User talk:Johanna/Archive 1

Disambiguation link notification for November 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pilot (My So-Called Life), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ABC and Tom Irwin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to The Black Parade, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry. Thank you for notifying me. I was just wondering why the My Chemical Romance articles do not have any genre listings. Could you possibly clear that up for me? Thanks. BenLinus1214 (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 8 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * On the East River Pipe page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=637100290 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F637100290%7CEast River Pipe%5D%5D Ask for help])
 * Alright, should be fixed now. BenLinus1214 (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harry Hamlin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rush (TV series). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Château-Thierry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of the Marne. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Joey Graceffa redirect
Right, I don't understand it either. Yes, please do get an admin to help. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Beats me. I thought that when I posted this to the redirect board that an admin would respond. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost
This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Discrimination

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Discrimination for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (jive)  @ 20:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

vandalism warnings
Hi. I noticed your edits at User talk:Da13rlene An3dre2ws1. When issuing warnings, if the user had already been warned recently you need not start your warnings at level 1. In this case the user (a prolific vandal already) had received a level 2 warning. You certainly could have issued level 3 and 4 warnings. You're not the only editor that has made this mistake but they should've known better. It took far too long for our other editors to bring admin attention to the problem. Thanks for what you're doing. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 23:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I'm pretty sure that it was a Twinkle error on my part. I previously added vandalism warnings manually, and I thought that Twinkle automatically went to the right level of warnings. Sorry again and I'm glad the person is blocked now! :) BenLinus  1214 talk 01:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

19:23:37, 26 January 2015 review of submission by Rcampbell24
BenLinus1214,

I am the art history professor that oversaw this student project by rcampbell24. When her article was first reviewed in December (as an article on "Diego Rivera"), it was understandably rejected because the student did not follow directions. Among other things, the article was not on Diego Rivera (there was another article for the artist), but about a specific mural. She and I made significant edits and resubmitted under a new (and more accurate) title "The History of Mexico (mural)."

You declined this article because "This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Diego Rivera, which is also waiting to be reviewed." It is not really a duplicate. The title is different, which may be why it seems like two similar articles. The first article (the one titles "Diego Rivera") should not exist (and it is not waiting to be reviewed because it was already rejected). This article is replacing it. So, I would appreciate it if you would actually review THIS article (The History of Mexico (mural)).

I'm sorry for the confusion. I've never had a student title their article incorrectly, so this is a new issue for me. I appreciate your help.

Thanks, Meredith Shimizu

Rcampbell24 (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No problem! Thanks for clearing that up. I've reviewed the actual article and it looks pretty good! I just have a few comments (which are also posted on the AFC page): the first section (on "The Artist: Diego Rivera") should probably be deleted—that part DOES duplicate the artist article. In addition, on the "Interpretation" section, make sure that all of the claims are sourced or verifiable (to not do so would be considered original research). In addition, if you and your student would like (this would not be required to pass a review), the article could use an infobox at the top of the page (see Template:Infobox artwork for more information). If either of you has access to the original work, you could snap a high-quality picture of the artwork, upload it to Wikimedia Commons, and put it in the infobox as well. Good luck! (Also, please post a message on my talk page when it's ready to be reviewed again--that way it won't take months to get reviewed). I look forward to reading it again! :) BenLinus  1214 talk 21:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Young and Wild (album)
Your comment was - Please remove phrases like "rip the twins off". In addition, your use of first-person phrases indicates a close connection to the subject or you being the subject. In that case, this article is strongly discouraged.

If your so intelligent why don't you tell me what to use instead of "rip the twins off". I am not using first person phrases, and I do not have a close connection to the subject. I'm not the subject either. I'm just a fan. I've been editing wiki because Cherie Currie is going to release a new album soon, so I thought it would be nice to have a page for one of here most recent music releases. I don't know why you are being so rude. I do not agree with your comments. If don't like the phrase "rip the twins off", then change it. I am open to help with editing. I hope you can forgive me for attacking you on your talk page. I can see we started off on the wrong foot, but I hope we can get through this and give Young & Wild a great wiki page.
 * It's okay. The bold was uncalled for, and I actually made a mistake. Sorry about the first-person phrases thing--during a quick pass-through, I didn't see the quotes around the fraud point. :) I would replace "rip the twins off" with "Kim Fowley tried to engage in intellectual property infringement by releasing the album without Cherie or Marie's approval." It's more formal and encyclopedic. I didn't change it because Articles for Creation reviewers are not supposed to contribute to the article before reviewing so as to be unbiased. Looking at the article some more, I have just one other comment--you should not have that many external links. External links should be limited to two or three at most. AllMusic, Discogs, and Raven Records are the ones I would keep. When you've resubmitted it, send me a message on my talk page so it doesn't take several weeks to be reviewed. Good luck, BenLinus  1214 talk 02:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful advice. I fixed everything you asked me to and resubmitted it.
 * It's done. It's now published. Good luck in the future. Have you considered creating an account? That way, you can create pages yourself without going through the tedious Articles for Creation process. BenLinus  1214 talk 23:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

1 I did not create that page 2 I live in Suffolk and this person is very popular where I am from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritualhobo (talk • contribs) 02:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that you didn't create the page. However, please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles. It is very important for admins to assess whether the article meets the criteria, so please don't remove them. However, you can voice your opinions on the talk page. BenLinus  1214 talk 02:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

19:41:57, 9 February 2015 review of submission by Kelvege
Hello, i removed what you advised me. Kelvege (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Request on 06:16:18, 11 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Johnpalisano
Hi, Ben! Thank you so much for taking the time to look over my first article. Obviously I missed something along the way. I have an interest in music and literature, especially popular fiction, and look forward to adding in those subjects. I would love any pointers on how to make this article pass the grade. I was not able to find much more than the Billboard listings of his singles as a more tangible reference. Many of the articles were on websites and such, and I did not include them as they seemed local or may fall into 'self-published'. However, he's had some major accomplishments, like co-authoring a Billboard #1 single, so I thought he should be noteworthy. I imagine it's just assembling enough neutral proof? Thank you again! John

Johnpalisano (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey there, Thanks for contacting me. Websites are perfectly fine sources, as long as they're not Wikipedia or anything unreliable. Billboard listings are fine, and the subject seems perfectly notable, but maybe a shorter article is a better idea if you can't find sources to support everything that's stated. A stub would work for this person, and I think it would be more manageable to write. Feel free to ask any more questions! BenLinus  1214 talk 17:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I spent some time researching and re-writing and simplifying the article. I've just re-submitted it. Thank you so much!

File:M.A.D. Veronica Mars.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:M.A.D. Veronica Mars.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 08:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

08:46:08, 26 February 2015 review of submission by LShields33
Hello, I'm not requesting a re-review yet; I wanted some help on citing the rest of the article. For the 'early life' section, the information there came directly from the person the article is about. It is not published anywhere on the web, she directly sent me information about herself on it, as per my request. Is it not usable if it can't be backed up on the web? For the 'citation needed' put on the 'Personal Life' tagline - why is that there? What is needed, proof that she lives in Sarasota? I don't understand. For the very first 'citation needed' on the first paragraph of the article - what needs a citation, specifically? Thanks, LShields33 (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC) LShields33 (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The information doesn't have to be verifiable on the web per se--it could be any medium. Unfortunately, the person just telling you the information doesn't really translate well in an encyclopedia article. If none of this information can be found anywhere, I would honestly just remove most of it--it's still a good article without going into all that detail. :) Biographies, and biographies of living people (BLPs) especially, need many citations. Anything that could possibly be challenged or presents facts about the person needs a citation. I know it doesn't seem fair that BLPs need such rigorous citation practices, but this is to ensure that false information is not presented. I don't see anything about Sarasota in the personal life section, but it does need another citation, as the facts that she has no children and moves around must be Verifiable. For the very first paragraph, what needs a citation are the facts that she won or was nominated for these awards. That one shouldn't be that hard to cite, as I presume the awards all have lists of nominees on their websites. Good luck,  BenLinus  1214 talk 14:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

01:42:58, 3 March 2015 review of submission by Chrissy.nesbitt
Hi! Thanks for taking the time to review. I've added a handful of citations, including the specific subsections you suggested. I don't have a good feel for what is overdoing it and what is reasonable. I can add more if more are necessary. Chrissy.nesbitt (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi! No problem. Honestly, the citations you've added have helped a lot. It's very hard to overdo citations--however, do see WP:OVERCITE for examples of actual citation overkill. :) A couple more sources wouldn't hurt, but only a few more are really necessary. Thanks for taking the time to talk to me here--it always helps me when someone voices their concerns directly. Let me know if you have any more questions, and when you've resubmitted it, let me know on this page and I'll review it quickly. Best of luck, BenLinus  1214 talk 02:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. To clarify -- the article could use more citations, or more distinct sources? Chrissy.nesbitt (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was referring to distinct sources, but both could work. Once again, neither are badly needed, and you could resubmit soon. :) BenLinus  1214 talk 17:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Resubmitted! Chrissy.nesbitt (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for reviewing. I copy-pasted my page over the stub. Should I delete my draft page, or just leave it alone? Chrissy.nesbitt (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

04:03:43, 7 March 2015 review of submission by Bobtinin
Well I think that this article would help the purpose of this encyclopedia. I am trying to add to it with this article, but of course I want to get it right. So I want to ask you, how exactly I could improve on this. I mean, on my first review I was told that I should have more references from reliable sources. I added references from reliable sources... and I'm talking big name gaming reviewers (For example: Rock, Paper, Shotgun) but you say I don't have enough reliable sources. Well I'd say around 40% of the references are from gaming reviewers/writers. How could I improve my article to fit the standard?

Bobtinin (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, there is a ref error in the majority of your sources. This is because you have not included cite web templates, so your links look broken. Check out the parameters at the link on the previous sentence to fix that. Also, at this point, too many of your references are from the game company itself, kickstarted, or YouTube. These are not reliable sources. Other thank a few refs to the game's website, there shouldn't be any of those refs in there. Once you fix the technical problems in the ref section, I can better judge whether the game is notable or not. Let me know if you have any questions on the technical stuff. :) BenLinus  1214 talk 17:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

We Players Should be ready for article space
This article certainly meets the criteria of NPOV, notability and non-promotional language and is, at least, a start class article. I recommend moving it to mainspace.
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 07:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Further explanation needed about 'reliable sources'.
Hello there, Ben(jamin) Linus (nice lost reference!), my name is Arjan van Geel from the Netherlands.

Thank you for reviewing an article (my first one) that I've been writing about a Belgium band which has gained a lot of popularity in the punk rock scene: F.O.D. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:F.O.D._%28band%29

I've been working on this article for half a year, trying to improve it on each review. For the last couple of months, I tried to edit the article it in such a way to show/prove how this band is very notable in the punk rock scene (much more notable than a lot of bands with Wikipedia pages); I tried to include many references from magazines and music zines from all over the world, discussing this band. Citing reviews in the Wikipedia article I wrote. My article contains a lot of references.

My question to you is: can you please, please give me some concrete pointers as to how to improve my article? I've been putting so much effort in it, and I can't see how I could improve on the article. One one hand, I've been trying to prove the notability, but now the comment is that the links/references (all verifiable) aren't reliable? Please note that this particular topic (punk rock bands), by nature is something that has references that aren't mainstream.

Any help and some examples on what I'm doing wrong and what I need to change would be greatly appreciated. I'm dreading to have to wait for -months- again, to get a tiny bit of feedback (a general comment) about the article. I'm open to any criticism, but would really appreciate some extra advice. Thanks again for your time.

Kind regards, Arjan van Geel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjanvangeel (talk • contribs) 19:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Haha, thanks about the Lost reference. Anyways, the thing that I would say about the references is that some of them are reliable and some of them are not. I would remove or replace any references to stand-alone blogs and YouTube, as they are not considered reliable sources. Also, I would reorganize your article. Most notably, the first paragraph should go before any sections (see WP:LEAD). Also, I would not put "known for its catchy melodies" in the first sentence--it's not encyclopedic. Furthermore, I would reorganize and move around the sections of the article in order to better fit in with the traditional order and organization of things for bands. I would split them into three--"Career", "Musical style and influences", and "Reception" (reception being sales and critics' responses). Let me know if you have any questions. :) BenLinus  1214 talk 19:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

11:35:50, 9 March 2015 review of submission by William Goossen
This point has been raised over an over in the past two years. However, as a scientific writer of over 200 papers, this kind of wiki review is still confusing. It is perfectly possible and in many instances necessary to proof that something exists via referring to earlier scientific papers. In fact science as building up on earlier work, both of others and oneself is common practice.

I find it confusing that wiki pedia does not adhere to this practice.

Could you please indicate very precise where you think the referring to public available scientific work or work of well established organizations as ISO and HL7 can be seen by you as advertisement?

dr. William Goossen

William Goossen (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is not with the references, it's with the prose. I actually picked the wrong decline reason--I should have picked that it was written in the style of an essay. It only seemed like an advertisement to me because it proposes that Detail Clinical Models are the solutions. I can tell that you are an avid article and essay writer because the format is very similar to that of an article. For example, the introductory paragraph is basically an essay introduction which does not belong in an encyclopedia article. I would recommend rewriting the article to make sure that all your content is written from a neutral point of view which does not comment on what you think Detailed Clinical Models should be used for. The point of an encyclopedia article is to give an overview of the subject and not put in the author's own opinions. :) Let me know if you have any questions. BenLinus  1214 talk 19:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

17:00:03, 9 March 2015 review of submission by Twb1934
Twb1934 (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi BenLinus1214, I received word that my article was declined and read your comments on the reason why. Do you have any other advice on how I can improve it and specifically, what sections are the most problematic? Thanks for your help, TWB 1934
 * Actually, I think that the review was a mistake on my part. Sorry! I was originally thinking of the "work" section's comments about her style and subject matters, but looking over it more, I realized that it is not original research and has been confirmed by published sources. The only substantial comments that I really have at this point are that the "external links" and "additional references" sections should be merged and that you have too many external links (should be three or four at the most). However, those external link problems aren't justification for declining, so my declining was a mistake. You can go ahead and resubmit it anytime and I would be happy to accept it! :) I'll clean up the external links in mainspace if you don't know what to cut. Good work on this article! :) BenLinus  1214 talk 19:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Request on 19:29:10, 9 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Telemate1986
Telemate1986 (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Request on 19:33:56, 9 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Telemate1986
Resubmission of my submission of Articles for creation: TeleMate Unified Call Management software (February

Sorry if this is a dumb question but this is my first article. My article was rejected for lack of references. I added them and update some of the content two weeks ago but I can not tell if anyone was reviewed since. HOw can I think if the re-submission has been accepted? Do I need to re-create a submission from the group up? Please advise.

Telemate1986 (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you don't need to create a new submission. Now that I've added the declines back, there should be a resubmit button. If the submission is accepted, you will be notified on your talk page and you would be able to view the article in mainspace, where everyone can see it. It doesn't look like it's been reviewed since--have you officially resubmitted it yet? BenLinus  1214 talk 19:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I have been editing the page but there never has been a resubmit. Just a 'save page'. Is there a way to force a resubmit? Telemate1986 (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! The resubmit appeared. Again sorry to bother you. Telemate1986 (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's okay! That's one of the reasons AfC reviewers are here. :) BenLinus  1214 talk 00:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

10:50:07, 10 March 2015 review of submission by 148.88.161.0
Hello, you declined the article below a couple of days ago, I have made a few changes to it but just want to get another opinion off you before I resubmit it. Is this ok now or does it still sound too promotional? I spoke to people on live chat and incorporated their suggestions. If this still isn't ok could you give me a few specifics about what I need to do to change this to get it published? Thanks for your help. Nikki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wave_2_Growth_Hub_Program

148.88.161.0 (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's less promotional now, but I think I would pay attention to the sources. Particularly in the latter half of the article, I think that there need to be additional citations for verification. Thanks, BenLinus  1214 talk 14:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Request on 16:58:41, 10 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by NalaHenkel
Hi Ben. Could I ask you which specific references you couldn't verify in my article on Bellwether Credit Union? Thanks so much. Nala

NalaHenkel (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Throughout, you need more references. You also can't cite Wikipedia, and the directory refs don't show the subject's notability. In addition, I would also clean up the tone--it sounds fairly promotional right now. BenLinus  1214 talk 22:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Ben. I'll work on those and resubmit. NalaHenkel (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Request on 23:53:07, 11 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Cameroncowan
Could I get some guidance on the A. R. Heaver article you rejected? I could use some help. Its been through many drafts and revisions.

Cameroncowan (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. The tone just doesn't seem quite right for an encyclopedia article. Think of your article as having to be very formal. Also, you need more sources. BenLinus  1214 talk 18:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

08:08:00, 12 March 2015 review of submission by Rkosloff
I do not understand you comment on unreliable sources. I used only pear review papers using Chicago style The first section has inline links to other wikipedia sources and serves as an introduction. I refereed to a paper of Scoville who was the first to point out the connection. can you please help me to improve the paper. Rkosloff (talk) 08:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources thing wasn't exactly what I meant. This looks like a good article, but there are several sections of the it which do not have enough sources for it to be verifiable. If this info is in some of your existing sources, you can use those by doing ref names. Other than that, it looks good. BenLinus  1214 talk 17:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Request on 12:25:43, 12 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by TheOnionLord
Look I know you denied my article, but please, this is for my girlfriend. She is depressed right now due to personal issues and the Pattonian Reign of Terror is a running joke among her and her friends and she's always found hilarious. Im just doing this to cheer her up, to see her smile. So please just let this one go. I swear that I won't post anything else this is the only thing I will post. So I ask again, please just allow this.

Thank you for your time.

TheOnionLord (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry, but a joke which is not factual or even a real thing is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I hope that you can find somewhere else to post this, but unfortunately, it is not suitable for Wikipedia. BenLinus  1214 talk 17:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

15:53:24, 12 March 2015 review of submission by Prediger8i
I read all the information posted. I also read most of Wikipedia entries of major NGO's I tried to comply. But it is still rejected. Our fist entry in Wikipdeia was flagged outdated, which is true. Should I just update it? Thanks! Prediger8i (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the main problem that I had with the article was the tone. It sounded very promotional to me. Please be sure to read and thoroughly digest WP:NPOV before resubmitting. Good luck. BenLinus  1214 talk 14:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

United States federal judges are inherently notable.
Please note that United States federal judges, including U.S. Court of Claims judges are inherently notable for the reasons set forth at WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability. bd2412 T 00:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for letting me know! :) BenLinus  1214 talk 02:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blast from the Past (Veronica Mars), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rob Thomas. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Notability
Hi, just editing the Jim Ricks artist page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jim_Ricks and have eliminated unnecessary links. However, if you read through he has been the subject of a number of significant articles in the Irish Times, and Guardian, and been discussed in important journals like Art Monthly. His collaborative project In Search of the Truth may need its own page, but has been very widely acknowledged (for instance being part of the official public sculpture section at Art Basel Miami). Again with direct media coverage.

This fulfils the guidelines 3 and 4 here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.170.154 (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My main problem is that many of your sources are not primarily about the subject. They only include a passing mention. Passing mentions in sources are not enough to establish notability. BenLinus  1214 talk 14:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

There are 2 Irish Times articles entirely about the artist and a UK Guardian piece comparing him and the very famous Jeremy Deller, as well as significant mentions in reviews of group shows. Meaning he was singled out and discussed. But most importantly, his collaborative project In Search of the Truth has received numerous primary mentions including a documentary for the Tribeca Film Institute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.170.154 (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you possibly point me to some links that show what you are saying? BenLinus  1214 talk 22:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Article in Irish Times on Jim Ricks: http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/the-art-of-imitation-1.761000 Guardian piece: http://www.theguardian.com/culture/charlottehigginsblog/2012/may/02/bouncy-stonehenge-glasgow

Work highlighted here: http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/art-and-design/visual-art/sleepwalkers-artistic-experiments-in-biting-the-hand-that-feeds-1.2120477 and here: Art Monthly, Reviews, “Futures 12; Young London”, November 2012, by Curt Riegelnegg

Irish Times Video interview with Jim Ricks on 'In Search of the Truth' going to Afghanistan: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/video?vid=1.1694548 Art Basel Miami Beach 'In Search of the Truth': http://www.artnews.com/2014/11/19/art-basel-miami-beachs-public-programming-includes-baselitz-benglis-and-elmgreen-dragset/ Tribeca 'In Search of the Truth' project: https://tribecafilminstitute.org/films/detail/truth_booth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.170.154 (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Those references are great! It's great that you went ahead and removed ones where Ricks was not the primary subject. Unless you see something else that needs improvement, go ahead and resubmit! :) BenLinus  1214 talk 15:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.170.154 (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

17:22:38, 16 March 2015 review of submission by Johnsonsinclare
This user requested on IRC that you re-review the draft, posting this on behalf of the user :) --George (Talk &middot; Contribs &middot; CentralAuth &middot; Log) 17:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. BenLinus  1214 talk 23:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

10:46:39, 17 March 2015 review of submission by Linuxste
Hi BenLinus, the article purpose is merely to have a small overview of the supply-chain consulting role in the business. Removing the list of the the firms would help to get accepted? I tried to be as neutral as possible without any hint about on any particular consultancy firm,

Thanks linuxste

Linuxste (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The main problem isn't the list of firms, actually. It's the tone in everything else, as well as the benefits section. Both make it seem like the article is trying to promote supply-chain consulting. In particular, a section listing the benefits of something usually amounts to promotional material, as is the case in this article. BenLinus  1214 talk 14:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to do it differently than, thanks for the explanation

linuxste

Softech College
Sorry, but A7 doesn't apply to educational establishments. Everything at CSD can be put on if appropriate, but not that one. I'd suggest prod if nothing seems to be happening. Peridon (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And at KateCookie - A11 isn't for people. It's for things like new words ('used by everyone' but apparently only in one class at one school), new drinking games (Beer Pong for cider, or Liebfraumilch, or tequila...), new non-drinking games (which look like a cross between baseball and cricket and usually are played by a National League containing two sides). If it's a person, it's A7 if they're real, or prod if fictional or myth/legend. If they're not fictional (i.e existing in a book) or myth/legend but still are not 'real', or if the tale told about them is ridiculous, they're a hoax. 'Made-up' assumes good faith. Someone actually made it up, but only a very small number know about it and virtually no-one really cares. Hoax assumes bad faith - the intent being to spread deliberate misinformation. CSD takes a bit of getting the hang of - it's a bit like a railway timetable crossed with a theological manual. Peridon (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for letting me know. BenLinus  1214 talk 02:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ben Is their any news on my resubmission? thnaks RonnieRkosloff (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like not yet. It should be reviewed in the next few days. BenLinus  1214 talk 02:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Request on 15:42:01, 23 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by LaraSonnet
I am trying to create a page about the songwriter Patrick Mascall. He has written for a number of big names, including the single Sirens for Cher - however I keep getting rejection due to the lack of proof of his notoriety. What am I missing from the piece?

Sonnet Music 15:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, Don't cite Wikipedia, Facebook, or MetroLyrics. The first results in circular logic when on Wikipedia, and the latter two are considered unreliable. After that, your sources don't really show the subject's notability. References in databases don't count. Please see WP:NMUSIC. BenLinus  1214 talk 20:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

"barely slides past CSD A7"
I like it... Peridon (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Request on 23:38:06, 24 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Jvwood1121
You denied my Wikipedia page, but I am the adviser running the station. How much more credible can I be?

I even modeled the page after other high school radio pages.

Please help me fix it.

Jvwood1121 (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly. Your main problem now is that your references don't prove that the subject is notable. Just being in the app store and on Google Play does not make the subject inherently notable. BenLinus  1214 talk 01:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft:John Kavanaugh
For some reason decline template for this AFC draft landed on my talk page instead of the creator who submitted it. I'm not clear on U.S awards but wonder if a Daytime Emmey Award For Music meets WP:NMUSIC.  Flat Out  let's discuss it  02:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you resubmit it? Because then, it would appear on your talk page. Eh, I guess you're right that it meets WP:NMUSIC. By the way, the ABC link is broken. I declined it because he was just one of many listed in the ASCAP source who won an Emmy. However, upon further review, I think that that still meets NMUSIC. BenLinus  1214 talk 02:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There's an edit that says I submitted it.. weird. Certainly didn't mean to. I'll fix the link. Thanks  Flat Out  let's discuss it  02:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Edited Sol Kjok article by Twb1934
Hi Ben, In reference to your reply on the Sol Kjok article below, thanks for getting back to me and your kind support! I made the changes you requested with the external links and am hoping it is now okay for approval.

I am going to resubmit it now.

Thanks again for your kind support!

Twb1934

Original exchange below-

17:00:03, 9 March 2015 review of submission by Twb1934[edit] Twb1934 (talk · contribs) Draft:Sol Kjøk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Twb1934 (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Hi BenLinus1214, I received word that my article was declined and read your comments on the reason why. Do you have any other advice on how I can improve it and specifically, what sections are the most problematic? Thanks for your help, TWB 1934

Actually, I think that the review was a mistake on my part. Sorry! I was originally thinking of the "work" section's comments about her style and subject matters, but looking over it more, I realized that it is not original research and has been confirmed by published sources. The only substantial comments that I really have at this point are that the "external links" and "additional references" sections should be merged and that you have too many external links (should be three or four at the most). However, those external link problems aren't justification for declining, so my declining was a mistake. You can go ahead and resubmit it anytime and I would be happy to accept it! :) I'll clean up the external links in mainspace if you don't know what to cut. Good work on this article! :) BenLinus1214talk 19:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Great! I've published it. BenLinus  1214 talk 22:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ben!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twb1934 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Request on 08:55:22, 26 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Maybelline Ooi
Dear BenLinus1214,

Thank you for reviewing my submission previously. I have taken your comments into the editing. Could I know if I am on the right track with regards to the issue on notability as well as the content since previously it seemed to be like an advertisement?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Queen_Silvia_Nursing_Award

Thank you in advance! Maybelline Ooi (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Maybel

Maybelline Ooi (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like another user has already accepted it! :) BenLinus  1214 talk 16:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

09:43:11, 26 March 2015 review of submission by CAMBRO1031
Dear BenLinus1214,

I was under the impression that I had written the article from a neutral point of view, as I was using facts about the history and development of Cook'n With Class Paris. Do you have any advice on how I can edit the article for resubmittion to be better suited for Wikipedia? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Kind Regards, CAMBRO1031

CAMBRO1031 (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically, the first three paragraphs or so sound like an advertisement. Phrases like "trained with the likes of famous chefs" or the "is recognized as one of the first" make the submission sound like an advertisement. BenLinus  1214 talk 16:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

09:58:04, 27 March 2015 review of submission by 46.164.129.182
Hi! I kindly ask to provide the reviewer a detailed explanation of what exactly he/she has found inappropriate in the article. This information is very important, because I am really willing to have the BeNaughty article posted on the Wikipedia. So, it it more about unreliable sources or advertisement in the article? Do you mind providing any suggestions on the improvements of the article? Thanks you in advance. Looking forward to your reply. Best Regards, Ann

46.164.129.182 (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, The tone to the article just sounds promotional. Especially the top section and the "Features" section. Also, be sure to check out WP:MOS. BenLinus  1214 talk 22:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

10:56:17, 27 March 2015 review of submission by O'Segun Soulrich Emiola
Just want to know while the submission is pending/rejected

Soulrich 10:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

you are a f*****g guy I wanted to submit my article. of course I am going to submit this again95.225.25.164 (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just submit it again. It looked like a test before, but you've done a lot with it. 95.225.25.164, I'm not sure whether you're the submitter or not, but no matter what, there's no need for profanity. If you're talking about a different article, start a new section. BenLinus  1214 talk 22:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Request on 17:08:43, 30 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Smsegall
Hello, I was given feedback on an article I submitted for review. "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you."

Can you elaborate on this please? Do I need more citations? Did I do the citations incorrectly? I used ref tags following my cited material. There was a references list at the bottom of the article.

Thank you for your help. Smsegall (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Smsegall (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You need more inline citations. As a biography of a living person, your article needs to have citations for nearly everything. Also, be sure your citations are inline citations (do this using ref tags) BenLinus  1214 talk 22:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

08:45:40, 2 April 2015 review of submission by Oupho-udv
Oupho-udv (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi BenLinus1214 I am writing regarding this article draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Digitalife

I have already had a chat in the "teahouse" and they have explained to me briefly why it has been refused.

I believe I have understood the main reasons, however, I do not understand why it was flagged as SPAM? Can you please explain to me?

Also, when the research is completed and the new building material is on the market (for any producer to produce, not only one! which is the aim for the EU Life+ programme), if we provide all the scientific research there is (there is plenty on this matter, since we are talking about beneficial vs cancerogenous building materials) and reduce the external links to private commercial entities, would the new material research project be acceptable? It would not be an original research, but a final sum-up research of other researches, which will be finalised in a EU-approved new material. Can you please let me know how it can be improved?

Thank you for your help and have a great day/night :)
 * Looks like User:RHaworth has deleted the page under CSD G11. I review so many AfC submissions that I don't remember individual submissions until I see them again. I suggest you talk to the deleting admin. Best of luck. BenLinus  1214 talk 18:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi have got your messages ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.104.88.80 (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

01:47:12, 6 April 2015 review of submission by Dianaliverman
I do not understand why the page is a problem. There are many similar pages that provide links to well known figures in different fields. I wanted to create a page to inspire young women to become global change scientists! How do I need to change it? Is the list of women inappropriate? We tried to outline appropriate criteria. Is the intro incorrect? Can you refer me to a page about leading scholars in another field that I can use as a model?

Ironically I am watching 60 minutes on Wikpedia right now and they are talking about gender bias - and the need for more pages by and about women!!!!

Professor Diana Liverman

Dianaliverman (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I totally agree that there is a need for more pages by and about women! I think that a page you could use as a model is women in science or women in philosophy. Your criteria for inclusion are good criteria, but there's no need to put them in the article. There are two main routes you could take with the article: One is a list (such as List of female astronauts), and the other is an article with prose that lists a some notable female environmental scientists at the end. Also, you need inline citations: See Referencing for beginners. Best of luck! BenLinus  1214 talk 02:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I have done an extensive edit to turn the submission into an essay with extensive citations. I hope it now meets criteria for posting to Wikipedia! Thanks! Diana Dianaliverman (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Dianaliverman (talk) 03:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I have extensively revised the Women in Global Environmental Change page adding many more references and removing all opinion. I hope it is now acceptable. Thank you.Dianaliverman (talk) 03:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Questions regarding Submission Draft:Raiffa-Howard_Decision_Quality_Award
Hello BenLinus1214,

Thank you for reviewing my submission!

In your feedback, you said the article "read more like an advertisement", and I would love to make efforts to make it more "Wikipedia compatible": it is not an advertisement as there is no financial motivation hidden behind this award at all. It is in fact part of an academic proceeding (Annual Conferences of the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences as well as its celebration of the 50th Anniversary of the discipline Decision Analysis). So it is not mean to promote a product or service or a company. Please let me know how I could revise the draft so that it is consistent with Wikipedia guidelines.

In order to comply with the policy of referring to "independent, reliable, published sources", I have included two external links at the end of the article, hoping that would help this article in this respect. There is a rich body of academic literature on the subject of Decision Analysis and Decision Quality, and I have referred to the most cited journal in this article as well.

Please advise further if there is anything else I could do to improve this article.

Best regards,

Lwhhorn (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say promotional exactly, but the article does not meet the Wikipedia policy of a neutral point of view. Much of the article seems to espouse the view that the award is very prestigious and only given to very distinguished candidates (which it may be--but don't put that in your prose. If you want to say that, make sure that it's an opinion that other people have written. An example would be the sentence, "They also noted that Chevron has substantially out-performed its peer group on a host of financial metrics, consistent with the belief that improved decision quality will deliver superior financial performance in the long run." Also, your section on the criteria is overly detailed and seems to show off the award. If possible, incorporate your external links as inline citations. Let me know if you have any more questions about my decline reason. If you have questions about the core content policies, I would visit the Teahouse. Regards, BenLinus  1214 talk 14:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

06:33:44, 6 April 2015 review of submission by Ashlesh84
Ashlesh84 (talk) 06:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you have a particular question? If it's about my decline reason, the sources you have, by and large, are not reliable and do not prove the subject's notability. Also, Wikipedia does not cite itself. BenLinus  1214 talk 13:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:BeNaughty.Com (dating site)
Draft:BeNaughty.Com (dating site) Hi! Please review my article about BeNaughty.com service once again. I would be thankful to you if you also explain how to avoid the “advertising” tone in its contents. This time I have edited the article trying to make its tone as neutral as possible. The reason of why I ask you about that is that I compiled our article looking up to the articles about other dating services published on Wikipedia. The latter all have nearly the same descriptions. I would be very disappointed to see my work go for nothing as it is very important for me. Best regards, Ann
 * Okay, the promotional tone seems to be a bit better. However, you need to format your article in accordance with WP:MOS. It should be reviewed in a few days. BenLinus  1214 talk 14:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft Page for A. G. Riddle
Hello, Two questions:

1.) I'm not sure if my newest revision is the one you reviewed. I hit the "saved" button, but the old revision is still there; although I still have my new revision in my Sandbox, I can't tell that the newest revision is saved anywhere.  Perhaps I just re-submitted the old revision?

2.) My newest revision contains references to Riddle's book rights being picked up for movie rights by CBS Films and 20th Century Fox. I can't believe this does not elevate him to being "notable"?

Just to make sure we are on the same page, here is my latest revision:

A. G. Riddle is a science fiction writer. He is presently ranked in Amazon's Author Rank as #33 over the categories Action & Adventure, Science Fiction, and Science Fiction & Fantasy.

He has published four books: The Atlantis Gene (4/5/13), The Atlantis Plague (11/18/13) , The Atlantis World (5/15/14) and Departure (12/2/15). The books are self published.

On June 26th, 2014, CBS Films acquired the rights to Riddle's Atlantis series. On April 2, 2015 it was announced that HarperCollins acquired the print rights to Departure, and that 20th Century Fox acquired the film rights.

Steven C. Price 13:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like the one I reviewed and this one aren't the same. Anyways, on this one, I would still recommend cleaning up the sources. The Deadline source is good, but the majority of your sources are from the author's website, which aren't considered reliable. BenLinus  1214 talk 15:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

15:22:13, 6 April 2015 review of submission by Steelyskoal
Hello BenLinus1214, thank you for reviewing my recent submission about the Center for Women's Health in Portland, Oregon. This is my first attempt at an article, and it seems I didn't get it quite right. Can you tell me if there are particular areas of the article that read as too much of a potential advertisement? Was it the use of the Center's website as citation material? Any feedback would be appreciated--I mainly want to get something up as the Center is engaged in planning an edit-a-thon relating to WikiProject Medicine and I'd like people to know where they are going.

Thank you! --Steelyskoal (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Steelyskoal (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically, some of the material sounds promotional, such as "The OHSU Center for Women’s Health supports the OHSU mission of research by cooperating with researchers who wish to use the Center’s patient population for their studies," as well as the bullet points in the "History" section. One possible solution is to create a section in either Oregon Health & Science University or Oregon Health & Science University Hospital (I don't know which one fits better) about the Center. Or you could try to clean up the tone in the existing submission. BenLinus  1214 talk 11:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Trying to understand submission denial
Hello BenLinus,

You recently declined my submission for the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Musicians_Guide_To_Polyrhythms

You suggested making a Personal Bio page for Peter Magadini which may help establish his notability. Another user has done this, and the page was approved and now live. That personal bio page uses external references that I originally used in this book article, but I was told that they were not reliable. So, I changed the reference to established Library references including the Library of Congress. These have also now been denied. I'm unsure where to go from here. I used references from "reliable publications which have an editorial process" and was denied. I removed those and link to publication details which you denied. Can you offer any suggestions on which references will work? Thank you.

Gsrouse (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It probably has something to do with the fact that the majority of your sources are search queries in notable libraries. Just being in a library does not establish notability. I also suggest that you contact the most recent decliner to get their opinion on the subject. BenLinus  1214 talk 11:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Dope D.O.D. Page
Hey BenLines1214,

My wikipedia page is rejected. Can you help me with what to do if I want it to be accepted? I'm new to this and i don't really know what i'm doing.

Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexTsolodimos (talk • contribs) 09:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. You just need to add inline citations to reliable sources. For more information, see WP:REFB and WP:IRS. BenLinus  1214 talk 15:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 16:14:39, 7 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Manubay
I appreciate your critique on my article. It's not a hoax but it appears like one to you, it obviously needs more work. Thank you. Manubay (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there are no inline citations and I could find nothing about the subject on the Internet. BenLinus  1214 talk 15:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

07:23:11, 10 April 2015 review of submission by Gkwork
Hi

Regarding the music fest Perugia page, what kind of citations should I add? The articles in the external links contain citations and I am not sure what to add.

Thanks Gkwork (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to add inline sources using footnotes. For more information, see WP:REFB. Thanks. BenLinus  1214 talk 18:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

09:49:25, 10 April 2015 review of submission by Isaiah.onyango
Kindly advise on the article.

It wasn't meant to be an advertisement as the review suggests...it is just information on who and how the business was started and where it operates. There is no mention of its products nor how it operates...i dont believe it thus qualifies as an advertisement. Kindly review or advise on what i should remove/edit for it to comply.

Regards,

Isaiah.

Isaiah.onyango (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, there are some new comments on the article that basically sum up my decline reason. BenLinus  1214 talk 20:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

21:09:51, 10 April 2015 review of submission by YesuiKhatan
YesuiKhatan (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're just asking about my decline reason, the tone sounds very promotional. Your current draft does not look like an improvement, unfortunately. If you have any major questions, I would recommend that you visit the Teahouse. BenLinus  1214 talk 23:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
North America1000 00:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Women in Global Environmental Change
I have completely redone the page with lots of sources and removing all opinion and unreferenced comments. I added some photos. I hope it is OK now. Thanks. Diana Liverman Dianaliverman (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool. It looks a lot better. However, I would highly advise you to format your sections as outlined by WP:MOS, breaking them with the appropriate number of = signs. And instead of putting an "introduction" section, make that the lead. See WP:LEAD for more information. BenLinus  1214 talk 15:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Strange Doors Resubmitted
Hello, thank you very much for taking the time to review the page for The Strange Doors. I have resubmitted the page, with more references.

I have provided a few more independent critical reviews and also another link to the NME review written by journalist Si Cunningham, which I found on the journlist's page, which contains the whole Tribfest review including the interview of the band and a picture of the band. I hope that this helps. Unfortunately, there isn't a digital copy of the NME article apart from this, as NME does not appear to have an accesible digital archive of their articles. You can only get it in hardcopy.

Doorslife (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, great. Good luck to you. BenLinus  1214 talk 16:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

17:59:46, 17 April 2015 review of submission by RaymondLiugq
Hi, we are currently doing a project that requires us to create a wikipedia page. As we are still learning the ropes of wikipedia, we would appreciate any feedback we can get regarding the article creation. We have taken note of your suggestions and have removed the features and re-edited the article to include more neutrality. Please do take some time to look at our review. Should there be anything else unsatisfactory, do let us know so we can make the necessary adjustments. Thank you!

RaymondLiugq (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good for you. :) Another reviewer (or, very unlikely, I) will look at it in a few days, but I'm a bit busy and when I am on WP, I have priorities on other stuff. Sorry! :) BenLinus  1214 talk 23:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

15:51:04, 21 April 2015 review of submission by Kdipierro
Hi BenLinus1214,

I made some edits to my proposed article for Multicultural BRIDGE, currently in my sandbox, which you recently reviewed. Would you mind re-reviewing the article again and letting me know if it's acceptable? If it still reads as too promotional, are there any specific things I should edit or remove?

Thanks, Kdipierro

Kdipierro (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As recently stated by Onel5969, it still reads like an advertisement. Particularly the mission section makes the tone sound promotional. BenLinus  1214 talk 21:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Question for you there. North America1000 07:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 09:42:02, 3 May 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Lorenzo Ruga
Im confused how to upload an article. sorry! I uploaded twice, that's why. Please bold the titles. I also don't know how to upload the pictures. please give instructions. thx

Lorenzo Ruga (talk) 09:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's okay! Just only work with the Draft:Our Lady of Maulawin version. Eventually, the sandbox version will be deleted per CSD G13. To upload images, use the File Upload Wizard. If they are free images, upload them to Wikimedia Commons—otherwise, ensure that they meet the non-free content criteria. Also, reading through the article, I would suggest a rewrite—the article currently reads like an essay. Wikipedia is not a publisher of essays or original thought, and it cannot accept original research. BenLinus  1214 talk 13:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Need for evidence-reg
Hi Ben,

I am submitted an article concerning Prof Loganathan Krishnan Mutharayan...I am new to Wikipedia...I got a reply from you asking for more evidence to substantiate the facts mentioned in the article... Please would you tell me what type of evidence you require...

Thanks Loganathan Krishnan Mutharayan (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Gan
 * You need to add references and inline citations. I strongly suggest that you read WP:REFB on this topic. In addition, your username suggests that you are writing an autobiography, so read WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY as well. BenLinus  1214 talk 17:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for Assistance
Hello BenLinus1214,

Thank you for taking time to review my submission re: VII Photo Agency. Admittedly, I am brand new to Wikipedia editing and still trying to navigate all the processes, citations, and communications with reviewers (!) correctly.

In your comments, you said, "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources" and "You need more references. Also, parts of the article read like an advertisement..." In an effort to make it more "Wikipedia compatible", I have changed the wording per your suggestion, and I have added several references. Please understand that this is a work in progress as I am still gathering/adding reference sources and information. Can you please review the latest draft to see if I am at least headed in the right direction and offer any suggestions to make this consistent with Wikipedia guidelines.

Thank you,

Marjorieps (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's getting better, but you need to format your references using inline citations. BenLinus  1214 talk 20:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the words of encouragement. I'm working on improving the citations, references, and external links sections. However, I am confused about a second editor's note I received when I resubmitted: "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at VII Photo Agency instead."

Should I edit directly on the article page? Or can I continue making improvements & updates in sandbox mode & resubmit?

Also, I was using this Wiki article as a formatting guide: NOOR Do you have a suggestion for a more Wiki- representative template?

Thank you! Marjorieps (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You got that message because the article already exists in Wikipedia, and it looks like you've edited it extensively. So I think you are confused—use the sandbox for testing on an article, but don't submit it to AfC—instead, when you are happy with your changes, incorporate them into the article proper. BenLinus  1214 talk 19:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I Inprovved my aricle On 5/4/2015 For Group — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samal10124 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

i Edited my Group artile
i Edited my Group artile — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samal10124 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you tell me about what article you're talking about? I review a lot of submissions. BenLinus  1214 talk 20:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

23:04:57, 5 May 2015 review of submission by Zjwoolf
Hi. I was wondering if you could give me some insight in regard to a submission being denied. It said that it was written like an advertisement, and i was wondering if there was certain section or if it was the entire article. Almost everything was cited by sources, but i'm happy to rewrite. Just wanted to know if there are certain sections to focus on. Any suggestions are welcome. Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ebates

Zjwoolf (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Mostly the lead and the "Products" section. The amount of detail in the latter reads like a list of offerings. BenLinus  1214 talk 02:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. i have made updates. Should i just submit for review or can you take a look and see if it works? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zjwoolf (talk • contribs) 17:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would just resubmit it. I'm not reviewing a lot of AfC submissions these days. BenLinus  1214 talk 18:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Omar Garcia-Bolivar, Biography
Can you please review this new version of a biography you reviewed and advise?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Omar_E._Garc%C3%ADa-Bol%C3%ADvar

Thanks Juvetorre (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)