User talk:FoCuSandLeArN/Archive 2

Zack Friedman
Hi FoCuSandLeArN!

I am new to Wikipedia and would hope to resubmit my entry on Zack Friedman. Please forgive my style and format. How I can edit the article to best fit your criteria? Thank you very much!

Gordon Gordonstanton123 (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello there! The article is a CV, and as such can't be added to Wikipedia. It seems as if the entry was either created by that same person in question, or by someone close to that person, or a fan. The references are inadequate in that they are not full citations and may have close ties with the subject. Notability is not established in this case. Please see WP:NOT and WP:Notability. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Estakhr's Constant
the article's tone needs to be addressed as it isn't neutral, objective and doesn't contemplate a lay audience; create an adequate lead. citations need to be in-line, and more have to be added.FoCuSandLeArN


 * Estakhr's Constant

1. This article have been accepted. 2. No additional information is available. 3. It is very new and does not have the same sample. 4. Only U.S embassy in Ankara have the biography of the author.


 * It hasn't been accepted yet.
 * My concerns were regarding the language used for the article.
 * If by new you mean it is original research, then I suggest you don't create an article for it.
 * I don't know what you mean. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 11:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Bishop Shanahan Rugby Football Club
I have gone back and added more citations and references. As a comparison, please consider that this page is much more detailed to contemporary pages, like Doyelstown RFC, and even college team's pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DukeArlington (talk • contribs) 13:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Great! thanks for that, but please be aware that they need to be full citations, i.e. when you use the cite web tool, please fill as many fields as you can. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC).

Full citations amended.DukeArlington (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Body By VI Challenge
Hi FocusandLearn,

Thanks for the review of the above listed page (found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Body_by_Vi_Challenge).

Do you have any suggestions on what I need to alter to improve the tone of the article. Prior to my submission via Wiki's AFC, I had it reviewed by editors at wiki's IRC chat and they told me that the article seemed fairly okay and neutral but I'm always open to improvements.

I know its tricky writing these kind of pages without making it appear promotional, which is why I used the pages of accepted brand-name diet products like Special K, Slim Fast and Lean Cuisine as guiding templates to writing this one.

Do you have any tips on how I can improve the page before resubmitting it? I was considering adding a controversy section at the bottom to increase its neutral tone..

Kind Regards Carlang (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello there! thank you for your comment. As per the article, I would avoid comments such as "that encourages people to meet personal health or fitness goals", "to arrest the ailing sales of its weight loss products, Visalus tweaked its marketing model", etc. Also, the ingredients paragraph need to be eliminated, as it's irrelevant, as well as the celebrities section. A good reference would be to look at Spam and WP:NOT. Cheers! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Focus,
 * I've made the requested changes and cleaned up any suspected puffery comments. Could you please give it a quick look to see if there's anything else I've missed?
 * Kind regards
 * Carl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlang (talk • contribs) 21:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Imexco
Hi,

Thank you for reviewing my article.

I am afraid it becomes a "catch 22" situation... Please read the following:(as quoted from the last reviewer - CharmlessCoin (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2012)

"Other than just a few lines, the article is basically fine. For example, "Imexco's objective is to develop, produce and market innovative technology intense products that improve quality of life and allow patients to leave the hospital earlier, thus lowering total health care costs." This line has no inline citation, so it seems as though you're either expressing your opinion, or attempting to show the company in a positive light. Keep in mind that you should avoid peacock words, and focus only on the facts. See WP:PEACOCK for more, in case you missed that guide line. Also, the section "Pain Management" lacks citations. Wikipedia doesn't count as a reliable source, so attempt to find a reference from some other source. Other than these small issues, the article was pretty good. Thanks for your contributions, and please do resubmit after fixing those issues! CharmlessCoin (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)"

Hi CharmlessCoin,

Please see the revised article where I have added 8 independent reliable references as per your recommendation in the two sections as you have indicated.

Please make the necessary modifications so that the article will appear properly in Wikipedia Thank you for your help Yesikan (talk) 06:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[2] --

Dear FoCuSandLeArN, please note that before writing this article I read carefully wiki-policies and particularly checked with the following companies and categories, which I strongly recommend to read.

Medical equipment manufacturers - 75 companies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Medical_equipment_manufacturers and Abraxis, Aethlon Medical, +200 Medical company stubs. Most of those companies have significant advertisements and some lack references at all.

Accordingly, I have to disagree with your general statement "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia."

In addition, please see that there are plenty of independent, reliable, published sources, not just materials produced by the company. Please see the range of External Links as well. If you enter "imexco general" in Google you'll receive a remarkable response (1240), most of them relevant links. Definitely a NOTABLE company. Yesikan (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas Ray Davidson
As reviewing administrator, I did not delete the submission. I do not see that this represents unsourced negative or potentially negative information. There are BLP submissions that need to be deleted. This is not one of them. It has sources, and just needs further work. I left a detailed comment about exactly what it needed, and have strongly encouraged the user to resubmit this, because it has the makings of an acceptable bio on a notable person.  DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments! Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for working on and approving Sarvartha Chintamani.Soni Ruchi (talk) 07:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

How can I improve my article?
Dear FoCuSandLeArN,

A few days ago I wrote an article for Wikipedia, and today I found out that it is accepted: Stereotype_space. As far as I understand, you were among those who were estimating the level of the article, now it is "C-Class". In WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Grading_scheme it is written that

"The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup."

Please, if you have any advices, tell me what should I do to improve the article. I can guarantee that it does not contain irrelevant materials, but I do not know, perhaps you found something what is called "issues", or something else, what can be important, so, please, clarify what could stay behind the decision of giving C-Class. Of course, I would be happy to do what can be done for improving the article.

Thank you in advance, Eozhik (talk) 08:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello there! Thank you for your questions. I would first see that the article is written in an encyclopaedic language, that there are no grammatical errors, and maybe use the advanced editor to create those formulas. To see the latter point, have a look at Pythagorean theorem. Cheers! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Terry de Havilland
Some time ago I began a page about Terry de Havilland. Then recently I returned and added more facts, corroborated by an article in Vogue magazine which I had previously used as a reference. I thought I had re-phrased the facts in that article in my own words but now the whole page has been marked for speedy deletion. Deletion of the entire article seems extremely heavy-handed. When I resubmitted the original article it too was rejected, by you, on grounds that my sources were not verifiable. I would be grateful if you could explain how I should go about this. The biography I referred to is on the Vogue magazine official website which reproduces content from the printed magazine. Vogue is regarded as the fashion 'bible'. I would be grateful also if you could advise how best to proceed with adding more detail to the article. Thanks in advance for your help. Electr007 (talk) 09:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * From what I can see the article was deleted because of copyright infringement. that means that you wholly or partially copied material from another source. As per the new submitted article for creation, please have a look at Referencing for beginners in order to understand why sources need to be verifiable and how that is done. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Maren Mjelde Historikeren (talk) 11:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello FoCuSandLeArN and thanks for your comments on the above subject. I have had considerable trouble establishing this article and have concluded that my main error was to make it too long. I have never had an article rejected before. It would help if you could indicate which facts in the present article for submission are inadequately referenced. Thanks - Historikeren. PS I already translated the Norwegian wikipedia article but the editor told me not to use other wikipedia articles as sources :) H.


 * Hello there! Which article is this? If you translate information from another language wiki, you have to comply with referencing in the same manner as you would for English. Please see Biographies of living persons and Verifiability. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry, I was referring to no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maren_Mjelde . . but provided the original references are all included I appreciate it will probably be all right. I was aiming to add to this article in English but intend to leave it as a stub for now and hope that it has too few faults to be turned down at this stage :) H.


 * No worries. Well, yes, usually it is seen as more favourable to have less information as long as it is referenced. Good luck! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Union Theological Seminary (Philippines)
Hello, FoCuSandLeArN! Your comment on the Wikipedia article that I created is highly appreciated. Could you please specify which sections you would want to be referenced? I'd be willing to cite sources to support such information. Hope to hear from you soon. - Patnubaypatnugot (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello! Well, most articles seem to be referenced once and at the end. I would see that more references are added in general. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

My article has been declined
and I am not sure why... I am new to wikipedia contribution and all I can find is a link to What Wikipedia is Not but this doesn't really help me... can you give me more information please. Lolakatkin (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Which article are you referring to? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Franz Ruppert Lolakatkin (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)lolakatkin
 * In that link you'll find very useful information, specifially the 2nd, 3rd and 5th points. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

okay got it... thanks Lolakatkin (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)lolakatkin

My page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Lisa_Feldman_Barrett

A page I submitted for creation was not accepted. The reason stated was that you seemed to be under the impression that it was original research. That is simply not the case. I don't want to come off as defensive, but I spent my time getting that article together only to find out it was time wasted. In academia when someone accuses someone else of anything like "original research" it is another way of saying that it is "poor scholarship." This was not poor scholarship. I do research in this area, and I know what I am talking about.

1. Go to this website: http://www.affective-science.org/publications.shtml

2. Click on the link: Duncan, S., & Barrett, L. (2007). Affect as a form of cognition: A neurobiological analysis. Cognition and Emotion, 21, 1184-1211.

3. Read the article.

4. Come up with a better paraphrasing of their very complex research.

If this is not enough for you then don't even worry about it; apparently you don't need my help.

Thank you


 * First of all, wikipedia articles do not belong to their creators. I am not accusing you of creating an inaccurate article. Quite the opposite. The subject of the article is a scholar, and as such I believe that undue weight was given to her research, given the overall length of the article and I repeat, beacuse it was a BLP (biography of a living person). On top of that, the citations do corroborate the science of it, but do not contribute to establishing the notability of the scientist in question. Also, I am suspecting you are associated with the subject, is that correct? Please beware of COI as well. On a final note, please do refrain from using a condescending tone; this being a digital medium does not mean you have a right to underestimate anybody else's capabilities or credentials. Thank you and feel free to resubmit the article once it has been improved. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

autopatrol
Here, have an WP:AUTOPATROL. Morwen (Talk) 20:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I've already applied and was denied :( FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I hadn't seen that before I gave you the bit. Frankly, I think a sense of perspective can be applied.  I don't see the problem single-sourcing stubs about species, and through the AFC work you have shown good understanding of the substantive elements of sourcing.  Also, you were totally filling up the Special:NewPages with all those snails.   Morwen (Talk) 20:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Haha, yeah I've been told that before, that's why I applied. I appreciate it! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Walter Mooney
Hi, You recently left a comment about the article I created. I was wondering how I could make it look less like a CV, because that is not my intention and I have looked at the notable person wiki article. If I change the format from a list format to a paragraph format will that help? Also, I changed the Chile title. I forgot to fix that earlier. Thanks! Xploringearth (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, articles should be written in prose. Also, be sure to establish the subject's notability not by mentioning his jobs/awards/career, but how he's made contributions that would make him stand out, with appropriate references. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Xerocrassa barceloi, FoCuSandLeArN!

Wikipedia editor Kieranian2001 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Reviewed as part of page curation. Already tagged as stub. Kieranian2001 (talk) 13:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)"

To reply, leave a comment on Kieranian2001's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A page you started has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Xerocrassa grata, FoCuSandLeArN!

Wikipedia editor Kieranian2001 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Reviewed as part of page curation. already tagged as stub. Kieranian2001 (talk) 13:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)"

To reply, leave a comment on Kieranian2001's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Anti-estrogenic diet
Thank you for reviewing our submission. Could you tell me how to improve the articles? What would be the most important issues to fix? Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggsbx (talk • contribs) 19:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I would mainly make sure that it is scientifically correct. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I tried to but as many scientific references as possible (scientific publications). What more could I do? More references? Thank you a lot for your time! Ggsbx (talk) 08:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * in general, i woud refrain from writing statements such as these: "The liver cleansing has positive effects in your overall health, mainly: weight loss due to the amount of liquids, vegetables and fruits ingested. A “boost” on the immune system is another effect of the detox. Many harmful waste products are easily eliminated from the body, as it helps to filter the blood in a more efficient manner.". science is difficult to write, so it's better not to say something that to say something inaccurate or poorly verifiable. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

What am I doing wrong?
Hello dear Editor! I've submitted an article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sergey_Shishkarev) and you've declined it. "This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter". Could You please help (advise) how to make it better - put more links, find more sources or ..etc.? (I'm new at this, so please forgive silly questions if they appear so). Key157 (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I see you've already made some good changes. Make sure the lead (intro) summarises the content of the whole article as well as provide sufficient context. Check out the comments I've made on my talk page to a previous user (just before this one). Thank you! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear FoCuSandLeArN, thank you for noticing the improvements! I've worked on the article as you've saggested (style, context, sources..etc) and sent it back for a second review. Hope this time i haven't missed anything. Will wait for the answer! Thank you so much! Key157 (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem :) FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello again! I've got a second rejection (from a user i can't seem to find Rushbugled13). Curent version of the draft is - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sergey Shishkarev. He rejected with the same notion "insufficient context". Oh please tell me what this means?! Where is the problem, what should i change - format, style, add links (delete links) to something. Lost. Help! Key157 (talk) 11:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Taxonomic sub-stubs
Please don't create sub-stubs such as the recent run of Uroptychus species. They will inevitably be redirected to the genus as containing no further information, and may then be deleted. They are not worth having, in my opinion, and only create work for other people. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * We disagree on that point. A Wikipedia reader might be directed to a specific species after a Google search, especially one that has been classified for over a century (and therefore about which plenty of research has been conducted), and what better way of receiving that reader than with a specific article? Also, a stub is just a basis to work upon. Some of my nematode stubs, for example are now quite extensive articles, where editors have added images and relevant species information.


 * I don't think that by eliminating my stubs before they get a chance to be improved upon you're contributing to Wikipedia, rather you're impeding me from doing valuable work. Also, you are going against one of the basic Wikipedia principles which is working as a community. My work will be improved by many an editors if you just give them a chance. If all stubs were eliminated on these grounds, the number of articles on the main space would be drastically less, not to mention that the whole point of Wikipedia would be futile. It is not a repository of huge encyclopaedic articles; what it is is a place where anyone can start an article and with the help of the communitthose articles will in themselves be knowledgeable not because of the information that they accumulate over time, but because their value is much greater given this inherent process of community-verifiablity and contribution.


 * You'll appreciate if you took the time to read the reference article that it is the article where the new species were proposed back in the late 19th Century. It is done on purpose (as the link I left to the articles on their talk pages will attest), so that the editors in the future will be able to take off from where I left them.


 * Finally, my contribution to the Gastropods Project attests to my record, and has been well-received by the community, so I'd appreciate it if you desisted. Otherwise, we'll efficiently take it to arbitration. Regards and have a wonderful day, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You do not need to establish "place[s] where anyone can start an article"; that potential already exists without creating empty pages. Experience suggests that the vast majority of such taxonomic substubs remain as exactly that in the very long term. They also do not help readers in Google searches, because the same phrase is mentioned in existing genus articles; for instance, if I search for "Chirostylus dolichopus", then the first hit is the Wikipedia article Chirostylus. You will notice that I have removed no information, and I would be wrong to do so. (In the cases where I have deleted articles, I have copied the Benedict reference on the genus article for precisely that reason.) I am merely reducing the workload, and thus helping to improve Wikipedia by allowing time to be spent on real improvements rather than fixing errors on pages of negligible value. These pages can become out of date much more readily than cases where the information is concentrated in fewer pages, and thus they actually reduce the reliability and informativeness of the whole project, rather than increasing it. In short, none of your reasons hold much water, and for that reason, I asked you to stop creating such articles. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You do not substantiate any of your claims with stats, so we're basically at square one. As is said, if all stubs were deleted at get go, you would be left with no species articles whatsoever. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please try to co-operate. Neither of us has any meaningful statistics for our positions, so to make such a requirement is not helpful. You seem to have misunderstood my point. I only advocate redirecting those articles which provide no information not already contained in articles on taxa at higher ranks – typically genera. I would never remove an article which contained real information. What is your motivation in mass-producing these articles, anyway? I can see no benefit. It can't be the reasons you gave before, for the reasons I outlined, so what is it? --Stemonitis (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * An afterthought: have you considered contributing to Wikispecies? The sorts of edits you are making would fit there rather well. I haven't spent a lot of time there, but it seems like it could become a very useful resource. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That is simply not true. You've deleted several of my previous articles through CSD, so don't tell me you're "advocating redirecting" them. Plus I might come back and add descriptions when I have time, so that would (as I already said) mean that I'd have to create the whole article again. Please don't say that they contain no "real information". The have plenty of valuable information (yes, you will repeat that it is already available in the genus article, but my point is that it's easier to work upon a species article already in existence than to start it anew from the genus one). If a new taxonomic review is published, then I will be the first to make the necessary changes. Don't think I am unaware of the articles I've created and ensure that they are accurate. My motivation is of no business to you, but let me say that we have opposite ideals: I believe that all species should have an article, you clearly don't. I wouldn't like to engage in an edit war with any editor, so please let other people decide and stop indiscriminately attacking each of my edits. Feel free to talk to User:Invertzoo, she will be able to vouch for me. Otherwise we'll solicit arbitration. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not contributing to other Projects at the moment, thank you. Some people actually do have jobs and can't be harassing other editors on a full-time basis. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Try to cooperate"? Who do you think you are? Get off your high horse for a minute and be respectful of your colleagues. I don't even know why I have to be saying this... FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You misrepresent me. I do believe that every species should have an article, but I also believe that an article has to contain more than the boilerplate text "Genus species is a species of Genus", because that is not actually informative; on the contrary, it diverts readers away from the more informative genus-level articles. Such articles tend to increase the amount of inaccuracy in Wikipedia, either through errors in creation, or through failing to keep up with changes, and as far as I recall (I'll try to dig out the source), they do not increase the likelihood of information being added. I am merely acting within Wikipedia's established policies and norms in the best interests of the whole project. I'm sorry if you are offended by that, or if you see this as harassment (it certainly isn't intended as such). I hope you will reconsider once you've slept on it. You might also like to read the essay "Aggregate data into lists rather than stubs", which makes a similar (albeit broader) point. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "perhaps start, instead, with a combined list-of-items in an article". START is the key word. They have already started in that manner, I went one step further, then perhaps even further. I am aware of policy, I wouldn't be an editor otherwise, and as is, I don't know of any policy that doesn't allow the creation of stubs, or else there wouldn't exist stubs, for crying out loud! It seems ridiculous to even have that distinction. I won't rant about excessive finickity way in which these personal interpretations of policy are enforced, but I do ask you to encourage editors to do their precious job instead of just getting on their backs in every single turn. I bet you have lots of valuable things to do, don't you think this is going a bit too far? I suggest you join the government of some Italian municipality instead; you might find that's a wonderful place for you to start at. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have time for all of this, that's all. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, you went no steps further; that's the very crux of my point. And I'm trying to save you time, when you think about it. You are right that there are no policies against the creation of stubs, but there are also good reasons for turning them into redirects ("Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article" – WP:R) and also for deleting such redirects ("If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. In such a case, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself"). A stub is defined as "an article containing only one or a few sentences of text that, although providing some useful information, is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject" (WP:STUB), whereas yours contain effectively no useful information. I'm not trying to put you off editing, but I do think that there must be better approaches. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments on compromise
Hello FoCus and hello Stemonitis. I am sorry to see there is a bit of an argy-bargy going on here. From my point of view you are both right, and you are both wrong.

What we have here is the eternal Wikipedia philosophical disagreement between the immediatists and the eventualists. Actually this case is the most extreme form of the classic disagreement that I have encountered so far.

I have previously met several people who are vehemently opposed to one-line (plus a taxobox) stubs, and feel strongly that these mini stubs should not be allowed to come into existence, and should be deleted when encountered. Equally, I have encountered several people who not only enjoy making extremely short stubs, but feel that those stubs are useful, in that it is easier for inexperienced editors to add to a pre-existing stub than it is for someone inexperienced to come onto WIkipedia and create an article from scratch.

MY PRO-STUB COMMENTS: In the Gastropods Project we actually do believe in short stubs, and we have thousands of them, although the bulk of our short stubs are generated by a bot. We have found that over a couple of years, many of our short stubs stubs attract images quite quickly and some do grow into quite good articles. And it is true that Wikipedia started out as mostly a vast collection of stubs. The encyclopedia is still to a large extent, "home of the stub". However, my feeling is that a modicum of information is better than no information at all. I personally don't mind the untidy, unfinished bare-bones-skeleton aspect of stub land.

MY ANTI-STUB COMMENTS: In our project, we do try to make our gastropod stubs, even the bot-generated ones, as information-rich as they can be, right from the start. In the case of the gastropods (second only to the insects in number of species), the infobox itself contains a lot of useful information, and our one-single-sentence-intro is usually a lot richer than just 6 or 7 words. However, I do understand that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and yes, a bare bones stub is not very informative at all, rather disappointing; but Wikipedia is a work in progress, and always will be. However... if you are a roaming editor who enjoys making stubs, it is important to realize that different projects have different guidelines for the creation of stubs, and therefore something that is appreciated in one project maybe reviled in another project. Try to avoid stepping on other people's toes and try to be understanding when you find you have done so.

GENERAL: I think all of the good-faith editors on WIkipedia strongly believe that they are trying to create a better encyclopedia. There is plenty of opportunity for disagreement on style and approach, but when this happens, as it inevitably does, it is important not to waste energy fighting, and digging in one's heels, but instead it is necessary for all concerned to try to find middle ground, to compromise, to be flexible, and to understand that "my beliefs and values" do not have to correspond exactly with "your beliefs and values".

This sort of compromise and adaptation is hard for most of us to do, because it means loosening up our grip on what each one of us thinks of as our "core values". However, it is the only way that Wikipedia can keep moving forward. The encyclopedia is now quite dense, and we are all now working in close proximity to one another, so we must learn how to do this. Besides, these are skills we all very much need in real life, not to mention on the international global scene, and so I think the more practice we have in compromise, the better.

In general Wikipedia currently has an unnaturally high level of testosterone, and as long as that persists I suppose there is always going to be some pointless head-butting, but humans are also equipped to be social cooperative animals. Stop fighting, take a step back, leave the whole thing for a day or two, and then both of you work to find some middle ground. Without compromise, Wikipedia will come to a grinding halt, and none of us want that.

Best wishes to both, Invertzoo (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Anti-estrogenic diet follow-up
Hi, follow your recommendations, I modified the article a bit and tried to rewrite some "unscientific part" while sourcing them. Could you have a quick look to tell me if it's going in the right direction? Thanks a lot! Ggsbx (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * good job so far, what i would work upon now is referencing the section titled "Stages and composition of the diet" and the last 2 paragraphs of "Main effects". those sections may require clean up and expansion, although expansion will come about as the article progresses, so i wouldn't worry too much about that. Good luck! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

my resubmit
i resubmitted what you told me to fix can you check it out please  thanks
 * what article's that? thank you, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Bfyre Article   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bfyre  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HellAndBackProd (talk • contribs) 01:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, im just learning how to do signature at the end this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bfyre

HellAndBackProd (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)HellAndBackProdHellAndBackProd (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC) HellAndBackProdHellAndBackProd (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * hello there. the article is unreferenced and isn't written in an encyclopaedic tone. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Several comments
I note with interest your recent edits, which lead me to several comments: I think that's all the most obvious mistakes, but this litany of errors is indicative of the sorts of problems that can arise all too easily with hastily produced articles. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: Stenella species. The taxobox is malformed in all of these. The genus should not be in boldface, nor should its authority be given. The abbreviated species name and full binomen should be in boldface. The species is not anamorphic (and the link is pointing to the wrong definition of anamorphic), but the name refers to the anamorphic state (and is likely to be invalid from next January following changes to the ICN).
 * Re: Leptospira species. All binomina should be given in italics, as should the genus in the taxobox. The A in "See also" should always be lower-case.
 * Re: Category:Demodex. This is a bad idea for a category, and one which I have deleted before. Please do not recreate it, because it will be deleted again. It is too small to be useful, and the parent category is not so full that it needs to be further divided, which is the main motivation for subcategorisation.

Thanks for reviewing "Teena Rochfort-Smith"
Just wanted to say thank you for your speedy review and creation of the entry on Teena Rochfort-Smith I submitted. It was my first from-scratch Wikipedia entry, and I'm looking forward to writing more. Theliteraturegeek (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your submission. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing "BBC sex abuse cases"
Thank you for your efficacious review of the suggested article on BBC. Thanks also for pointing out the Jimmy Savile article. However, isn't there a case for a more broad based article in addition to the Jimmy Savile one? These allegations are more general that just Savile, and include Freddie Starr, John Peel and Jonathan King and others. Also there is a question about the overall approach to sexual harassment of women in the BBC, which may be indirectly related to the specifics of the Savile issue.Jstevewiki (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, however at this point i think the submission is too short to merit a separate article. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. In the light of the arrest of former BBC DJ Dave Lee Travis I have extended the article. I've also incorporated other material to make the submission longer. Please have a look and let me know what you think. Jstevewiki (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

What reliable sources?
What reliable sources am I supposed to get for an author page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannub (talk • contribs) 17:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * please have a look at Referencing for beginners. regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Patient 9 Foundation
The sources for my article are as reliable as they get. Not only did I cite the website where the information was gathered, Cole is my dear friend and I am working closely with him to create this Wikipedia page for his foundation.

Please tell me how I can get this page accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patient9 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * please beware of possible conflicts of interest. reliable sources are third-party independent sources that are verifiable and are fully cited. also, for a considerable-length article, many references are needed and expected, along with plenty of in-line citations that verify claims made. please see Referencing for beginners. regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Gerald Eve
16.11.12

A page that was set up for us has been declined can you help me establish why that would be please.

Thanks,

Dee

GeraldUK2012 (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * have a look at Spam and NOTADVERTISING. It is easily fixable with a change in tone and better references and citations. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

benefit concert references found
I found some references regarding NOLA Pay It Forward and 12/12/12 the Concert for Sandy Relief. You can go to and  for information on NOLA Pay It Forward. You can go to and  for information on 12/12/12 the Concert for Sandy Relief. I hope I provided something useful. Please let me know. Thank you.142.255.103.121 (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * for an easy guide, please see Referencing for beginners. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Searches
Hello, I would like to know how I can make this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zhaleh(Given name) appear on the Internet searches/google searches as all other articles do when their subject ame is typed in.

When I search the word Zhaleh I would like for it to be able to appear to help people be directed to the page for information.

Thank you

Justanotherdayday — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justanotherdayday (talk • contribs) 00:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It will appear on google once the page is moved to main space and google has time to update its servers with the new page. it's a matter of time, don't worry. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Latipes, FoCuSandLeArN!

Wikipedia editor Kieranian2001 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Reviewed as part of page curation. Previously tagged as stub. Kieranian2001 (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)"

To reply, leave a comment on Kieranian2001's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Proposed deletion of Sarasomia


The article Sarasomia has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:GNG. Also, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jhortman (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Sarasomia for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sarasomia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Sarasomia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jhortman (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Move Stars (Grace Potter & the Nocturnals song)
Thanks for helping launch the page Stars (Grace Potter & the Nocturnals song) after helping an anonymous editor who had contributed some materials about the song. But please note that to be consitent with the name of the band Grace Potter and the Nocturnals, the article needs to be moved to Stars (Grace Potter and the Nocturnals song) which now exists as a redirect. The materials should be reflected there (keeping history of teh edits) and this specific page you launched as "&" version should ba a redirect to that other page. I have made also further improvements on the article itself. For consistency, see also "Medicine" another song of the formation Medicine (Grace Potter and the Nocturnals song). It also uses "and" and not "&" werldwayd (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * you should probably submit that in the tearoom or the helpdesk, as i'm unable to move it myself. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Stubs
Hello again FoCuS. Even though I believe that most editors will eventually end up agreeing that all taxa of living things are inherently notable, I think that in order to avoid more problems in the future, it may be worth your while to try ensure that all your brand new stubs have just a little bit more information in them, and maybe one more reference. For example, for a genus stub you can do a quick Google search to try to find one or more species within that genus (make sure it is the same kind of animal though) and then add the species to a section you called Species. You may also be able to find out fairly easily and quickly a reference for the authority and date of the taxon, and add that to the taxobox, which will show another reference. You may also come across useful External links fairly often with very little effort. I think adding a little more info like that to your stubs would probably ensure that you do not get hassled as often from now on. What you are doing would not have attracted much censure a few years ago, but people are being more demanding now, as the encyclopedia becomes more complete. Very best wishes and Happy Thanksgiving, Invertzoo (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've become aware of that indeed. I'll do my best. Thank you for your help and best wishes to you too! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome FoCuS! Oh, and yes, it is true that some projects like Paleontology do already seem to have a guideline in place that says that bare-bones species stubs on fossil organisms should not be created, and that species within a genus should simply be listed in the genus page, unless there is some real extra info that is ready to be added to one of the species, in which case it is reasonable to create a species page for that species, then and only then.


 * Currently in Project Gastropods we don't have that requirement, because we feel it is reasonably likely that people will be adding photos or other info to many of our stubs (most of our stubs?) over time. As you and I have both said before, if someone who is brand new tries to contribute to Wikipedia, it is really a thousand times easier for them to simply add information to a pre-existing stub article than it is for them to try to create a whole new article from scratch. And we really do need to make the encyclopedia welcoming to, and supportive of, new contributors! That's very important! Otherwise at some point in time the whole 'pedia will just grind to a halt. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

More about stubs
In terms of making your stubs look a little better, you could also maybe put these inserts into species stubs, after the intro:

==Description==

==Distribution==

Which is what we do with the bot stubs. Invertzoo (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! Thank you :) FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Leptopecten latiauratus Ready for Acceptance
Thank you for your feedback. You inspired me to learn more and make some material improvements. This was my first Wikipedia creation so I had to learn as I went. I believe I've now added everything you suggested. Please accept/approve this page. Thank you.

Ssakolsnow (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Great work, mate! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Twinpine Mobile Advertising ready to be reviewed again and accepted.
Hi FoCuSandLeArN,

Thank you so much for reviewing the article a created in November. I got the feedback and worked on it - I did more study and included reliable sources. Can you kindly help review it again. I understand you are very busy, but i would totally appreciate it if you can take a little time out to help me with this.

Looking forward to a positive reply from you, Thank you so much. Best, EnnieMo — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnnieMo (talk • contribs) 12:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review: The Stream Of Consciousness
I'm a total newb at this stuff, and I appreciate the constructive critique. Perhaps I've been guilty of misusing this platform- reading through the talk pages, I realise that my article may be considered unethical and self=promoting, though I did it in good faith as people wanted to find out more about in a country which is largely offline. Now I think I'll just sit back and learn. Again, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Da Bard (talk • contribs) 08:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * no worries. we always assume good faith, but some articles are just not up to necessary standards. i hope this doesn't stop you from submitting any future articles! have a good week :) FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Dr Beric Croome
Dear FoCuSandLeArN

I have just received notification that the page I created for Dr Beric Croome, Advocate of the High Court of South Africa has been declined. I was referred to the page "What wikipedia is not" but at the same time was advised to edit and resubmit.

My apologies for asking what will seem irrelevant questions, but I'm not technologically competent and am struggling to grasp how to use Wiki's editing facilities. In addition, I'm not clear on where to find what was wrong with the article so that I can correct it.

Please could you advise if this article was declined on a technical issue and, if so, how can I fix it?

If it was declined on a content error, please can you advise what needs to be corrected so that the article can be resubmitted.

With thanks for your consideration and assistance. Best wishes Judy Croome Johannesburg South Africa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aztar Press (talk • contribs) 17:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * hello there! WP:NOT refers to cases which wikipedia cannot be used for. in this case, the article was declined because it resembled a CV, and as such cannot be included in wikipedia. in simple guide to creating an article needs to take into account a correct tone and style, such as prose, and avoid just listing personal qualities and achievements. most importantly, an article needs to establish notability through adequate and relevant references and citations. all this and more is included in Referencing for beginners. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, (and apologies for not signing the first post!)Thanks for your quick response! :) I did try and base the article on other South African lawyers pages but I see where I made the mistake with the listing of qualifications rather than prose style. Will head back to the drawing board to have a second attempt after looking at the beginner's referencing page. Thanks for help! Best wishes Judy Aztar Press (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Benjamin_H_Logan
Can you please re-review this site. This site was created for Judge Benjamin H Logan, a District Court Judge at the 61st District Court in Grand Rapids, Michigan. I would appreciate it if you would reconsider. The information provide has been confirmed directly with Judge Benjamin H Logan himself. The link "logan" goes directly to his profile at grcourts.org which is the 61st District Court home page.

Please help me with this page I am trying my hardest, but I don't know what else to do with this page. I even tried to model it after other Judges pages that Judge Benjamin H Logan knows, who have wikipedia pages.

Thank you

Nsiver — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsiver (talk • contribs) 15:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * hello there. thank you for your comments. first of all, the article lacks a lead or introduction, where you place the subject in its context. secondly, the article is written in a tone that is inappropriate. thirdly, the article lacks citations and references, which in and of itself means that the article cannot be created. hope that helps! a very useful guide you can follow: Referencing for beginners. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)