User talk:JustBerry/Archive 3

Please comment on Talk:Cdrtools
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cdrtools. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC) ✅

Please comment on Talk:Autism
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Autism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC) ✅

IRC Cloak Request
Request for IRC Cloak. Messaged the following users:
 * Dungodung (talk) (IRC nick )
 * Barras (talk) (IRC nick )
 * PeterSymonds (talk) (IRC nick )
 * Snowolf (talk) (IRC nick )

✅

Review
Hi JustBerry, Thank you for taking the time to review the article I submitted on HZO. I'm just about to get started on edits for resubmission, and would love your input on what I can do to get this article Wiki-ready! If you have time, could you please tell me what you would like me to add in terms of context? I want to make sure I fully cover your critique in my edits. Any advice you have would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time, CosettejCosettej (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you mind linking me to your article again? --JustBerry (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Certainly! Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/HZO Cosettej (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say my first comment is to use more concise language. For example, in the first sentence, you say that HZO is a company and then explain what the company is known for. I would suggest starting off by introducing what the company's purpose is, it's location, and perhaps when it was founded. In addition, try not to use bullets when conveying information, use sentences which logically flow with one another. Try your best in trying to make those changes. Then I would suggest asking questions and showing your submission to WP:Teahouse. I may jump in and make some edits along the way. I am very happy to see that you are looking for specific insight into your article, as often times, users submit the same article again and again to AfC. You're off to a nice start. P.S. For the context critique, what I mean is: I should know what HZO is in the first sentence, as the reader may not have any idea what HZO is, where it's located, or what it has anything to do with it. Along with this, make sure that you show notability. Try to give specific, informative details about the company. One reason why you want to do this, in addition to the fact that adding more information makes the article interesting, is that the article reads like an advertisement, at least to me. You have listed the Products and Awards, but I would like to see other information. Furthermore, you may want to include images to support your article as well. If your article is not notable enough to research more information and find images, unfortunately, the article may not be notable enough for Wikipedia standards WP:Notability. That's all for now. --JustBerry (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have any further questions? I am more than happy to answer them. Also, if you don't have any questions right now, I may mark this talk page section as done. You are more than welcome to remove the done template and add your question beneath our current conversation, or simply make a new section on my talk page. Good luck! --JustBerry (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, JustBerry! This is great feedback. I'll get to work on making your recommended edits, then send the article over to the Teahouse. Cosettej (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds great! Just to clarify, you said "send the article over to the Teahouse"; I meant you can ask questions at the Teahouse and/or ask someone to review your AfC. You are more than welcome to ask me any questions you may have, or to review your article, but I just wanted to give you that option in case I am delayed in responding to your questions/request to read your article. I don't want to leave you waiting in case I am unavailable to answer your question. I will be putting the done template on this section; once again, feel free to remove it if you have any other questions. I just put it to let myself know that I have answered all of the questions you have thusfar. --JustBerry (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

Opus Software Page
Hi Justin,

Thanks for publishing the Opus software solutions page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srm284 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem; great work! --JustBerry (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

Please comment on Talk:Guy Fawkes Night
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Guy Fawkes Night. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC) ✅

Moved back to mainspace
Hey, I saw that you moved the article for The Posterchildren: Origins to the draftspace. I've moved it back for two reasons: first is that it's still at AfD and it's a bit premature to move it to draftspace before it is officially decided upon at AfD. The second is that unfortunately it is extremely unlikely that this book will ever gain coverage enough to merit an article, as it's a self-published book that's been out for a year with little to no coverage anywhere. It hasn't received any true notice in reliable sources and it's pretty much unknown even in the book blogging world, which kind of puts its chances at receiving coverage in mainstream sources at slim to none. Basically, moving it to the draftspace would just be postponing an inevitable deletion at WP:MfD. I do feel a little bad for the other person and if there had been a little coverage in RS then I'd not have as much of an issue with it being in the draftspace, but it's very unlikely that this will ever pass WP:NBOOK and moving it just sort of gives them the false hope that it will. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, I have responded on the deletion talk page as well. Once again, I am not affiliated with this article nor was I ever officially reviewing this article - I was merely trying to settle some of the havoc taking place on IRC. --JustBerry (talk) 04:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that you are, just that it's usually frowned upon to move articles anywhere until the AfD is over and there's an official consensus. It's kind of even to the point that we're discouraged to even move articles to a different name in cases where the name change makes sense (as in the case of moving Marissa DeVault to Murder of Dale Harrell). Some do and we kind of look the other way, but generally speaking the only things that can be changed is the content in the article itself. (IE, adding sources, removing puffery, and so on.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, well thank you for letting me know for the future. --JustBerry (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

Article Citations Redressal for Black Home (Film) (UPDATED)
Hi JustBerry,

First, thank you for the review of this submitted article []. I've addressed the concerns cited in your review, the lack of reference materials in particular. Like you advised, I opted for the references rather than internal citations. I tried to be as clear as possible on the new draft submitted.

Please let me know if there's any further issues. But I am hopeful this time it will get through. And I will keep updating as & when new information, events happen related to the topic of this film.

Thanks Miki — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackHomeTheMovie (talk • contribs) 08:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Okay, I have a few comments to start off. Firstly, the article has not been released yet, which is an issue, as there doesn't appear to be enough information to meet WP:Notability. I will ping to double check on this issue. Secondly, as a result of a seeming lack of WP:Notability, the article information is fairly vague. --JustBerry (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I would summarize the draft's problems thus: It cites quite a few reliable third-party sources such as the Hindustan Times or Forbes, but unfortunately none of those sources mention the topic of the draft. They are all off-topic and should be removed. Only unreliable or non-independent sources, such as the official website, mention the film. I also second JustBerry's comment about the content's vagueness: The article discusses the woes of India's remand homes, but it doesn't tell whether the upcoming film has commenced principal photography or when it's set to be released. I'd suggest to wait until after the release, when we can cite reviews of the film and maybe box office figures. Huon (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

AfC Invite Template Test - Check for Autosign Bot
✅

How many references are needed for a Wiki page
I am wondering how many and what type of references I need to help this page pass approval?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RMJams/sandbox

Thanks, any advice will be appreciated.

RMJams — Preceding unsigned comment added by RMJams (talk • contribs) 17:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * RMJams, the question is not so much "passing" the page approval; the question is "where did you get your information from?" Let's start with that because (a) your article gives no sources under the Reference section and (b) out of the two External links provided: one doesn't exist and the other one appears to be a blog-type site. --JustBerry (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC
Hello JustBerry! Thanks for the advertisement, but unfortunately I need 500 edits to the mainspace before I can join AfC. Maybe I'll join in a couple of weeks or so after I get 500 edits. I have already done 2 reviews, but I was told to wait until I had 500 edits. Cheers! WooHoo! • Talk to me!  21:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see! It's not quite an advertisement, rather an invite. --JustBerry (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

Stream of consciousness (William James)
I can see that some citations do not contain complete information like publisher, city, etc. That can be easily fixed. Otherwise it seems that citations from James's own discussion of SoC in the Principles, as well as from relevant sections of a history of psychology textbook should be adequate. Please be specific about what additional references need to be added. Thank you. J.R. Council (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you mind linking me to your article again? I review hundreds of AfCs, so I don't exactly have all of the links. I can't seem to find it. --JustBerry (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not my article. It is from a student in my History of Psychology class. He has worked very hard on it, and really wants to see it published. Constructive criticism and advice is most welcome. Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Stream_of_consciousness_(William_James) Thanks. J.R. Council (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * While I have to disagree with the given decline rationale, this draft seems to be on the same topic as an already existing article: Stream of consciousness (psychology). Your student should improve the existing article instead of creating a new one on the same topic. Huon (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I have re-reviewed the article with Huon's suggestion. Please check back on the draft page. --JustBerry (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

My student did try to improve the Stream of consciousness (psychology) page, and it was reverted. There is currently no adequate discussion of James's construct, stream of consciousness, on Wikipedia. However, some editor decided that it wasn't appropriate. I suggested that the student resubmit a specific discussion of James's ideas on the topic. Now this is being rejected as superfluous. With all due respect, I think some of the Wikipedia editors are operating outside their bounds of competence. I am a professor of psychology, have published on the history of psychology in peer reviewed journals, and have taught history of psychology for over 25 years. I believe my student has a valuable contribution to make. Please tell us how he can contribute without running into continual roadblocks. Thank you. J.R. Council (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hm... let me ping a Wikipedia administrator, as I feel xe will be more competent to answer your question/comment. --JustBerry (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I appreciate you taking the time to help resolve this issue. J.R. Council (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no problem! I want to make sure this issue is addressed properly - I would like to see what Administrator has to say about this topic. --JustBerry (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Being an admin confers no special rights regarding content disputes such as this one. That said, the issue seems to have been that your student's changes were deemed to give undue emphasis to a single person's view of the topic, so much so that entire sections were based entirely on James' own writings. I dare predict that, like most sciences, psychology has advanced quite a bit in the past 120 years, and James' work likely no longer represents the state of the art. A summary of the development of research on the stream of consciousness is fine and well, but that's not what your student added to the article. Furthermore, a biography of James clearly is off-topic in an article on his theory; we have a dedicated William James article that could be linked to for those readers interested in biographical details (and it was linked, in fact). Now it might be possible to write an article on a historical scientific theory; for example we do have an article on the luminiferous ether (however, we do not have Gravitation (Isaac Newton), Theory of relativity (Albert Einstein) or Psychoanalysis (Sigmund Freud); I'm not aware of any article on an individual scientist's take on a wider scientific theory). Such an article, however, should not just cite the contemporary sources, but it should provide the current perspective and cite, for example, historians of science discussing the influence of James' work, put it into perspective within the larger context of psychology and the theory of the mind. Your student had a very short section at the end that probably was supposed to do that, but he made a rather bad job of it. Of his two sources for the "current views" section, one does not discuss James' theory at any detail, and the other (Blackmore) flat-out contradicts parts of the draft, namely the "James and introspection" section. Thus it seems that your student didn't summarize what reliable sources say about the topic but rather presented his own original research (that policy's section on original synthesis is particularly relevant).
 * I'd say the best way forward is not to write a content fork that discusses the same topic in a different way, but rather to discuss the proposed changes on the article's talk page. It would also help if your student doesn't replace the entire article in one go but instead proposes specific changes, section by section, while keeping the parts of the article that actually were better than his replacement, if only in minor ways (for example, his version's reference to Blackmore no longer contained the link to the paper). Huon (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! That helps a lot. I have had students working on Wikipedia psychology articles for some time now as part of the APS Wikipedia Initiative. There has been a range of interactions with administrators, and the least helpful are those when a seemingly arbitrary action is taken with no explanation. I can even tolerate rudeness if it is combined with constructive criticism. That way we all have a chance to learn. J.R. Council (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

Draft:Milosz Wozaczynski
Sorry to revert your declining of draft. I am not familiar with reviewer tools, but it seems you accidentally picked a wrong reason from a list or something. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Usually, if you're not sure, try not to revert their draft before having a chance to talk to the user directly, especially if you "are not familiar with reviewer tools." I am more than happy to explain why I declined the AfC for the reason that I did. The article talks about a series of events as if it were a plot - it does not highlight the significance, impact, or relevance of those events to WP:Notability. It's more of "this happened, then this, then this." --JustBerry (talk) 03:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you probably did not read the tag carefully. Let me quote it here for your convenience:

articles on fictional subjects' should cover their real-world context and contain sourced analysis, ..... The article is not on a fictional subject: it is about a real person, therefore this tag is inapplicable. In any case, yes the article mentions some aspects of notability: awards are among notability criteria. Therefore I am reverting your decline, since you used improper tag. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Since the issue is no longer personal, please continue the duscussion in Draft talk:Milosz Wozaczynski. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

Maurice Burrus - tobacco magnate, politician and philatelist
I'm sorry but I have to disagree totally with your review. The article is not at all like an ad and certainly is written in a NPOV. What's not neutral about it? It does not promote him and besides which being dead over 50 years, what is it advertising? Please point out the materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed you claim are being used because I don't see any. Are you even familiar with philatelists and what are reliable source for such subjects? Perhaps, as a long time contributor, I should not even have bothered and just made it live like other well sourced articles I've created. For a change I thought I would let someone else give an opinion for once. I expected better and constructive comments. Perhaps many of the subjects who are on the Roll of Distinguished Philatelists should not exist either, as they are one line stubs, if this one does not. You really need to explain this. ww2censor (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but some of the adjectives and phrases used to describe his achievements/pursuits seemed like WP:G11. I see your point and will permit the revert. Also, I will keep that in mind for the future; thanks for telling me! --JustBerry (talk) 03:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * All statements about his achievements/pursuits are certainly not G11, they are all supported by reliable knowledgeable philatelic experts, such as David Feldman one of the world's most knowledgeable and well known philatelics and Helen Morgen whose book on the Blue Mauritius stamps is the most complete study of these stamps ever made. I have not embellished anything, so I don't see your claim as accurate. Exactly which phrases do you object to? If you are going to permit a revert, why not just do it yourself please. ww2censor (talk) 09:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice work, I have accepted your article. I had to do some page maneuvering, as an article with your topic already existed, but it was a stub, so I "replaced the pages." Don't worry if you get led to your sandbox with the link on your talk page - if you go to Draft:Maurice Burrus, it should redirect you to the article on the mainspace. --JustBerry (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC) (bleated signing comment)
 * Thanks. Another philatelic editor did start it just today as he appear to be working his way through the redlinsk on the Roll of Distinguished Philatelists. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool! If you have any issues regarding the page move I have performed, please let me know (I cannot detect any thusfar). had mentioned to me that the way I have done the page moving may create some issues, so let me know if there are some - I will be happy to fix those. If you don't come across any, don't worry - it was just a procedural error. --JustBerry (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

Please comment on Talk:Cro-Magnon
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cro-Magnon. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

Review of page: William Harold Grant
Howdy,

Thanks for review of above page. I have read the advice but need more specific guidance. Is it a lack of references? Robertmap (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Robertmap (talk)
 * Can you please link me to the article? --JustBerry (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Cuddle Magic entry
Hi, JustBerry! Fellow copyeditor (and Wikipedia copyeditor when I have time!) here. I'm trying to get this page approved. You declined it for a lack of neutral sources and lack of proof of notability, which is totally understandable, since I only linked to their record label's page. I've added a few other news sources that I hope will help on both fronts. Unfortunately, the best sources (Phila. Inquirer and The New Yorker) are paywalled.

The band has also gotten lots of attention from non-news sources however--video sites like Sleepover Shows and subscription music sites like Daytrotter and Audiotree. I'm not sure how to bring those onto the page. I can barely format the text properly. . . I'm kinda old school. (My first job was at a magazine that was literally cut and pasted together!)

I assure you I am in no way connected to this band besides digging their music. I can also assure you they are a Big Deal, though their music is rather oblique and does not lend itself to mainstream attention.

I'm going to resubmit the page for you. If it still doesn't fly, perhaps you can suggest what it will take to establish their cred.

Thanks for the work you do!

Best,

Beatnik Party (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem, I'm so glad that you appreciate the work I do. Do you mind linking me to your submission? --JustBerry (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure, JustBerry. It is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cuddle_Magic_(band) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatnik Party (talk • contribs) 06:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The subject itself seems "not notable." Please see WP:Notability. If you look at other Wikipedia articles in general, they go into detail about history, context, impact, location, significance, etc. Your topic seems shallow/not influential --> not notable. Please reconsider writing an article for this topic. Ask others at WP:Teahouse on their opinion if you wish. --JustBerry (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Need help my article has been declined
My page has been declined https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jinisys_Software_Inc.

Please help.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordzden (talk • contribs) 02:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The link you have provided above is broken. --JustBerry (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I updated the link. Thanks --Lordzden --Baloydi Lloydi 03:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Be specific about your topic in the article. Inform the reader about what the function/role of your subject is, what impacts does/has it had, and where it originated from. If you cannot find information on those topics via research, then we may be having a WP:Notability issue, though not necessarily. Try to add those details to your article, as well as other informative details - then check back with me. --JustBerry (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I really wanted to improve the page. Thank you for your fast response. I am not sure what you mean by being specific about the article. --Baloydi Lloydi 03:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem at all. If I am not around, you are more than welcome to extend your questions/issues to WP:Teahouse and #wikipedia-en-help on IRC. What I meant by "being specific about your topic in the article" is add more detail. I don't feel as if I understand enough about your topic. --JustBerry (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, I started updating the page, I added new formats to be tell more about the company. The page is not yet finished but I just wanted to know if I am on the right track. The references is not yet included on it. I am afraid that I could invested my time in the wrong way. Thank you. --Baloydi Lloydi 07:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, I have put article tags on your draft to address the specific issues within your draft. You are on a great track! The lead is nice, I have to say. Yes, you do need references. If you cannot find reliable resources or not enough information, once again, unfortunately, your article may not have WP:Notability, which is not a bad thing - it's just that maybe it's not for Wikipedia (at least now). --JustBerry (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe the company is notable, that's why I want it to be added on Wikipedia but I need to provide references. Please see the list of references on this page, http://pastebin.com/YHdhBNT9 I gathered the references from an educational website, newspaper, government sites, and from their partner websites. --Baloydi Lloydi 07:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, make the changes we talked about earlier; the sources seem fine. --JustBerry (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I added some references on the page. Let me know how can I improve it. --Baloydi Lloydi 08:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, nice job! One more suggestion: can you write more about the company's products? See Academa as an example. --JustBerry (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I wonder if work actually has been done that has been less than productive. I had a look at the Jinisys article, and would like to have said "Yes, it's ready!" but you can probably guess what is coming next, because I fear it needs work, substantial work, on sourcing. I have left what I hope is a helpful comment to guide you on the draft article. You might also find reading this essay useful to guide you towards creating articles that will be accepted every time.
 * With referencing we have to be very careful to distinguish between "confirming existence" which yours do, and "evidence of notability". My opinion is that yours provide the former, not the latter. MIne is, of course, one opinion only. JB's is another opinion. I can imagine that two diametrically opposed opinions will confuse you, so may I suggest that you seek others opinions if you are confused?
 * It is fine that JB and I disagree. Wikipedia is full of disagreeing editors. What is important is that you are able to gain from our disagreement. One, the other, or neither of us is correct, hence my suggestion that you seek other opinions as well. Fiddle   Faddle  09:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

MfD
Hiya! Just to let you know, I speedied Draft:Failure to Progress because it was a copyvio of this website. On a side note, draft copies have to go through WP:MfD as opposed to WP:AfD. Don't worry- I did the same thing myself at one point and learned the same way. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I caught myself and started using WP:MfD as Twinkle was giving me a template warning. Ironically, I couldn't find the link to the article which I had put WP:AfD on; thank you for fixing the issue. --JustBerry (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

Draft:Alan Trustman
Hi JustBerry: You declined this as fiction (mostly considering of plot) and then proposed it for deletion. I'm going to remove the deletion template, but I'm wondering why you thought it was fiction? It's about a screenwriter. (He's mentioned in a couple of our existing articles.) Yngvadottir (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have re-reviewed the article. The way you wrote the article seemed like a plot summary, as you listed events one after another in some parts without addressing their significance. Also, read WP:BLP, as I have commented on your submission.
 * Thank you for re-reviewing it. I am not the submitter - she came to the help channel on IRC and I got inbvolved there/ I have also speedy closed the MfD you started - I haven't yet checked the deleted page because I must dash to work, but I'll have a look later. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds great! I will be putting the done template on this conversation, as I assume the issue has been resolved. If you wish to continue the discussion or anything comes up, don't hesitate to continue the conversation below and remove the done template. Nice speaking with you. --JustBerry (talk) 04:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

The Aftermath of Draft:Alan Trustman

 * You've already been told that nominating these articles for deletion is inappropriate. You also obvious have no idea how to review an article.  Please find something else to do until you know how to properly review an AFC article.  You're being disruptive now.--v/r - TP 07:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoa, TParis, please do not be so harsh. Let's discuss the matter: can you highlight where the problem is? --JustBerry (talk) 07:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There are insufficient inline citations? No, there are plenty.  And inline citations are not required.  A minimum of 2 sources are required.  It meets that.  The article needs to be tweaked and published, not deleted.  And MfD is inappropriate for an article draft.  CSD G13 is used for abandoned drafts.  That's how we delete these.  And this one isn't abandoned.  If you want to decline it, find a policy based reason to decline it.  Don't decline it because it doesn't meet your own standards.  Yngvadottir already told you that once.  You are biting newbies when you treat AfC like your own plaything.--v/r - TP 07:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to revert you at this point. I'm going to go watch a movie.  If you don't revert yourself by the time I get back, you'll find yourself at ANI and I'm going to be pushing for a topic ban from AfC since you haven't shown competence of Wikipedia's citation guidelines.  Who knows how many AfCs you have declined for made up reasons?--v/r - TP 07:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What do I revert? And why am I being actively accused? I would like to know how to fix the situation and understand the issues behind my reviewing rather than having accusations/threats thrown at me. --JustBerry (talk) 07:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * TParis, yes, I have reviewed a substantial amount of AfC drafts. Please try to WP:AGF with me and let's work together on improving the areas of my reviewing that need to be improved. I need to head out for a few hours; I will see you when I return. Please let's not create a case out of this. --JustBerry (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * When two admins revert you and tell you that you've taken some inappropriate steps, that's a good sign that you shouldn't re-do whatever it is you're doing. Since you've pinged Huon, we'll let him see this article.  Maybe he can talk some sense into you.--v/r - TP 08:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You nominated this draft for deletion again?! Why?! Didn't you see I had closed the previous nomination as speedy keep? saying in my closure that you had not given any valid reason for deleting it? The fact that in 2010 an article with the same title was deleted is not a valid reason for deletion. Click on any redlink where an article has previously been deleted and you will see a message to the effect that if you are creating a new and different article, not recreating it in the same words, carry on. That means you should AGF as a reviewer that this is not a recreation of a deleted article and not bite someone creating an article with the same name in good faith. (In addition, in this case the deletion message gives BLP problems as the reason for the deletion - unless you see BLP problems in the draft, it's unlikely to be the same.) This is presumably what was saying you should revert - and he says above that you've been told before that nominating drafts for deletion is inappropriate. I must admit I cannot see why you did this the first time, let alone again after I declined it the first time. Please, don't do that again. Let the submitter improve the draft (and save us admins another complex bureaucratic step)! Yngvadottir (talk) 12:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait, wait, hold on. To clarify, I stopped giving speedy deletions after Yng's comment and did MfDs. If an article has been deleted from the mainspace three times before and a draft is being deleted multiple times for the same reason, is it a bad idea to tag with MfD? I don't think you have clarified the issue, although I do see TParis's point on the in-line citation tag. The in-line citations seemed low to me - I couldn't verify most of the important facts from in-line citations. I was just asking for some more, that's all. But, I guess I see Paris's point. --JustBerry (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you may be confusing this article and another. Alan Trustman was deleted just once, in March 2010, for BLP reasons. You declined the draft and immediately created Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Alan Trustman - not a speedy nomination, an MfD. While I was figuring out how to speedy close that, you went ahead and reverted your addition of the MfD template from the draft; then you re-reviewed the article, failed it again, and nominated it again: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Alan Trustman (2nd nomination) - again immediately. Both times you used Twinkle. So it's only been deleted once, and as I explained above, you should not assume the draft is a re-creation of the deleted article. And yes, it's in any case a bad idea to tag with MfD: it creates unnecessary bureaucracy and, far more importantly, the whole point of AfC (and the Draft namespace) is to allow the submitter to improve the article. The rejection template instructs them to continue working on the draft and resubmit it - it doesn't say "Sorry, no good, I'm now nominating this for deletion." You really should not be nominating drafts for deletion. (And by the way, despite all sorts of off-wiki chaos, I have now had time to look at the version that was deleted and I can assure you that the draft is different.) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. The issue is clearer. Oh well, as per Nick's comment on my talk page, I have been requested to suspend my membership on AfC until further training action has been taken. --JustBerry (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Should I mark this conversation as done? Before I do, I want to ask you: how do you recommend I get better experience with these policies? Are you willing to adopt? I did not finish the adoption course; the admin who is/was adopting me is currently inactive/busy. Let me know. --JustBerry (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't do adoptions, sorry. I think the suggestion that you come to IRC is a good one - what nick do you use there? Yngvadottir (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * JustBerry, same as on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I may not be able to use IRC for a few days. --JustBerry (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

Draft:Urban Ladder
Hi, The following article was denied as there are no reliable sources. All my sources are from respected newspapers in India. Given that the article is on an Indian company, this seemed acceptable. Could you please suggest what is expected other than news sources?

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

Sudhanvaraom (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * What do you think? Are these references reliable? --JustBerry (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Not Huon, but Business Standard and Times of India certainly are. Reflinks tends to fill in only the title, but the author did indicate what site most of the references were on. I've filled out those two and another that looks good, to make it clearer. I suggest you take another look. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

Rejection of article for Fortis Memorial Research Institute
Had submitted the draft for the creation of this page. Can you please specify the reason why this got rejected. Secondly, we had submitted this article earlier as well, but it got rejected due to copyright violations. OTRS is pending for the same.


 * User:FMRI Gurgaon/sandbox - history of your talk page shows who created this section. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the link; I couldn't find the post - it seemed to be buried in other posts. Well, one phrase includes "ultra-modern facility utilises and showcases some of the most advanced technologies." In that sentence alone, you should focus on explaining what types of technologies they use than use "promotion" language. Please see [] and WP:G11 --JustBerry (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Draft: Defense Acquisition Program Administration(DAPA)
I appreciate your review on my draft article. The reason of rejection you mentioned is that the draft article in question is lack of reliable source but I think it has reliable sources/references based on several laws(GOVERNMENT ORGAINZATION ACT, DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAM ACT), brochure, articles in Wikipedia and official website of the agency(DAPA). So please check 'references' on the article. After that I would like to ask you to kindly reconsider your recent tagging on the draft article. Thank you! Judeyoungw (talk) 08:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like User:Timtrent has already accepted your submission. As he did tag on the mainspace article, the verifiability of the sources was what led me to declining your article (since it is the English Wikipedia after all). I am pinging to come and give his thoughts on this.
 * Fortunately another tagger(User:Timtrent) gave me a chance to create the article. As your point I'll make contents and references of the article more reliable. Thank you. Judeyoungw (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is very simple. The article was accepted despite poor referencing because the references and inherent notability were, in my view, sufficient to allow it to proceed. There is a fine line between 'notable but poor referencing' and 'plainly not notable'. This requires a judgement call based upon many things. An incorrect judgement to accept an article can always be corrected later. Fiddle   Faddle  07:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, then. --JustBerry (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

Need help my article has been declined
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BLDG5_Records

Hello, i sow your respectable reveiw on my draft article BLDG5 Records, but i can't understand what i am doing wrong. Firstly, i started this article from the love to some of the bands in the music label and did some research of other labels wiki pages. It seems that the similar wiki article has much less information and still notable for wikipedia article - Brainfeeder and more. As for the "The article talks about releases" on your review, BLDG5 Records are relatively new record label and i tried to include all the information on the article. Moreover, you can find some other articles about record labels, (although much bigger) that include the releases, for example XL Recordings and Ninja Tune. Thank you and Hope to hear from you soon. Kolhacampus (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, allow me to explain. I would like you to explain a little bit about their music and how it is important in other ways. I feel that you are just listing one track after another - how are they notable. --JustBerry (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * With all do respect i feel that their music is innovative and inspiring, thing i can't say about Lady Gaga songs. However, i can't write my opinion without good reference. I will try to reedit the draft again as you advised but first i need to ask you and myself to explain about Brainfeeder music and how it is important. Kolhacampus (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, sounds great. Do you mind reviewing my decline reason on the draft? Do you agree with it? --JustBerry (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The draft suffers a critical shortage of coverage in reliable sources. Many of the given references are just passing mentions, some don't mention BLDG5 at all. Just take the very first sentence: Two references, one of which even writes two sentences about the label (and that's the most coverage any source gives BLDG5, for all I can tell!), neither of which says what it's cited for. The general impression I get is that this label isn't notable (yet) as no one has bothered to write about it in any detail. For that reason I'll decline it again. Huon (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, i will try to improve the article and resubmit it for review. Kolhacampus (talk) 08:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure. I am marking this discussion as done, as I think you have understood what needs to be fixed in the article now. Please feel free to remove the done template and continue the conversation if you need anything/have any further questions/issues. Thanks. --JustBerry (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

Articles for Creation reviews
Could you stop reviewing new AfC submissions for the time being. There have been serious concerns raised about the speed, accuracy and overall quality of your reviews. If you could visit the Wikipedia help IRC channels, we will try and get you paired up with an experienced reviewer who can help mentor you through the process. Thanks, Nick (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Nick, after responding to this long list of complaints regarding my AfC reviews on my talk page, it's perfect timing for your message to be the last one on my talk page. I will stop reviewing new AfC submission for the time being, but I will be "fixing" or trying to address the old ones I have made. Yes, I think I did review a little too fast, as I was trying to clear the backlog. Although speed has value, I see how the quality of my reviews has declined a little while speed has increased. I will try to visit the IRC channel, definitely. I just wanted to address one more thing: is adoption with you a possibility? I realize that some administrators are very busy and do not have the time, but I would like to offer myself as a mentee if you are willing to be the mentor. User:GorillaWarfare used to be my mentor, but I believe she is currently busy/inactive. Let me know your thoughts upon my proposal --JustBerry (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Dave Malloy page
Hello, thanks for your feedback....I believe I made the suggested changes, though your suggestion, "Flow sentences together please" is a bit vague as most of the paragraphs have only one sentence, and teh one with 2 or 3 are all about a single show. But I reordered some things and added a few transition phrases. Would you please re-review, and be more specific if you decline again? -- (User did not sign) 173.164.155.109
 * Can you please link me to the article? --JustBerry (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Draft:Dave Malloy - see the IP's contributions. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dave_Malloy 173.164.155.109 (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've approved the article. Nick (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that I look back at the article, your reason for accepting makes sense. I think I need to start writing writing content to understand Wikipedia writing style; you learn more while writing content than looking over AfC submissions, I feel. I think would be happy in hearing this comment, but I do mean it. --JustBerry (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

Entry vs subject, and redirect questions
Hi JustBerry,

I hope I'm not doing the wrong thing posting on your talk page rather than keeping any discussion on the relevant draft page.

Anyway, thanks for reviewing and re-reviewing my entry Draft:20_Times_Square so quickly. I was expecting weeks rather than days.

I have made amends to try to address the advertisement comment (removed all links to the subject's website and taken out any commercial details) and re-submitted, but rather than keep going back and forth I thought I'd ask whether you felt the entry writing was at fault or whether the subject is unlikely to get approved?

Also, another user added a comment about the removal of an existing redirect to the old holder of the vanity address requiring admin removal. I guess this is what happens when you search for "20 Times Square" and are redirected to here? If the new article is approved, would you be the one to remove the redirect?

Thanks for your time, BoingsterBoingster (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Hasteur, can you please briefly address the issue that Boingster mentioned above? Also, do you think the draft is ready for the mainspace - I'm ready to approve the article. --JustBerry (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what input you need from me There is an existing redirect describing the old holder of the vanity address. Admin assistance will be needed to remove the redirect. The text is pretty clear... Hasteur (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, let me ping an administrator to look at this topic then. --JustBerry (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do here. If the draft were ready to be accepted, an admin would have to delete the redirect so the draft can be moved into the mainspace. However, of the draft's three references a grand total of zero so much as mention this new building. The content is entirely unverifiable, at least insofar as it relates to 701 Seventh Avenue, and the draft isn't nearly ready for the mainspace. Thus there's no need to do anything to the redirect right now. Huon (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

Notability of submission Draft:Cullen Roche
Hi, this subject has been deemed not "notable", but the subject is indeed a well known financial pundit widely cited in the financial media and the author of several notable works. Most notable is his book "Pragmatic Capitalism: What Every Investor Needs to Know About Money and Finance". The notability guideline lists "authors" as "creative professionals". Given the author's notoriety in US finance and as an author backed by a major global publishing house I would presume he meets the criteria. No? Thanks for clarifying.

- Lars — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsvensen (talk • contribs) 17:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That would be great - talk about his works. Please see Carl_Lindner,_Jr. as a reference - he was also the founder of a financial group. --JustBerry (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi JustBerry, I updated the subject's page with citations for outside references confirming the subject's notability which also refer to some of his work. Please let me know if I need to add anything further. Thanks for your help here.

Lars

Lsvensen (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Lacks notability. Please see WP:Notability. Feel free to also continue the discussion with, as he was a reviewer of your draft as well. --JustBerry (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Sewar was accepted
 Sewar, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Huon (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Lol, not my article, Huon. --JustBerry (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Script malfunction. You had added a submission template to that draft, and the script thought you the author although the true author had re-submitted it under his own name. I've left him a manual copy of the notification. Huon (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Great. --JustBerry (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

Feedback on Nancy Worden bio
Hi JustBerry,

Thanks for your feedback. It would be good to find additional sources. I'm going to go old school and go the library for some periodicals that are looking to be hard to find online. This has been a fun project to work on.

BWorks (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds great. Let me know when you want me to re-review your article. --JustBerry (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:File Allocation Table
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:File Allocation Table. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

== Template complaint left at my page ==

Hello, you recently posted the template beginning "Hello, I'm JustBerry. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it did not appear constructive..." on my Talk page, after I removed the improperly-placed "Submit" template from your sandbox. Two points: MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What was on your page was clearly not an article draft in need of review, so I think it was totally proper for me to remove the misplaced template.
 * Community consensus tends to indicate it's rude to leave newbie-targeted templates on the Talk pages of experienced editors, as it comes across as rather condescending. Further, it doesn't explain in the least why you are displeased about my edit. If you somehow object to my removing the AFC template, please just take a few seconds to say "hey man, the reason the AFC template is there is because I'm doing some code testing, so please don't remove it, and I'll add a label explaining why it's there."


 * Can you please be clear about the issue you are having? --JustBerry (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm referring to the message you left me at User_talk:MatthewVanitas. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Issue resolved, all I didn't understand was why my sandbox page was being edited. --JustBerry (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

Thanks for your advice - I just revised and resubmitted my draft... hoping for more feedback (Eric Ratinoff bio)
I haven't done many articles, so this is helping me increase my skill a great deal. Hopefully I achieved a more neutral tone. Any feedback you'd like to provide for this draft is greatly appreciated.

Thank you. Taryndejesus (talk) 05:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That is great to hear! I was about to accept your article into the Wikipedia mainspace, but it looks like has already done so! Thanks Tim. --JustBerry (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

Disambiguation link notification for May 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maurice Burrus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Feldman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Any idea where the disambiguation link location is? --JustBerry (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC) ✅

Deletion of 'Institute of Political Economy'
Hi Berry,

You recently deleted the article for the 'Carleton Institute of Political Economy' citing a lack of sources. This happened once before by user 'Dodger67' who said that in the absence of more available sources, the article could be satisfactorily be resubmitted with more information about the host university. This is what I had done, and you proceeded to delete the article anyways. With this in mind, would you please reconsider this deletion or could you at least provide a more comprehensive explanation for what changes need to be made for this article to work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brother.seeker (talk • contribs) 15:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * JustBerry didn't delete the article (draft) it is located here: Draft:Carleton Institute of Political Economy. JustBerry just declined it since he thought the one two references (sources) written by the same person (Clement, Wallace) that you have included in the article is not did not adequately evidence the subject's notability. Please see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies. If you require more help/assistance, please join the wikipedia-help-chat: . (t) Josve05a  (c)
 * Thanks for the response; sorry, I have been trying my best to reply to all of the messages on my talk page. --JustBerry (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , the problem with lack of sources for notability is very real. I'm an admin who works frequently with articles of this type, and we almost never accept articles on institutes within a single department or faculty. The rare exceptions are when the institute is not merely "one of the best in the country" as listed in a single book, but world-famous, as shown by multiple sources of high international standing.  I also point out that your article really has nothing more than directory information. It is already mentioned within the article for the university, which is sufficient.  DGG ( talk ) 19:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gout
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gout. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stream of consciousness (William James) (May 24)
 AFC-Logo_Decline.svg recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. ''' Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! '''
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Draft:Stream of consciousness (William James).
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new Articles for creation help desk], or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JustBerry&action=edit&section=new reviewer's talk page].
 * Please remember to link to the submission!

JustBerry (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

✅
 * Well, it was you you re-submitted it (under your username), so it is not a scrip-error, but a human-error. (t) Josve05a  (c) 18:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, okay :) --JustBerry (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Archive
I suggest you start using an automated archiving system of you talk page, by pasting this on your talk page. (t) Josve05a  (c) 18:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How many days do you recommend I put before it archives a particular section (without a reply for that # of days)? --JustBerry (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have 7 days, but I know people who have 14 or 31. (t) Josve05a  (c) 18:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I might just do 7. How long does it take to start archiving? Any idea? --JustBerry (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It usually start the same day/the next day, depending on servertime and stuff like that. (t) Josve05a  (c) 18:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Thanks. --JustBerry (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

Please comment on Talk:Richard C. Hoagland
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Richard C. Hoagland. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

Please comment on Talk:5:2 diet
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:5:2 diet. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

Heads up on AfCInvite
Just a quick note that the Review Now button on User:JustBerry/AfCInvite has some junk at the end of its category link. Not sure how you want to handle it czar  ♔  13:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Same here. --JustBerry (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You can try replacing the button with —not sure what you wanted the input parameters to do czar ♔  13:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I am very busy at the moment. You are welcome to play around with that on the template page under my user page if you wish. --JustBerry (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✓ done Eye close font awesome.svg czar ♔  17:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --JustBerry (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

Removing categories
Please don't remove all of the subcategories of Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests‎. Even though they don't contain a request themselves, they contain pages that do. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Okay, it's just that they interfere and show up on Helpmebot's list on IRC. I understand now, thank you. --JustBerry (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

Please comment on Talk:Median strip
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Median strip. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

Hi
Hi there JustBerry. I saw the hatnote on the top of your userpage asking about tips or ideas for your userpage. I just found User page design center and thought I'd suggest that if you haven't heard about it either. Just an idea, Cheers —  dain  omite   09:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick reply. I am currently taking a look at the page and it looks very helpful. Thanks a lot! --JustBerry (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, anytime! —  dain  omite   21:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're checking my user page for improvement; I'm sorry about that - I'm currently very busy. I may not get to it for a week or two, but it's definitely something I plan to do. --JustBerry (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hehe, no I'm not checking your userpage for improvement or changes. You can do whatever you want with it, whenever you want to do it —   dain  omite   03:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool! --JustBerry (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

✅

Worries
Hello there! Just wanted to tell you to be more careful while reviewing AfC submissions. I've come across several of your articles being declined for the wrong reasons, and their authors' consequent complaints on the Help Desk. See Draft:Barry Farah, for instance. Please ask a more experienced reviewer when in doubt. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * please see also Draft:Beachside Bungalow Preservation Association of Far Rockaway, Inc.,You declined it as "insufficient context" and I haven't the vaguest idea what you could possibly have meant by that. I've been in touch with the ed.,who is quite upset, and will give the proper advice. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Please look at the Cmbox at the top of my talk page. Thank you. --JustBerry (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Sorry for being so blunt. Please consider reviewing some more in the future, after you get the hang of it, that it. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * right--I'm glad you're taking a realistic approach to it. When you feel ready to start again go slowly and carefully, and if you'd like to ask me to check what you do, please just ask me. I've helped a number of people learn the system that way.  DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot DGG! I asked a few people earlier, but looks like they are busy with other tasks/responsibilities on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Actually, what's your nickname on IRC (if you're on IRC). I'd love to talk with you, so that we can have a one on one conversation about reviewing, as I plan to further my knowledge and experience with policies, etc. Thanks a lot, once again. --JustBerry (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Help with Argosy University
Hello JustBerry, a quick note here to say thanks for taking a look at my request on the Argosy University Talk page. I was wondering if you could look again and let me know if there's anything I can adjust with my new proposed wording. As I'd explained on the Talk page there, I'm concerned that the current wording in the article contains some potentially misleading phrasing and that's what I'd like to address. If there's some detail that you feel is missing from my most recent proposed wording, I'd be happy to look at including it. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 22:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

Re: Username Signature
Hi again! I don't know how to post a notification that you have a message from me on my talk page so that's why this is here. =) Can you help me out some more please? Thanks so much! Imabored1   (talk to me)  23:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you're referring to. What type of notification are you referring to? Can you please give a specific example? --JustBerry (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, oops sorry! Can you please just check my talk page? I already posted my question there...I can copy it here though, if it's more convenient. Imabored1   (talk to me)  23:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, I will go check now. --JustBerry (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

Please comment on Talk:Super-spreader
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Super-spreader. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Drew Lawrence
Care to list a reason why you think this should be deleted? — xaosflux  Talk  02:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read the top of my talk page. No further discussion, please. I have had plenty of complaints already and do not wish to deal with more at this point. Kindly remove it if you don't think it is appropriate. Thank you. --JustBerry (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you are referring to, you listed this MFD with out any explanation at all of why you think it should be deleted, just your signature. I'm going to just abort the MFD and speedy delete the MFD request, please feel free to resubmit the MFD at anytime without prejudice. Happy editing, —  xaosflux  Talk  03:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not clarifying. Recently, multiple articles that I have marked as speedy delete and AfC reviews have been contested by other reviewers and submitters. Hence, I am suspending my AfC reviewing, so please feel free to change/revert any reviews/MfDs that you feel necessary. Thank you. --JustBerry (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

Note that Editor Review has been retired
Hi, JustBerry: this is a notice that after a MfD and two RfCs, the Editor Review process has been officially retired. You should not expect further comments on your open Editor Review, which will be archived soon. In the coming weeks there may be information available on alternative processes that you can pursue if you so desire. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * After much discussion and conversation with other users, looks like the "battle" has closed. Oh well, IRC feedback is an alternative, I suppose. --JustBerry (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

✅

Talkback
BollyJeff &#124;  talk  12:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

✅

Please comment on Talk:China University of Petroleum
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:China University of Petroleum. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

✅

WP:GOCE May 2014 backlog elimination drive barnstar

 * Thanks! --JustBerry (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

✅

RfC/U
Dear user, I want to inform you that I posted a RfC/U to obtain formal mediation in the respect of the issue I have communicating with user:Director. You tried in the past to mediate and I need confirmation of your effort in the RfC [] to validate the actual RfC/U. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC) ✅

WP:DRN
Sorry I missed the fun regarding the Dalmatia dispute, I was out of town, but feel free to ping me again if you need fresh eyes on anything else there. Gamaliel ( talk ) 14:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I think the case is closed by now, but thanks. --JustBerry (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

✅

Please comment on Talk:Honorary degree
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Honorary degree. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

✅

Please comment on Talk:Iatrogenesis
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Iatrogenesis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

✅

Speedy deletion declined: 1821 in architecture
Hello JustBerry. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of 1821 in architecture, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

✅

Edit review
You asked me to review some of your recent edits, but since you went off IRC I'm just leaving my notes on your edits from today. I'll just go through one by one:


 * 03:04, 9 June 2014 to 20 Dakika: You removed a notability tag in this edit, but didn't make any changes to the article itself (nor have you in the past). The article is completely unreferenced and makes no assertion of notability, so I'm not sure why you removed the tag. It's unusual to remove notability tags without editing the article to improve it (unless the tags were added clearly in bad faith), or at least leaving a note in the edit summary or on the talk page as to why you think the tag is unnecessary. Also the plot summary, which made up most of the article, was a pretty clear copyvio (hence why the latest edits are revision-deleted).
 * 03:03, 9 June 2014 to 2-3 Streets and notification to the user: You added a db-nocontext speedy deletion tag to the article. You'll see it was removed soon after by DGG, who left the note "context seems clear." I'd agree with him, and would recommend you re-read the A1 criterion.
 * Your edits between 02:57 and 03:02 to various articles: Judging by the titles of these articles, you're going through a category of articles tagged with the notability template. My first comment is to reiterate the above: it's not particularly useful to remove these templates without improving the notability of the article, or at least explaining why you've removed the tag. My second is that you're going through these much too quickly. You went through 10 articles in seven minutes—I'm not sure I trust that you can make a thorough decision on the notability of the articles when rushing through that fast.
 * 02:58, 9 June 2014 to 1821 in architecture: Again, an invalid . I declined it. You'll notice that "[year] in architecture" pages are pretty standard; see List of years in architecture for a whole bunch of them.
 * 02:57, 9 June 2014 to 14 Year Old Girls: You added a PROD tag. If you look, you'll find Articles for deletion/14 Year Old Girls (closed "keep") and Articles for deletion/14 Year Old Girls (second nomination) (closed "no consensus"). Articles that were previously taken to AfD should not be PRODed—you should start a deletion discussion at AfD for them.
 * 02:53, 9 June 2014 to Luftflotte 4: You remove some redlinks. This is okay, but keep in mind that redlinks can be useful to show people that articles need to be written. As these appear to be places, it would make sense to leave the redlinks, as articles should probably be written.
 * 02:52, 9 June 2014 to June Thorburn: You removed an tag. Seems fine, as references have been added.
 * Your edits between 02:47 and 02:54 where you move mainspace articles to the draftspace: Judging from the first move, you don't believe these articles are notable enough. However, you only mention that in the edit summary of the first move—the others you moved with no explanation, and you have not left any messages to any of the authors explaining the move. Either the authors of the articles won't notice they've been moved and won't know there's anything wrong, or they'll be very confused. I'm also not convinced the moves were necessary—why didn't you try to reference the articles yourself?

I strongly recommend you slow way down and take care with each of your edits. Improving an article is much preferred to just adding or removing a tag, but if adding and removing tags is what you want to do, please at least do so thoughtfully. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)