User talk:France3470/Archive 3

Re:New contributors' help page/questions#Where Has My Submission Gone, Please?
Hello. Thanks very much for taking the time to look for my missing submission. Since it was my first, I may very well have done something silly like not hit "save." Aargh! I'll try again. And yes, I am also Cross discipline 1. Cross discipline 2 (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear it was lost but I think it would definitely be worth the hassle to resubmit it. In future, might be a good idea to copy the content to a text document on your computer before you press save, that way if something goes wrong at least you have a backup. I also hear that there have been some issues with Special:Captcha for users who are not yet autocomfirmed so look out for that too. It would also be best if you stuck to only using one username from now on, this way all your contributions will be in one place. Give Sock puppetry a read through, as this explains some of the more serious implications of having multiple accounts. If you need any additional help with editing, just let me know and I can try my best. France 3470   ( talk ) 01:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Lost Article, Cross Discipline 1
Thanks for your helpful input. I've re-submitted my balancing-equations article; hopefully, its review/acceptance will go smoothly this time. Cross discipline 2 (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Dr.K C Joseph

 * Re: User talk:Pburka

Go ahead and remove the merge tag. I guessed that they might be the same person, since they're both from Kerala and the timeline looked about right. A dab page would be the right answer, and the Dr.K C Joseph article needs to be renamed, as it shouldn't have the Dr. title in it. Pburka (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I started a discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation‎, please feel free to comment, France 3470   ( talk ) 21:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Skeleton in the Cupboard (Roseanne)
Hello France3470. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Skeleton in the Cupboard (Roseanne), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Redirects are cheap, and this one might be useful I agree that the "Skeletons" one should go, and I have zapped it. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 10:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
— mc10 ( t / c ) 06:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Itti-Marduk-balatu disambiguation page
Hello. You have marked the disambiguation page I created with the "clean-up required" tag, referring to the talk-page for guidance. There isn't a talk page and there doesn't appear to be any guidance. I imitated the layout of another disambiguation page which wasn't labeled "clean-up required." Can you explain what needs to be done?BigEars42 (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. By cleanup, I mean it needs reformatting and correcting in order to conform to WP:MOSDAB, the styling guide that dictates how disambiguation pages are laid out. It is a perfectly valid dab page, and there are no major issue, just to rather scrutinizing disambiguator eyes it doesn't look quite right. I will add some additional points to the talk page and make a few edits. All the best, France 3470   ( talk ) 17:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've put a list of suggestions at Talk:Itti-Marduk-balatu to help clarify some changes that can be done. France 3470   ( talk ) 17:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Moving comment by User:BigEars42 to Talk:Itti-Marduk-balatu. Best to discuss content there. France 3470   ( talk ) 19:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories

 * Re: User talk:Nyttend

I suppose you could use Category redirect? Alternately, you could go with a "speedy rename" option at WP:CFD, since your preferred name is in line with others in the category tree. The problem is that many users decide that they simply don't like a category and thus create a new one for all the relevant articles; this is the first time that I can remember seeing the new category created by mistake, so I had no idea that you were in the middle of getting it synchronised with other categories. Nyttend (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I considered a redirect by it seemed unnecessary as there were such a small number of articles. It never occurred to me that speedy rename existed, but I guess I'll request it now (looks rather backlogged though). All the best, France 3470   ( talk ) 14:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Now requested at WP:CFD. France 3470   ( talk ) 14:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

RE: Articles for deletion/Yochanan
Hi there. I closed it as such because closing these debates as "merge" never ever results in any productive work being undertaken to actually merge the article, and it ends up therefore as a "keep", which nobody suggested. If you like, I can restore the article to your userspace where, if you wish, you may merge the article with the others, but I don't feel comfortable definitively closing this debate as merge if nobody is likely to do any work toward this. &mdash; Joseph Fox 16:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks for the explanation. I can understand that argument and it is unfortunately true that most Afd suggestions don't get carried out once the discussion closes. I have no attachment to the Yochanan dab and though I can't quite recall what was on the page but I don't think there is much worth keeping (that couldn't be easily re-generated if needed). I'll try to initiates a talk page discussion about a merge, and who knows it might happen eventually. Thanks for your reply, France 3470   ( talk ) 16:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Sorry for the unnecessary confusion I may have caused. I am able to restore that page if it is needed for any future merge. &mdash; Joseph Fox 16:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * IIRC, the lead paragraph of the now deleted article included an exposition of the Hebrew versions of the name, its meaning, and a brief overview of transliterations to Greek and Latin. Most but not all of that information can be found at John (given name). --Lambiam 18:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I believe that is correct with it being for the most part repeated information. I'm still interesting in the merge proposal. And if anything, the Afd showed there was some support for it. Although I have no knowledge of the subject matter I'm more than happy to assist where necessary. Perhaps it is best to discuss this further at Talk:Johanan. France 3470   ( talk ) 18:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Heya
Thank you for the tidying up. You are right, the sumo page is the primary article at the moment. It didn't seem right to me to make it the default page for 'Heya' since that is not at all the primary use of the word in English writing or speech... it's just the primary use as a notable noun. (It is not even the most popular spelling of the term in sumo, since the term seems to be more often used in compound form...) But if you want to move the sumo page back, that's fine by me.

Cheers, – SJ + 23:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I don't know the subject, but if Heya isn't the most common name, might it be worthwhile to open a move request for it to appear at a different title? France 3470   ( talk ) 00:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Salad spinner
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Editing my article Aspiring Faces
I changed the article several times. It is the first of a series of historical info on PAST entertainment social sites. References include archived sites which are no longer active to show it once existed. You are very welcome to provide editing and deletions of any sentences that seem like advertisements. What was written was simply to be descriptive of a site that no longer exists-- what its function was. I have tried to cut it down to give the facts and history of the social site several times. As this is intended to be the first in a series of PAST defunct such sites, I would appreciate if you could red-line what may yet be objectionable and give specific guidance to any particular parts that may need changing. Please feel free to change and edit those parts.

I appreciate all you help and guidance you can give me on this.

Best Regards,

Greg — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregAmour (talk • contribs) 21:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Replied at User talk:GregAmour. France 3470   ( talk ) 21:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Le Conquet radio
Bonjour, vous me donné un E mail perso à E_mail, je peux vous des anciens documents scaner sur Le Conquet Radio. --F1jmm (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello. Je suis désolé mon français est très pauvre. Demandez-vous mon adresse email? J'ai maintenant l'envoyer à votre email. Je suis très intéressé dans les documents anciens sur la station Le Conquet. (même si je suppose qu'ils sont rédigés en français, qui peut être difficile pour moi).

--F1jmm (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Translation (hopefully): Hello. I'm sorry my french is very poor. Are you asking for my email address? I have now sent it to your email. I am very interested in old documents about Le conquet station. (although I assume they are written in French, which may be difficult for me). France 3470   ( talk ) 23:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello received the images of the France Telecom guide ?
 * Sorry for the very slow response (real life has got in the way). I did receive the information you sent. Thank you! However, I am not sure it is the type of information the article really needs. I think, despite being interesting, most of it is too perhaps too trivial and not suitable for an encyclopedia article. Since the station is historical, I suppose we really need to focus on summarizing its history. I will try to dedicate some more time to the article soon, when things are not so hectic. You are clearly very passionate and knowledge about the subject and I look forward to our continued discussions. All the best, France 3470   ( talk ) 13:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for jumping in quickly with kind words to support my RfA, which was successful and nearly unanimous. Later on I got round to mentioning our joint work as among my best contributions.

Be among the first to see my L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Wynne Theater

 * Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Wynne Theater

Hey thanks for the help, but I have another question. I have searched this topic and it is so hard to find sources, are there any other suggestions you have that could help me get more reliable information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Articles14 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Replied at your talk page. France 3470   ( talk ) 13:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released
Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox -.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify March Mini Drive
Delivered by benzband  ( talk ) on behalf of WikiProject Wikify 18:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Mary Kessell
Hello! Your submission of Mary Kessell at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mikenorton (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'll keep an eye on this and help out where I can. It's very difficult when the source is really terse I know.


 * I found a source in a document that doesn't display properly due to an html problem that gives the date of the Westminster Hospital mural as 1939, but I can't find anything that would be considered as a reliable source to support that - it may just have to go. Good luck! Mikenorton (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Been rather pressed for time at the moment so I haven't been able to spend at much time as I would like on the article (time has got the better of me). I'll try to give it a good overhaul now and I'll have a look about the mural date. Thanks for your help, France 3470   ( talk ) 23:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Page Triage newsletter
Hey guys!

Thanks to all of you who have commented on the New Page Triage talkpage. If you haven't had a chance yet, check it out; we're discussing some pretty interesting ideas, both from the Foundation and the community, and moving towards implementing quite a few of them :).

In addition, on Tuesday 13th March, we're holding an office hours session in #wikimedia-office on IRC at 19:00 UTC (11am Pacific time). If you can make it, please do; we'll have a lot of stuff to show you and talk about, including (hopefully) a timetable of when we're planning to do what. If you can't come, for whatever reason, let me know on my talkpage and I'm happy to send you the logs so you can get an idea of what happened :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Mary Kessell
Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * She is now also featured on Portal:Germany. If you have other DYK related to Germany, please feel free to add there yourself! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage newsletter
Hey all!

Thanks to everyone who attended our first office hours session; the logs can be found here, if you missed it, and we should be holding a second one on Thursday, 22 March 2012 at 18:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. I hope to see you all there :).

In the meantime, I have greatly expanded the details available at New Page Triage: there's a lot more info about precisely what we're planning. If you have ideas, and they aren't listed there, bring them up and I'll pass them on to the developers for consideration in the second sprint. And if you know anyone who might be interested in contributing, send them there too!

Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Waxy Wax
Hey I am new to wikipedia and I a a surfer. I wanted to write about surf companies who have made a difference but I am having a hard time understanding how it all works.

I wrote about Waxy Wax and next I wanted to Write about some well known surfers but it seems too difficult. Can You help? What do you sugest. I just wanted surfing to be a bit better represented on Wikipedia.

Kind Regards,

Justin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinsworld (talk • contribs) 03:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

help triage some feedback
Hey guys.

I appreciate this isn't quite what you signed up for, but I figured as people who are already pretty good at evaluating whether material is useful or not useful through Special:NewPages, you might be interested :). Over the last few months we've been developing the new Article Feedback Tool, which features a free text box. it is imperative that we work out in advance what proportion of feedback is useful or not so we can adjust the design accordingly and not overwhelm you with nonsense.

This is being done through the Feedback Evaluation System (FES), a tool that lets editors run through a stream of comments, selecting their value and viability, so we know what type of design should be promoted or avoided. We're about to start a new round of evaluations, beginning with an office hours session tomorrow at 18:00 UTC. If you'd like to help preemptively kill poor feedback, come along to #wikimedia-office and we'll show you how to use the tool. If you can't make it, send me an email at or drop a note on my talkpage, and I'm happy to give you a quick walkthrough in a one-on-one session :).

All the best, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

A big NPT update
Hey! Big update on what the developers have been working on, and what is coming up:

coding
 * Fixes for the "moved pages do not show up in Special:NewPages" and "pages created from redirects do not show up in Special:NewPages" bugs have been completed and signed off on. Unfortunately we won't be able to integrate them into the existing version, but they will be worked into the Page Triage interface.
 * Coding has been completed on three elements; the API for displaying metadata about the article in the "list view", the ability to keep the "patrol" button visible if you edit an article before patrolling it, and the automatic removal of deleted pages from the queue. All three are awaiting testing but otherwise complete.

All other elements are either undergoing research, or about to have development started. I appreciate this sounds like we've not got through much work, and truthfully we're a bit disappointed with it as well; we thought we'd be going at a faster pace :(. Unfortunately there seems to be some 24-72 hour bug sweeping the San Francisco office at the moment, and at one time or another we've had several devs out of it. It's kind of messed with workflow.

Stuff to look at

We've got a pair of new mockups to comment on that deal with the filtering mechanism; this is a slightly updated mockup of the list view, and this is what the filtering tab is going to look like. All thoughts, comments and suggestions welcome on the NPT talkpage :). I'd also like to thank the people who came to our last two office hours sessions; the logs will be shortly available here.

I've also just heard that the first functional prototype for enwiki will be deployed mid-April! Really, really stoked to see this happening :). We're finding out if we can stick something up a bit sooner on prototype.wiki or something.

I appreciate there may be questions or suggestions where I've said "I'll find out and get back to you" and then, uh. not ;p. I sincerely apologise for that: things have been a bit hectic at this end over the last few weeks. But if you've got anything I've missed, drop me a line and I'll deal with it! Further questions or issues to the usual address. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
 * Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
 * If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

re: Cath (disambiguation page)
Good morning. If you go back to old versions of what is now the WP:INTDABLINK policy, either naming convention was allowed (as was the abbreviated "(disambig)" once). The unadorned but fully written "(disambiguation)" suffix is now preferred and I personally agree with that standard. Having said that, the others are not automatically "implausible" as required for CSD#R3.

Implausibility is a very high standard. It is also often misunderstood and is a pet peeve of mine. Implausible in this context means that no reasonable person would ever consider that redirect to be a logical redirect to the target topic. If the redirect is not patently implausible then the assumption of good faith leads to the conclusion that an unharmful variant of a title is presumably helpful to the person who took the time to create it and is generally allowed as a redirect. If the redirect is unharmful, not only is the redirect not a CSD candidate but it will very frequently be kept at RfD.

Okay, I'll get off my soap box now. Thanks for letting me rant. Rossami (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I can't recall a time when anything other than "(disambiguation)" was used, but you are correct; there do seen to be a number of these pages still lurking about. I agree that the number of genuinely implausible redirects is quite small indeed and that we should probably be less keen to automatically judge something useless. As I have become more involved with following RFD debates I have been made more conscious of redirects and try not to be so quick to judge. Thanks for you reply, France 3470   ( talk ) 14:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

New Pages update
Hey :). A quick update on how things are going with the New Page Triage/New Pages Feed project. As the enwiki page notes, the project is divided into two chunks: the "list view" (essentially an updated version of Special:NewPages) and the "article view", a view you'll be presented with when you open up individual articles that contains a toolbar with lots of options to interact with the page - patrolling it, adding maintenance tags, nominating it for deletion, so on.

On the list view front, we're pretty much done! We tried deploying it to enwiki, in line with our Engagement Strategy on Wednesday, but ran into bugs and had to reschedule - the same happened on Thursday :(. We've queued a new deployment for Monday PST, and hopefully that one will go better. If it does, the software will be ready to play around with and test by the following week! :).

On the article view front, the developers are doing some fantastic work designing the toolbar, which we're calling the "curation bar"; you can see a mockup here. A stripped-down version of this should be ready to deploy fairly soon after the list view is; I'm afraid I don't have precise dates yet. When I have more info, or can unleash everyone to test the list view, I'll let you know :). As always, any questions to the talkpage for the project or mine. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Aurora Islands
In case you're wondering why I changed the reference style you used here, I simply used what I knew would work to clear the error. Feel free to return and tweak it to your own preference. Stay well! :) -- WikHead (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, I realized it was broken (and a poor referencing style choice) and am actually in the process of redoing all the citations. Just trying to find where all the information comes from. Thanks, France 3470   ( talk ) 00:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well! It's my understanding that no reference format is any more correct than the other, so I wanted to make it clear that it wasn't my intent to override your choice. All the best of luck to you with your revamping plans. Have yourself a great day, and happy editing. :) -- WikHead (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

St. Francis of Assisi Church, Bournemouth
Page deleted per your request. If you come across a page that's been copied from multiple other pages, could you instead use multiple db-g12 templates instead of using one with multiple links? The presence of multiple links in the same template confuses the Duplication Detector, which told me that there was absolutely no similar text at all; it thought the URL of the source page was supposed to be "http://www.stfrancis-bournemouth.org.uk/ and http://www.stfrancis-bournemouth.org.uk/history" rather than looking at each page individually. Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure no problem. I always like to link all the pages from which the text has been copied and it has always been a frustration that the template doesn't allow for it. Two templates sounds like a good workaround. Thanks for letting me know, I'll remember for next time. France 3470   ( talk ) 01:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage prototype released
Hey France3470! We've finally finished the NPT prototype and deployed it on enwiki. We'll be holding an office hours session on the 16th at 21:00 in #wikimedia-office to show it off, get feedback and plot future developments - hope to see you there! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Cancer epigenetics
Hi thanks for sorting out the references in Cancer epigenetics and putting them inline. I was looking at that job myslef, but it seems to be a major effort, so I just stuck to wikification. Sorry about those edit conflicts! I have now nominated the article for DYK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Ending up being just one of those things you think won't take too long but somehow takes hours. (: Looks good now though, and deserves to be on the mainpage. All the best, France 3470   ( talk ) 14:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Octopus Music API - Refused
Hi there..I"'m not quite sure about the reasons why my entry was not considered relevant. Can you provide me some clarification on that, please?

The OM API is a piece of software that has been freely used in a quite few universities (+200) and now is going open source. It has consumed over U$ 250k of Brazilian Research Funds (CAPES) and, although no support has been given to ours users in the past could of years, we are still having download activity. This looks like something pretty relevant to me!

It is similar do jMusic...which has an entry, so I'm a bit confused why it should not deserve an entry.

Thanks, Leandro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llcostalonga (talk • contribs) 00:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Leandro, thanks for getting in touch about your submission. I had a number of concerns with the article in its current state, notability (different from relevance) being the the most important, all-encompassing one. Here's a list of some things you can work on to improve the article:


 * The article needs to demonstrate why the topic is important, and worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. Your description here, explains that but the submission doesn't quite emphasis this enough. Have a look at WP:Notability, which explains this in detail. Articles which don't demonstrate a claim of significance are often ready targets for deletion so we at AFC try to ensure that articles are only accepted if they are almost 100% likely to survive an WP:Article for deletion debate.


 * If you read WP:Notability. You'll see that one of the first sentences is "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity." Most times notability is about having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I see you have provided a list of references for the article, which is a great start. However none of these apart from the company website is provided online. Although it is not a requirement, it is often the case that reviewers can be hesitant about accepting articles where all the sources are offline, because we can't personally verify the information. Are any of these references available online, if so could you provide links and page numbers for them? Just from looking at the titles of the provided references it is not clear that these subjects talk indepth about Octopus Music API, so I have concerns about whether there is enough coverage about the topic to demonstrate notability. You might also want to consider using WP:Inline citations which make it clearer to the reviewer what information comes from where. See also Identifying reliable sources.


 * The writing of the article has an overly promotional, informal tone. Sentences like: "Bare in mind that the Octopus in an API for musical software development written to help programmers and not final users. It is not a programming language, it is not a an application, and it not intended to be used for musical composition...although all the it is possible to do so." aren't appropriate for an encyclopedia entry, as they appear to be personal opinions. See WP:TONE.


 * There is too much overly detailed technical details (ie the list of the individual classes) about the product which aren't encyclopedic. See WP:NOTHOWTO


 * In regards to jMusic, it's not a great article, and definitely needs a some work. If that was submitted at AFC it would be declined too. Per Other stuff exists: the existence of an article on a similar subject does not prove that the article in question should also exist. Articles must be judged on their own merits.


 * Let me know if you need any help or if you have any further questions. I'm a bit busy in real life at the moment but more than happy to assist in any way I can. All the best, France 3470   ( talk ) 10:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: AFC Submission Review

 * Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sonic Galaxy (unofficial)

You directed me to "it is not a crystal ball!" well, I never said it was! I merely wanted to create an unofficial page! FACE MY WRATH! Just kidding. bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeldavsSonic667 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied at User talk:ZeldavsSonic667. France 3470   ( talk ) 23:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage/New Pages Feed
Hey all :). A notification that the prototype for the New Pages Feed is now live on enwiki! We had to briefly take it down after an unfortunate bug started showing up, but it's now live and we will continue developing it on-site.

The page can be found at Special:NewPagesFeed. Please, please, please test it and tell us what you think! Note that as a prototype it will inevitably have bugs - if you find one not already mentioned at the talkpage, bring it up and I'm happy to carry it through to the devs. The same is true of any additions you can think of to the software, or any questions you might have - let me know and I'll respond.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Taser dart removal clarification
Hi, I am new at this, and saw that you rejected my the additions I added to taser safety issues. You noted that it was not notable....so I attached an external link that shows an article that was just published on this subject. Please let me know what else I can do to achieve "notability". I read through the help notes, but I did not find them to be very helpful.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevensmanagement (talk • contribs) 23:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello thanks for getting in touch. I'm afraid I had nothing to do with the reverts of your edits at Taser safety issues, I was only involved with the review of the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/TASER® Probe Removal Safety Issues which you submitted to AFC. This I declined on the basis that the information presented did not have the required context to fully understand the article's subject and why it is worthy of a standalone article. The submission appears to be a collection of facts and quotations without the necessary content to introduce what the subject is or why this information should be included in an encyclopedia (ie why it is notable). WP:Notability is about showing that the subject is important enough to be in the encyclopedia. However, determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity, most times it is about demonstrating that the subject has "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Since most of the article is unsourced the information is not verifiable which also contributes to it not fully establishing notability. You should also have a look at WP:TRADEMARK; using the ® symbol is considered problematic, and could potentially be seen as being promotional.


 * With regards to your edits at Taser safety issues, reverted by another user, I would suggest initiating a discussion about the content you wish to add on the talk page at Talk:Taser safety issues. It appears as though the editor who reverted you has concerns about your additions and is urging further discussion on the subject, see Talk:Taser safety issues. It would be best it you explained you actions and intentions there where others also interesting in the subject will see them and be able to comment. Hope this clarify some things, if you have any further questions feel free to get back in touch. All the best, France 3470   ( talk ) 13:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to help. I am really struggling with this. What started out as a simple project to help a friend and to learn how to post on wikipedia has ended up taking up a lot of time and has been a bit frustrating. I believe knowledge is power however and I hope that I will figure this out. Regarding the ® that I used after TASER, they actually have guidelines posted on the internet that state that that sign should be used when referring to their product as they came up with the word. I am just trying to conform...but I may remove these signs anyway as I see that no one else is following these guidelines. Thanks again and have a good day. I followed your advice and wrote back on taser safety issues page. Hopefully this will help. thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevensmanagement (talk • contribs) 18:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

June 2012 Wikification Drive
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 15:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

Review of AFC submission Endre Szkárosi

 * Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Endre Szkárosi

Dear France3470,

I created a page today about one of my favorite poet and artist and friend, Endre Szkárosi. He will have a birthday next monday, and had no English Wikipedia page, only Hungarian. As a present I decided to create one. His daughters and wife will help to polish the page after it will be available for them.

At the time you refused the page, it was really without references, but I corrected. What else can I do to make it live?

Best regards

Tibor

Tibor Szabo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibor.szabo (talk • contribs) 15:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that references you have added are all links to Wikipedia, which aren't considered to be reliable sources; as the content is WP:USERGENERATED and WP:CIRCULAR. That being said the subject does appear to be notable, it just needs improved sourcing to meet WP:Verifiability. I had a look at the Hungarian Wikipedia page and it appears to provide two book references for some of the information. You might want to see if you can get access to these sources. Keep in mind that foreign languages sources can be used to cite information, if finding English sources really is not possible, see WP:NONENG. Having a look at some of the external link you have provided, some of these look like they could be reliable sources (keep in mind WP:Identifying reliable sources); artportal.hu looks okay, itunes is fine, doktori.hu might be alright, and perhaps a few others. You'll want to avoid blogs, and other websites where the content is user generated and has no editorial oversight. I would also recommend using inline citation with ref tags to cite the information, as it allows the reviewer to most easily see if the information is adequate sourced (particularly true if the sources are not in English). Hope this helps, France 3470   ( talk ) 12:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the kind welcome. Hopefully my first article will get approved. I put a lot of work into it. Thanks Zamdrist (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
I appreciate you reaching out and offering a welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkarchere (talk • contribs) 02:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
I think I'm beginning to see a little how it works.. So the article sits there for a long time while people like you make the necessary changes..? Just asking. Another editor just added a reference I had overlooked, pretty cool. There are a lot of help pages and they do help so maybe after a while I won't have to ask dumb questions... is there any way to change sports writer to sportswriter in the main heading? I don't think it matters that much but it is a word according to Webster Elissa McEwen (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello. Sorry for not replying sooner, I got caught up. You submitted your article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tom McEwen (sports writer) through the Articles for creation process, which means that before it is moved 'live' into the mainspace it is reviewed by other editors. We reviewers try to provide feedback and suggestions on how to go about developing the article so that it meets Wikipedia guidelines, and won't get later deleted (unfortunately a common occurrence). Generally we offer suggestions and you make the changes, although its not uncommon for us to make minor formatting fixes. Your article is currently awaiting review; there's quite a backlog at the moment of 200+ articles so it may takes several hours or even days before someone picks it up. Feel free to continue making edits to the article in the meantime. If the article is declined, don't worry, this is a normal part of the process; just make the suggested changes and resubmit for re-review. I'll have a look now and see if I can leave you some suggestions about how to improve the article. With regards to the title it's not really easy to fix at the moment but the page can easily be moved, when in the mainspace, to a better title if necessary. Hope this clarifies some of the questions you had.


 * Just remember to not to get too discouraged, Wikipedia can be totally overwhelming especially when you're just starting to figure out how all the internal things work, but with a bit of perseverance it does start to become easier. :) All the best, France 3470   ( talk ) 18:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of AFC submission The Speed Traders

 * Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Speed Traders

Hi my name is John Liu, I submitted a wiki article titled "The Speed Traders" yesterday, and it was disapproved. I am actually working under Mr Perez, the author of the book, who asked me to submit the article, so any information I put wouldn't have any copyright/infringement issues. But to conform with wikipedia policies, could you give me more specific feedback as to why the entry was not approved?

My email is jliu@thespeedtraders.com.

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.28.40 (talk) 00:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello John. I've had a look at the article again, and made a few edits. To me there are a few concerns with your article at present.
 * Firstly the article reads primarily as a discussion of High-frequency trading not of the book. For example, have a look at the article Behind the Exclusive Brethren; you'll see how it clearly layouts out the structure of the book, and its key theme without diverting into an article about Exclusive Brethren. Particularly useful for accomplishing this are phrases like "Bachelard discusses", "The introduction emphasizes", "According to the book", "The book reveals that". Your article needs to take on more of this kind of language. The same is true for the Author section (generally book article don't contain one), which should indicate why this information adds to a discussion of the book. You might consider trying to find some information about the author's motivation for writing the book. Sentences like "Perez holds an Undergraduate Degree from Universidad Esan and Master’s Degree in Business Administration from Columbia Business School where he was elected to the Beta Gamma Sigma Honor Society" don't appear to add anything.


 * The article still does not fully demonstrate notability, as the sourcing is very weak. Other than what is cited to the source itself, the other sources include one press release (not independent), one article about the author (virtually no discussion of the book) and one article about HFT (doesn't appear to mention the book). Per the notability guidelines for books: the book should be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." At the moment I'm not seeing this satisfied.


 * I would also advise you to have a thorough read of Conflict of interest, as editing Wikipedia on behalf of a representative or an organization is strongly discouraged. While AFC is definitely the best process for this, you need to be extra careful to make sure that the article has a neutral point of view and that all information can verified by reliable sources. Hope this helps. All the best, France 3470   ( talk ) 11:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)