted?

Kind Regards
 * Please provide extensive coverage in independent and reliable sources (newspapers, books, magazines, journals, etc.) attesting to its notability. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

VacationFutures Submission
Hello - I was hoping to get a little more information about what needs to be done before editing/resubmitting the VacationFutures article. There are citations to coverage in Skift and Tnooz, the two biggest travel industry news sources, as well as technology coverage from sources like TechCocktail and Hypepotamus. From being a member and active contributor to the VRMA (Vacation Rental Managers Association) as well as the Vacation Rental World Summit, to mentions in sources as varied as US News & World Report and VR Renegades, the company has a global reach, with customers spanning 4 continents. Thus, the decision that the article is not "notable" seems confusing. Is there any clarity/direction you can provide? Thank you. Jenren4prez (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Andrew McConnell, June 9, 2014
 * Notability for Wikipedia's standards is not the same as notability from your perspective. The article needs extensive coverage in independent and reliable sources. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I just updated the submission deleting out sections that could only be validated using the company's site (like registration process), and adding in more independent citations (like newspapers). Does the new version work? Please let me know if there is something else I need to do. Thank you. Jenren4prez (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)10 June 2014 Andrew McConnell

Robby
Hi, on the Robby Mria draft: the German National Library, Discogs Discography and the German Wikipedia are independent and absolutely reliable sources. Jania — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jania86 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you're wrong. Please read the linked resources. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

mediocracy
Hello.I am not sure how your "and is quite mediocre at that," comments provided any constructive criticism to a new user and not only made me feel less-than welcome, but struck me as unnecessary. This was my first attempt at writing for this community. Note how you could have conveyed exactly the same information in your rejection-for-cause comments without demeaning my contribution. Simply deleting "and is quite mediocre at then, rather" would have turned this into constructive feedback. Is it the habit of wikipedia editors tell new community members that they are mediocre in their efforts? I find this disturbing. .    "While ethnography already has an entry on Wikipedia, I could not find a single academic journal article mentioning or discussing "Place ethnography" and as such this article submission can't be accepted. It's also written like an essay, and is quite mediocre at that, rather reading like a random collection of terms and thoughts without a coherent encyclopaedic thread. If this term really existed, you'd have to present it in its context, using clear and concise language and appropriate references. That's likely not going to be possible." Titaberger (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you felt offended, but please note that my comments still hold true as to the decline reasons, my personal opinion notwithstanding. You are right I might have overstepped my bounds; as reviewers we are somewhat flooded with submissions and sometimes we react too harshly. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft: Versus You
Hi,

You wrote as reason that the article is not notable: "No extensive coverage in independent nor reliable sources, therefore non-notable."

Here's a list with links to pages that refute this: and there are even more. Sorry that the most of this isn't in english.
 * Versus You on www.rtl.lu (luxembourgish, german, english)
 * Versus You on www.wort.lu (german)
 * Versus You on www.wort.lu (german)
 * Versus You on www.lessentiel.lu (german)
 * Versus You on Eldoradio.lu (german)
 * Versus You on www.peek-a-boo-magazine.be (english)
 * Versus You on www.holdupnow.com (english)
 * Versus You on www.soulseller-mag.com (german)
 * Versus You on www.in-your-face.de (german)
 * Versus You on www.lieblingstape.de (english)

With friendly greetings --Irukandji85 (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC).
 * Make sure you provide the new citations in your article before resubmitting. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Chaco patagonica (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Chubut and Chaco


 * Tidarren argo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Palpus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Growth factor receptor inhibitor


Hello FoCuSandLeArN. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Growth factor receptor inhibitor".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Rankersbo (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Support for rejected artcile
Hello FoCuSandLeArN,

In March, you made key recommendations to improve the page since I am unable to understand the specifics as to way it was rejected. Can you please send me your comments again? I am unable to find them in my Wiki profile. Thank you kindly in advance! Below is the article in question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Christopher_Moll — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzheatheranne (talk • contribs) 20:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It needs extensive coverage in independent and reliable sources. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Senta Yamada's Article Declined
Hi FoCuSandLeArN,

First of all thank you for your review of the Article regarding Senta Yamada. Your review states that the reference's do not adequately state the subject's notability. This is a bit confusing for me as:

- Senta Yamada was one of the pioneers of Tomiki Aikido / Shodokan Aikido in Europe. ( a recognised style in the wikipedia) - I have referenced two books published by the subject being sold by Amazon. - I have referenced some footage of Senta Yamada during his many seminars and also taped by the BBC. - I have referenced the Aikido Journal encyclopedia entry of Senta Yamada, which is an independent source and is used for reference in many Aikido subjects / persona in the wikipedia.

Please let me know what part you think needs to be improved on, as Senta Yamada sensei was one of the pioneers of Tomiki Aikido in Europe, has published books and has many recordings of his seminars by his disciples and the BCC I think he is an important and notable figure.

2001:720:101C:504:34FB:4A3A:35BA:311F (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkback from Technical 13
— &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 20:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Senta Yamada's Article Declined
Hi FoCuSandLeArN,

First of all thank you for your review of the Article regarding Senta Yamada. Your review states that the reference's do not adequately state the subject's notability. This is a bit confusing for me as:

- Senta Yamada was one of the pioneers of Tomiki Aikido / Shodokan Aikido in Europe. ( a recognised style in the wikipedia) - I have referenced two books published by the subject being sold by Amazon. - I have referenced some footage of Senta Yamada during his many seminars and also taped by the BBC. - I have referenced the Aikido Journal encyclopedia entry of Senta Yamada, which is an independent source and is used for reference in many Aikido subjects / persona in the wikipedia.

Please let me know what part you think needs to be improved on, as Senta Yamada sensei was one of the pioneers of Tomiki Aikido in Europe, has published books and has many recordings of his seminars by his disciples and the BCC I think he is an important and notable figure.

2001:720:101C:504:34FB:4A3A:35BA:311F (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read the linked guidelines. Books published by the subject are not indications of notability. If he was a pioneer in Europe, you must be able to demonstrate that fact. What other articles do has nothing to do with this submission. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Amba Haldi
Hi FoCuSandLeArN,

You said that I might add about this to an article. Do you mean that this would not meet Wikipedia's policy on a stand alone article? Robert4565 (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There can't be a separate article because there already is an article about the plant. You could discuss the uses of the plant on the existing article, but bear in mind that you need to provide reliable sources backing that information up (books, journal articles, etc.). Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dulce Domum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Ambrose (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Victorious
Hello.. I wanted to edit the page for Victorious 22 and would like to know the reasons why it was rejected. The page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Victorious_22_%28V22LA%29

I just spent over an hour in the chat with reviewers taking a look at the page and they couldn't figure out why it was rejected. They suggested it may be a case where it looks like the articles cited are paid adverts in magazines, but this is not the case. The magazines have articles about the company and the owners, complete with interviews, bio, etc. If you would like me to scan these articles and send them I could do that.

If there is another reason, please let me know what is needed and I'll revise and resubmit.

Thank you, Eric — Preceding unsigned comment added by V22denim (talk • contribs) 03:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 10:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Decline of article on Lifeism
I cannot find your comments on the submission. I am very new to this and this subject matter is also very new, but certainly worthy. Could you give me some pointers and guidance on how to format, find sources and citations if indeed that's is the reason for decline. Kaetalist (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello there! First of all, you need to determine whether the topic is actually notable and is not a neologism. You need to write it in a neutral and encyclopaedic tone, and find extensive coverage in independent and reliable sources that corroborate your statements. For help formatting references see WP:REFB. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a means to express opinions or mfringe theories; it is an encyclopaedia. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Improving my article
Thanks for your friendly criticism! I'd like to consult with you about what I hoped would be the first of many articles about "players" in a variety of historical subjects that are sadly underdocumented. Yours, Mike Mad PFessor (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Mad Pfessor Mad PFessor (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello there! Do you have any specific concerns? Rasa might be notable, but adequate referencing needs to be provided. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Plena
Hello, this is Valerie Cox...Thank you for the corrections. I re-submitted the information on Plena Libre with references and notability as requested. Hope I did it right! ValerieValeriecox (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

My decline.
How can you say the subject isn't notable? She has written several books. How many books have you written? You are aware you can google and see just how many books and how notable she is... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollyelizabethstar (talk • contribs) 14:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you take time to read WP:AUTHOR you'll realise writing a book doesn't make one notable per se according to Wikipedia's standards. You haven't provided extensive coverage in independent nor reliable sources either, so she fails WP:GNG as well. Please do not resort to sarcasm. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Draft:Henrik Lindstrand
Thanks for your comments! I have replaced the IMDB references with solid references from The Film Institute + more. Hope this is sufficient. Eternalgroove (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pasteuria nishizawae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cyst nematode (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Blitz
Did you look at the Huffington Post link? That was a full, long article from an obviously reliable and independent source, covering the band, and the quote I chose clearly demonstrated that author's opinion that Blitzkid were notable.

I also provided a link to coverage of the band by Allmusic.

Surely this enough to justify a stub, there's one of the most read journals in the country, and one of the leading providers of music coverage. There are so many pages of artists with less than this! Keithramone33 (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:MUSIC? You might also need to rad WP:EXISTS as for your other argument. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just reviewed WP:MUSIC. I feel that the stub establishes criteria 1, 5, 6, and 7, with 1 being the most significant given HuffPost and Allmusic.
 * I was beginning to find more Blitzkid references (for example, I just came across a posting by Punknews.org, a leading outlet for this genre of music, that points out that this band headlined a music festival that had other artists which DO have Wiki pages lower on the bill... for the record it is http://www.punknews.org/article/6111/tours-horror-punk-festival-this-august), but to make sure I was on the right track, I looked again at the 'golden rule'. And then I became resentful, because the Huffington Post article SO CLEARLY meets the criteria of this rule! I don't want to write a long article, I want to have a stub and let other editors help flesh it out, so right now I just want a more specific explanation before I do an more work, or contrive to add more links. I mean you know HuffPost right? One of the leading news outlets that there is. I would like you to look at the Huff Post link (if you haven't) and explain why this, along with the Allmusic professional review, isn't enough to establish that this was a noteworthy band. It is a long article that I quoted, the entire subject of said article is Blitzkid, and its from a very independent, very reliable source. Also note that the band's record label has a page, and that my article points out that one of the singers had a significant collaboration with a famous rock musician. Keithramone33 (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Please reply using a successive colon after my replies. As for your comments:
 * 1) Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works.
 * 2) Collaborating with notable musicians does not mean the collaborator is notable.
 * 3) The record label is associated with the group, and as such is not a reliable source. This also goes for show listings.
 * 4) Usually interviews and PR-pieces (the Huff piece is obviously promotional - if you know anything about the press you'd know they make a living out of publishing promotional material ahead of music releases or upcoming concerts) are not considered reliable sources because there is no way to verify their contents.
 * 5) Are you in any way associated with the group? See WP:COI.
 * 6) As for criteria 5, 6 & 7: you haven't provided any evidence whatsoever.
 * If you have any further doubts please head over to Teahouse and/or WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) Well, how many is 'multiple', is there a magic number? I provided two.
 * 2) Collaborating with a noteworthy musician is part of criteria 6; in addition to working with Blitzkid, Mr.Goolsby also was a prominent member of another noteworthy act.
 * 3) My point about the record label is that it satisfies criteria five.
 * 4) I am definitely not associated with them. I am a music follower. As such, since I have discovered them through their presence in the scene... well I won't complete the sentence b/c I know original research doesn't help.
 * 5) I hadn't considered that Huff was 'paid for'. It looks like any music article I've ever seen. Is this your own original research? What about the contents of this piece discredits it as 'obviously promotional'?
 * 6) With regards to 'number 7' of WP:Music, it was established by the Huff article, so my previous point, about that article, has to be dealt with first. Keithramone33 (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, FoCuSandLeArN and Keithramone33. In response to F&L's request I had a look around and found quite a few references to this band. I am a bluegrass musician, so I am not very familiar with the online punk "zines"; I rejected any that read like press releases or appeared to be blog postings. There is also an article about this band in the German Wikipedia, which had a lot of poor references but a few that looked not too bad, so I added them to the draft. I'm not sure about the advisability of leaving that interesting quote from the Huffington Post. If it's included it should be balanced with other review information, because not all of the reviews were positive, and this is supposed to be a neutral article. The sentence about one of the members playing in another band doesn't seem relevant. Keithramone33, I've found that the best response to a critical review is to work on improving the article to negate the criticism, especially when the reviewer, as is the case here, has reviewed many thousands of articles. The article could do with some more detail; for example, one of the sources mentions a band member that isn't in the article. However, that shouldn't prevent acceptance. I hope that I have moved the article towards acceptability. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you Anne for your input, and for your help with the draft! :)

F&L, I hope I haven't been too much of a pain. Of course I defer to your expertise in doing Wiki articles. My efforts here are sincere. I have read many Wiki pages on bands and know this band to be more relevant than some, and am trying to understand what needs to be done. I guess the draft will stick around for a while, and I will try to improve it when I next get another chunk of time if Anne's work hasn't gotten it to acceptability status yet. Thanks again to you both. Keithramone33 (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Aboobacker Amani
plz accept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:123.237.213.17/sandbox/Aboobacker_Amani

some problums it. he is not famous in online publications but he is famous printed media — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.237.213.17 (talk) 07:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If he's notable on print media, please provide the appropriate references. Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Conophytum stephanii, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steinkopf. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

03:33:22, 10 July 2014 review of submission by KatyaVakhina
Is it possible to hve refernces to sources in other language? For example, the article is in English but there are references to Rusian sources?

KatyaVakhina (talk) 03:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course. If you need help with referencing, see WP:REFB. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources
For an article about biography of a person going back to 1930-1970's, what is permissible as "reliable reference sources"? For covering the said period, it is difficult to support the article with online sources as they do exist now and did not exist in that era. For instance, in one case I wanted to find online name of French Légion d'honneur recipients. I sent them a letter and their office confirmed the award with a private communication. The question is how do you expect the author of the article to quote the private communication in the article?

One solution would be to send the offline communications to the reviewer. If you have other suggestions, please share with me. Thank you very much.

Arwiki2020 (talk) 06:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sources do not need to be online, they just need to be verifiable and include as much information as possible. As for the private communication, I wouldn't know what constitutes proper referencing in that particular case, but I'd suggest you include all information regarding that piece of written information when you cite it at the end of the article. He certainly seems like he could be a notable academic. Perhaps we could contact a relevant WikiProject for help. Was he a pharmacologist? Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal re June BED
There is a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/June_2014_Backlog_Elimination_Drive that merits your consideration Fiddle   Faddle  16:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Article re-review
Hi, Did I correctly submit the re-review of the Draft:American Red Cross Volunteer Life Saving Corps ? It's been since July 3 and I was wondering if I did everything correctly. I've tweaked a few things in the intirum. Does that but it back at the bottom of the list? Thanks in advance, Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dleonar2 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's currently on queue. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

List of old-time American radio announcers
I saw your post on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio page, and I like the idea. In fact, several months ago I created a list similar to yours and received much the same comment as you did, where your reviewer wrote: "This would probably be OK if all the entries were blue-linked Wikipedia articles, however if the list is going to include names without associated Wikipedia articles, references will be needed to confirm who they are and why they belong on the list. Also it would be best to define more precisely the requirements for being on the list (i.e. defined dates for ' Radio's Golden Age')."

I never did more with my list because I wasn't sure what was needed "to confirm who they are and why they belong on the list." Rather than struggle with some efforts that might also be rejected, I decided to focus my efforts on articles about individual announcers and programs from old-time radio. My original thought was that it would be useful to have as comprehensive a list as possible, including those without Wikipedia articles. That would make it easier for researchers to identify announcers for research for new articles. Apparently, the person who critiqued my list (like the one who critiqued yours) did not see it that way.

I still think such a list would be good to have on Wikipedia, but I don't know how one would proceed with it. I think I'll add a follow-up post on the WPR talk page and see if anyone has suggestions. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)