User talk:K7L/Archive 1

Twinkle
— This, that, and the other (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

WhiteBoard Product Solutions article for creation.
Hi K7L – thanks for reviewing this entry. I made a conscious effort to write only factual statements about this company. Could you give me some examples of what you think sounds like an advertisement? I would be happy to make some edits to address that. I am a little confused by the comment that the submission “should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources”. I have made 6 references to independent, reliable, published sources. Two are from well known national magazines (Business Week and Popular Science), two are from a relatively well known regional newspaper (Minneapolis Star Tribune – it’s not the New York Times, but it is certainly independent and reliable), and two from a regional business magazine (Twin Cities Business Monthly – also independent and reliable). Based on everything that I have read on Wikipedia about notability, this seems to be more than enough to establish it for this company. Please help me understand these two points. Thanks for your help.Clevegd (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks like you've posed the same or similar questions to Excirial and to Ritchie333 and they'd raised the question of using and citing reliable sources. It's not enough to post promotional text which would look suited to a company's own "About Us" page, then add after the fact "oh, by the way, we were mentioned in the local business monthly". The purpose of using sources is that the article should only contain cited information that actually appears in those original sources, so that the company itself is not a source for info where that may create a conflict of interest. The text as it stands now is a mess of "It's new! It's award-winning! Form follows design!" with very little clear information as to whether this is a plastic or metal fabrication shop, a mechanical engineering firm or something entirely different... and no indication of why this one is notable anywhere outside the twin cities. I'd suggest Notability (organizations and companies) as one possible guideline. It's not enough that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which is poorly-sourced or should never have been created. Even if the company were famous for some reason (and I have no idea whether it is, or whether it's noteworthy for inclusion here) any article should be created by someone not connected with the firm. A company advertising itself on Wikipedia only ends up being more WP:SPAM which really does nothing to improve the encyclopaedia. K7L (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for submission: Biometrics use by the SA Government
Hi, thanks for your feedback and comments. We are a group of MBA-students who had to write an article on Wikipedia as an assigment. None of us are employed by government, or are in any way related to government. Could we do the changes required and then submit directly to you for consideration, as our deadline is looming?

Mbagroup1 (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)Mbagroup1


 * A Wikipedia account normally identifies an individual, not a group but it may be best to ask about revisions to your piece at WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk as one can usually get a second opinion on a proposed article relatively quickly there. It's faster than simply resubmitting a page, because WP:AFC is backlogged by at least a week. I'd also advise taking a look at our existing articles on biometrics and countries applying biometrics. It would appear that any information regarding the advantages and disadvantages of the systems, as well as how they are supposed to work, is already in the main page on biometrics as that much doesn't substantially change from one nation to another. That leaves just a paragraph or so for each of the countries applying biometrics in that article, explaining for what applications each country is currently using the systems. It's entirely possible that Biometrics in South Africa as a topic (depending on length and importance) only warrants a section in countries applying biometrics as much of the info on what the systems are and what they do is already in biometrics? K7L (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation/The Children's Museum of the Lowcountry
Hello. I understand that I need to add more references, but I do not understand how my entry is different than other Children's Museum pages on Wikipedia. In fact, I used their pages as guidelines. Speicifically, The Children's Museum of Denver and The Children's Museum of Indianapolis pages have almost identical information. I am not affiliated with The Children's Museum and was simply asked to create the page because they didn't understand the process. If this seems like an advertisement, is there a chance of getting the page approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhitneyHendrickson (talk • contribs) 13:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The topic appears to be perfectly valid. It has been the subject of countless Charleston Post & Courier articles      (among others) and on the WCBD-TV 2 news more than once  . It exists, reliable sources seem to treat it as notable.
 * Unfortunately, most of the sources you list are not neutral observers but are written by the museum itself. Your piece is filled with promotional language like "a firm nationally recognized for its work in the field of museum planning, completed a Strategic Business Plan for CML in September 1998". Nationally recognised? Good for them, but so what? And nationally recognised by whom? There's no cited source for the claim. For that matter, why should the reader care as this is entirely behind the scenes?
 * The proper way to write one of these articles is to approach the topic as if you'd never visited this place. Go online to search through all the newspaper articles, books and broadcast news reports. Get just the facts (without the self-promotional language), cite them to the news reports, include only what's notable to someone who isn't a museum backer, curator or staff member and write an objective, factual summary of the reliably-sourced information paraphrased in a format and tone that does not look like an advertisement for the museum. This isn't a suitable venue to heap praise on the museum or on anyone working behind the scenes with the museum... just the facts, cited and attributed, will do just fine.
 * You may want to ask at WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk as that's the quickest way to get an answer to "why was my article not accepted?". You have a valid topic which has received extensive news coverage. Write a neutral article, use those sources, cite those sources, lose the promotional and self-congratulatory language. K7L (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited International Gay and Lesbian Aquatics Association, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swimming (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) 12:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've updated this to swimming (sport). K7L (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark Ludwig Stinson
ModernAsatruar (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Hi. I'm not sure what to do about your declining of this article. You stated two basic reasons. 1) That I appeared to be closely related to the subject, and 2) That he is not notable by wiki standards.

Re: 2, I provided links to coverage of him from major news networks both within and without the pagan community (Fox news and Pagan Newswire, and Patheos (one of the largest religion portals on the internet) ), as well as an independent profile of him as an author, and links to his published books. He's been worthy of coverage throughout the pagan community for years now, and with his publicly covered arrest in 2012, I can't really see how one could say he doesn't meet the wikipedia standards of notability.

Re: 1, I am not at all related to the subject, nor have I ever even met him. I've only read about him from various news agencies, mostly within the pagan community, but now from outside of it. I did read his published books, which is the closest connection to him I have besides that both of us are Asatruar.

You mentioned that the article appears to be an advertisement, but i can't see your reasoning here... I specifically mentioned two quite controversial moments. There is probably more text related to controversy about him than to his many accomplishments. Yes, I do think he's done good things, but I presented both the good and the bad together. How is that an advertisement?

If the reasons you gave appeared correct, I would gladly just fix the article and re-submit, but in this case, I'm not sure what to do. Do you have any suggestions? If more coverage is needed to show notability, can you be specific about what additional types or amounts of coverage/references need to be included on this major religious figure to meet any required wiki standards?

Thanks in advance


 * It looks like the only links to reliable sources are to document the alleged misuse of power of attorney. There's nothing to indicate the notability of the books except blog posts and user-supplied content, which are not reliable. The interwiki links to es: gl: it: all point to pages which do not exist. Someone whose accomplishments have only been noted on Facebook, Blogspot or other blogs likely is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. K7L (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Lederer
R.E. Michael Lederer: I have removed the two footnotes that referenced back to other wikipedia articles and replaced them with original sources! Thank you for your help and feedback and let me know if there are any other changes you'd suggest I make.

MJOBerlin (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)MJOBerlin

AFC error
Just wanted to let you know of something with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brow Monument and Brow Monument Trail — all of the NRHP county-level lists were produced by humans; the current format is bot-created, but the bot simply converted what we humans had already put there from Mediawiki code to a template. Nyttend (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reworded this slightly to "are merely importing bulk data from the NRHP database" without mentioning 'bots directly. The end result is the same... if the author cites what appear to be three sources, but all three are just reposting the National Register database, then the outcome is that this is only one unique source (NRIS) reprinted three times. Wikipedia citing itself (or other user-generated content) as a reliable external source is best avoided in any case. K7L (talk) 03:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Martin Shervington
Hi K7L,

Just wanted to drop you a note about your comments to this item at the help desk. I thought it was a little WP:BITEY. I have seen you around recently helping out at AfC and doing good work. Before I reply to anyone, I find it best to look at a user's contributions, how long they have been on the Wiki, and sometimes their User page to see where they might be coming. This gives me a leg-up (psychological edge maybe) in communicating with them. In this case the user has been with the Wiki 5 hours and has worked on the article for 7 minutes. About as virgin as you can get. This is the kind of editor for which IRC help and the Tea House was designed, the idea being that we in AfC don't have to deal with the minutia. I'm just offering you this advice for what it might be worth. Keep up the good work and thanks. --  :- ) Don 17:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've reworded this a bit, but "best-selling" this and "well renowned" that for a biography of someone with a product to sell, with no sources for anything, would likely not be created as an article in its present state were it submitted for WP:AFC review. K7L (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand that, I probably would have bitten also. Don't you just love spam. --  :- ) Don  00:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In any case, it looks like I've bungled this by *not* catching that the original author was closing &lt;ref&gt; tags with &lt;ref&gt; instead of &lt;/ref&gt;. In article space, that would've given a big red error message but in WP:AFC space no one can hear you scream. Everything after the un-closed tag simply does not display, so no references and no submit template. K7L (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are very hard to find or notice sometimes. I don't think they show in Main space either. The article just seems to disappear.  Someone was thinking about making a script to check that, maybe Mabdul. But everyone is so busy right now. --  :- ) Don  01:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stack light, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Eaton and Idec (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) 12:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Nathan2055talk - contribs 23:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 :- ) Don 00:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Geet (song)
Thanks for accepting this article and making it presentable.Regards.Soni Ruchi (talk) 07:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Brow monument update
Thank you for that edit. i learn something new and important every dayAbearfellow (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Guidance
K7L, Thank you for your advice on my writing of the third eye. Could you tell me if the metaphysical region can be possibly written of because of it's limited scientific nature and could you show by any example/s already written of in Wikipedia. You kind help would be most appreciated. Glent9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glent9 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * An article on third eye already exists. That page is written in the third person with a neutral point of view and names sources for any claims it attributes to the various religious groups. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Third Eye, on the other hand, is written to express the opinion of the author ("I think that..." or "I feel that...") and cites no sources at all, an approach which might suit a letter to the editor or opinion piece but not an objective encyclopaedia article. The topic itself is likely valid but third eye already exists as a page. K7L (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

HKAGE Page
Hello!

Thank you for your comment.

HKAGE is a non-profit organisation supporting gifted students, their teachers and parents in Hong Kong, targeting around 150,000 people (top 2% of students and people who work with them). I think it is important enough for an entry.

All the information in the article is factual and well-documneted by linking to newspapers and official government papers of Hong Kong. So, I don't understand why the source is not reliable and the nature is promotional.

Could you show me an example of how to rewrite, using the content in the article, so that it will be accepted by you or other adminstrators? I'm a bit confused with the standard of "advertising articles". As I checked out different sites, they have listed many products or quoted from their own websites, but those websites are not deleted. Please see below examples-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sony_Ericsson_products

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Bird_Watching_Society

I'm looking forward to your reply. Thank you.

Annahui (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm not an administrator but I am concerned that you are merely repeatedly re-creating the same page which was deleted three times by two different administrators as unambiguous advertising. The original logs indicate:


 * 22:49, 25 June 2012 Smartse (talk | contribs) deleted page The Hong Kong Academy for Gifted Education (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (TW))
 * 17:11, 6 June 2012 Smartse (talk | contribs) deleted page The Hong Kong Academy for Gifted Education (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (CSDH))
 * 14:06, 4 May 2012 Jac16888 (talk | contribs) deleted page The Hong Kong Academy for Gifted Education (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
 * The page title The Hong Kong Academy for Gifted Education has been locked against further attempts to re-create the page. Only an administrator can change this. WP:AFC and WP:AFC/R editors are typically not administrators as these exist only as a help desk to permit new, unregistered users to create pages without needing to obtain a Wikipedia account. The deletions do not necessarily mean that no article can exist on that topic (that's determined by notability; most large universities qualify, most elementary schools do not, see WP:WikiProject Education) but it is not advisable to re-create the same content which was previously deleted. If you are unsure on this point, it may be best to contact one of the administrators, perhaps either of the admins that deleted the original page? K7L (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi K7L , Thank you for your advice. I have sent a message to Smartse and will send to another administrator to clarify questions of the article.

For the time being, could the article be kept at his moment because we are still find the way to improve the article. Or I should raise this question to administrators?

Thank youAnnahui (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are not articles
Perhaps you should review WP:DISAMBIGUATION. The request is for WP:DPAGES for variant spellings combined into a single dab page (point: Variant forms of names. For example, Fred Smith also includes persons named Frederick Smith.). And dab pages are not articles, there is no replication in article content. Indeed, there is not supposed to be any article content on a disambiguation page at all. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason why this shouldn't be a redirect Indian rez &rarr; Indian reservation? I see no evidence of use of the "Indian res" or "Indian rez" terms to refer to anything other than an Indian reservation (or something in the WP:HATNOTE on that target page). To presume that someone looking for an "Indian rez" (a colloquialism) actually wants to know about tiger reserves of India is a bit of a stretch.
 * If everything on the list were a likely target, then create this at Indian reservation (disambiguation) and use other uses to link there from the WP:HATNOTE on Indian reservation. K7L (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why it should redirect to Indian reservation except US bias. Indian reserve is just as likely, and therefore a disambiguation page would be created. As for why choose "Indian rez" over "Indian reservation (disambiguation)", again, that would be US-bias. It's better for the shorter Indian reserve (disambiguation), but if we use one that is found in both US and Canadian English, we get Indian rez, which is why I mentioned WP:ENGVAR issues in the first place. And per WP:DPAGES variant spellings can be accumulated in one disambiguation page, so both spellings can be accumulated under a neutral spelling. Since in India, "reservation" and "reserve" are both use, I chose "rez" as a neutral accumulation point. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The disambiguation already exists at Native Reserve. Perhaps your proposed title should redirect there? K7L (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, redirecting Indian res and Indian rez to that dab page should work -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Geoduck aquaculture new article
Hello K7L. I have been working on this new article a fair bit yesterday and today, and I just felt that even though yes, it needed work, I wondered why it did not get a higher rating than just "Start" when it was brand new? Of course I did not see it when you first saw it. Maybe it was much rougher then, but now as a representative of the bivalve project, I have given it a B rating. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The version reviewed for WP:AFC was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geoduck_aquaculture&oldid=511010753 which has no illustrations at all, so might not have been B-class at the time. There have been some subsequent changes to the page. I have no previous familiarity with the subject matter; I tagged this as WP:Bivalves because geoduck had that and WP:Fisheries but did not attempt to evaluate the page for either WikiProject. Feel free to change any ratings which are no longer valid. K7L (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Even in its rough state I would have considered it to be higher than start class, but that doesn't matter now. Thanks for your hard work, and thanks for tagging it with the bivalve project template. Invertzoo (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Victim mentality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trait (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) 11:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Singh Rashmi
Well, I am not connected to the author in any ways. She only belongs to my state and I thought she deserves it here as she has given 4 books. And all books are doing well. Next, if you feel any part not neutral, please remove this. If you have to believe, then believe how she has made it.117.225.89.236 (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Rrashmissingh (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there I too have inserted some imp citations and made the article very short, in fact cleaned up and there are no more peacock terms. The article now is cleaned, curtailed, crisp, formal and short-to the point. Pls see. Ananyaprasad (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Rashmi Singh is a very widely known author in India, so you have to understand that someone has made this mistake by making an id on her name or whatever- I don't think an author of her stature would ever indulge in such game. Morover, I am notiving that user Rrashmissingh is saying that she wasn't aware of the procedures and she made some mistakes, so she left everything midway. I would request you to kindly remove your allegations that it was the author herself as it would be not taken in good light by her readers. Next her readers are not on Wiki- she I guess her own fans. So kindly I request not to blame nad remove whatever you have written about her. If any user is doing so and is stubborn- why blame the author? Ananyaprasad (talk) 07:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 19:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Rashmi Singh (author)
Rashmi Singh is a very widely read and well known author in India, so you have to understand that someone has made this mistake by making an id on her name or whatever- I don't think an author of her stature would ever indulge in such game. Moreover, I am noticing that user Rrashmissingh is saying that she wasn't aware of the procedures and she made some mistakes, so she left everything midway. I would request you to kindly remove your allegations that it was the author herself as it would be not taken in good light by her readers. Next her readers are not on Wiki- she I guess has her own fans. So kindly I request you not to blame and remove whatever you have written about her. If any user is doing so and is stubborn- why blame the author? Ananyaprasad (talk) 07:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC) I have surfed and I have found that everywhere you are mentioning that author Rashmi Singh is promoting herself- this is not good. We all read her books true. Please do not blame her so on Wiki if use Rrashmissingh has been stubborn. Though now I see she is not around anymore. If the sources are good enough keep the article and not then its up to you! Ananyaprasad (talk) 07:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Bare URLs
Hello, K7L. Thank you for adding a source on the history of CQD and SOS at Backronym (and I hope you'll forgive me for not adding over-bars). You added the source by including the URL for the web article within ref tags. That works, but such bare URLs are subject to WP:Link rot if the URL changes or the page is taken off the web. It is helpful to add information about the source such as the title and author's name so that other editors can track down the source if that happens. There are various Citation templates you can use to help. I've filled in some details on this page using Cite web. Thanks again, and happy editing. Cnilep (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, CQD never had the overbar... it was transmitted as three separate Morse code characters. SOS is sent as one character (a prosign), much like control characters in computing are single symbols with some specific meaning (like the or ). K7L (talk) 03:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Odyssey Re, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican Party (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) 16:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tuppil Venkatacharya
I submitted an article on my father, Tuppil Venkatacharya in late August 2012, and it was declined due to a lack of citations. I have not added citations, and would request it to be reviewed again for inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hariven (talk • contribs) 14:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks like this has been re-submitted and is awaiting review, but there are a couple of changes which must be made:
 * As this is a biography of a living person, it needs inline citations for all key facts
 * The text of your article is duplicated four times on the same page. It is unclear which copy is the current version. Please remove the duplicates. K7L (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The True American Dream
Dear Sir/ Madam,

With regards to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The True American Dream, please, would you consider approving my article? Below are the reasons, along with the proofs. Actually, this is already part of the Problem, under point 6, and under "The Problem" of my article, that there are too many American Dream principles/ concepts in existence, written by prominent authors and leaders, for the past 200 years, but none of them defines the concept clearly, none of them shows step-by-step concepts (on how to do those concepts), and certainly, none of them is based on the ultimate concept of True Love.

1. Some authors know that the real American Dream is about"Our challenge is to create an America that lives up to the principles and ideals of our Founding Fathers." as written here http://www.todaysamericandream.com/, but NOWHERE in that website is written of HOW the concept is done.

Now, let's look at this approved article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Dream "The idea of the American Dream is rooted in the United States DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE which proclaims that "all men are created equal" and that they are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights" including "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." First of all, that writing never really defines what the concept is all about (very vague and not clear). Secondly, where is in that article and in the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, that shows the step-by-step instructions on how to do the American Dream concept? I know that article was written under encyclopedic format, but what is the conclusion that the readers can draw, after they finish reading that article? Can they answer this: what is the American Dream concept, and what can they do to make them happier and more complete, by practicing that concept? What are the benefits of reading that article? How inspiring and educational is that article?

http://www.amazon.com/Sonia-Sotomayor-True-American-Dream/dp/0425234835. Where is in this book where the concept of The True American Dream is clearly defined, and where are "the step-by-step" instructions on how to do this concept, like the way written in my article?

And you will see the same thing happening in the following websites, that all of those websites/ books (articles) never really define what the concepts truly are (never in a tangible concept form), and they don't really show the step-by-step instructions on how to do the concepts:


 * A. http://mytrueamericandream.com/


 * B. On here http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/jesus_the_true_american_dream.html, the author is kind of know what his concept is "to be like Jesus"; he is in the right direction, but that article is more or less about a discussion. The concept is never clearly defined, and there is no "how the concept is done" written in that article. What is the purpose of that article? What is the benefit of reading that article? Just for knowledge? Or the author intends to dedicate his life, to help people understand his concept, so people will be happier and more complete? To be like Jesus is such a broad concept.


 * C. http://72.5.117.181/economica/stories/viewStory?storyid=3667


 * D. https://my.barackobama.com/page/group/ThetrueAmericanDream


 * E. http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/may/01/the-true-american-dream-5259/?partner=RSS

And many more.

The conclusion? THIS IS A FACT: There is NO American Dream, or NO True American Dream articles, or books, in history, whose concepts are based on the ultimate concept of True Love, and whose concepts are written on a step-by-step format like the way written in my article.

2. Now, my article might appear to be promotional to you. But, please consider this. This is a fact, that almost all of Wikipedia articles have promotional values. For example, all those Wikipedia articles about Actors, Directors, Producers. How? Because those articles talk about who they are, what they have accomplished (selling themselves); all have a hidden purpose: the opportunity for more fame and more projects in the future (for money). So why were those articles be allowed to be published? The difference between those articles and mine? Mine is not asking money from people. We are a non-profit organization. We intend to help people for the confusions caused by the authors and media about American Dream and love. The DEFINITION of PROMOTIONAL is this: when there is an opportunity/ hope for financial benefits (rewards) for the author of an article or for the person/ company that the article writes about. We, the Foundation (The True American Dream Foundation) and the Founder, expect no financial benefits from our readers. We give benefits to people.

My article needs to be written in that format (the way I have written now), because that concept:The True American Dream, is an invention and unprecedented. I need to include the writer/ founder. So if your policy:"Encyclopedia articles should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources", so how can I get those? If you don't believe me, please do your own research. There are no American Dream concepts/ articles/ books in the market and in history that are based on the ultimate concept of True Love. In fact, there is no True Love concept written in history that covers 10 ideal principles (true concepts) like the way tangibly written in my article. Even the BIBLE was not written that way. Even the bible does not tell/ explain specifically what True Love concept really means. The bible does not summarize True Love in a tangible and definitive concept, and it doesn't even explain/ tell whether True Love is an integrated concept that covers all the other 10 ideal principles (true concepts).

To check if there is another True Love out there, that is defined like the way it was in my article, please type this in the Google: "True Love, and (its components/ Ideal Principles/ True Concepts) True Happiness, True Purpose of Life, True Leadership, True Marriage, True Parenting, True Relationship, True Romanticism, True Faith in God, True Friendship, Kingdom of Heaven", I can assure you, there is no True Love concept in history that integrated its 10 True Concepts (Ideal Principles). So if there is none other, there is no way I can include references from other books/ authors/ websites, because my article/ concept (The True American Dream and True Love) is unprecedented.

3. Regarding my username, I have put my signature of my username as Sebastian, did this not solve the username or conflict of interest issue?

Thank you so much for your kind consideration. God bless you and all your family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetrueamericandream (talk • contribs) 20:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Asia television navigational boxes
Category:Asia television navigational boxes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:North America television navigational boxes
Category:North America television navigational boxes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Undid Afd closure for Rashmi Singh
and, in the process, your deletion-review request became moot. Churn and change (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Novell v. Reimerdes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PPP (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) 11:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Giddy House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dock (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) 12:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cyrus Avery, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Baccalaureate and KOTV (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) 11:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 867-5309/Jenny (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WLS


 * Erick, Oklahoma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Grapes of Wrath

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hatnotes
Hello, K7L and happy new year.

I saw your edit in Wikipedia:Official names and I think it is very important that you learn how to do it correctly: Like this.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That reads ""WP:OFFICIAL" redirects here. For for guideline on links to "official websites", see WP:ELOFFICIAL." Likely not what you intended. Are you certain this change isn't merely making things worse? K7L (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. Well, that teaches me not to copy and paste other people's text. I am removing the additional "for". Feel free to customize the text; no problem there. Just stick to Redirect template and everything else should be fine. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Adam Kluger picture.png
You tagged this for speedy deletion. I moved this information to the "possibly unfree files" discussion. The uploader claims that evidence of permission has been sent to OTRS. If the e-mail contains sufficient permission and information, then the image can be kept. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Only one problem... a TinEye search is claiming this to be a cropped version of an image from a BusinessWeek article, image http://images.businessweek.com/mz/10/50/600/1050_mz_86kluger.jpg and original article http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_50/b4207086663830.htm K7L (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013
Your recent editing history at Uncyclopedia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Legoktm (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd already asked for a WP:3rd opinion regarding that page (and stopped editing) specifically because it looked to be headed toward 3RR with the repeated insertions of Wikia's Alexa rank in place of Uncyclopedia's... see Talk:Uncyclopedia. Not much more I can do at this point. K7L (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I apologize then! I just re-looked at the timestamps and thought you had reverted after your talk page notice, which was incorrect. Thank you for asking for a 3rd opinion as well. Feel free to delete the warning as it was incorrect. Once again, sorry about this :( Legoktm (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Adam Kluger picture.png
Restored per request of the OTRS agent handling its permission ticket. Permission by the rights owner were given via email to OTRS. KTC (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Sister project links
Hi K7L, thanks again for helping out on Wikiquote. I created a new version of the template, see here, which seems to work. Could you foresee if this template is going to be stable or not? -- Mdd (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment
Hey K7L; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

AC/DC (electricity)
Good luck with that article, which really needs a lot of work. I recommend suggesting it as one of the WP:TAFI articles (as someone said, what, we have been showcasing our best articles on the main page and now you are suggesting showcasing our worst)?

On another note, though, I would recommend eliminating the ad hominem comments such as "Comment: The adjectives go before the noun in English. Perhaps another language Wikipedia would better serve your ends?" Article talk pages are solely for discussing the article, and that sort of remark, while it does not belong anywhere, belongs on the editors user talk page if anywhere. See WP:FOC. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Please cease and desist with your harassing posts on my talk page. - First warning
I find your constant personal opinion posts on my talk page just harassment and I want you to cease and desist posting here.

This is your first warning.

Thank you.

174.118.142.187 (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You are in no position to be "warning" anyone. The expectation is that user disputes are taken to user talk pages first, instead of engaging in the conduct in which you excel - starting revert wars that stop just short of WP:3RR and then filing frivolous WP:AN/3RR complaints, harassing users who attempt to change an article you WP:OWN so that they will leave (either leave the topic or leave Wikipedia) so that you may pass your preferred version off as "consensus" after they're gone, dragging content disputes into WP:AN/I in an attempt to intimidate other users into thinking they risk being banned from editing for disagreeing with you, venue-shopping those disputes into other administrative forums (such as WP:SPI) when they're summarily dismissed and blindly citing WP:POINT/WP:DROPTHESTICK while blatantly ignoring both (for instance, linking them in edit summaries while you carry on your revert wars). As most of the pages you've edited are on relatively obscure topics (such as individual bits of electrical equipment) and are on relatively few watchlists, your conduct has slipped under the radar for the last several months. That does not mean that replacing someone else's text with your own POV should be passed off as "correcting" the article or that your harassment of other users should be euphemised as you "warning" them about anything. You have removed repeated warnings from multiple users from your talk page, but rest assured that everything is available in your edit history and in the history of the affected page(s). If you continue to file frivolous and vexatious complaints while refusing to discuss your conduct on your talk page, this will only draw more attention to what you've done - not less - and not in a favourable manner. Some of us have seen the pattern of the longtime user who has made some valid contributions in the past but has lapsed into trying to WP:OWN articles and starts biting new users. That often goes on just long enough to create a fair amount of damage before a stop is put to it as process favours giving the benefit of the doubt - but eventually it does come to an end. Attempting to chase off anyone who disagrees with you is not going to build either a true consensus on anything nor an encyclopaedia. You're doing more harm than good. K7L (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Local access and transport area, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beebe Plain (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) 11:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

AC/DC (electricity)
The expression of preferences for which of the two proposed titles to adopt is fairly close. It would be helpful if you could indicate on the article talk page which of the two proposals would be your preference. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mathematical joke, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ternary and Reactance (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) 11:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Modular connector, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AMPS (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) 11:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lac-Mégantic derailment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Class I (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) 11:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ONroute, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Service station (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) 11:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join WP:ONRD / WP:CRWP
Hey there,

After seeing you post that big chunk of table to Ontario Highway 2, I figured it was mandatory that I extend a gratuitous invitation to join the Ontario and Canadian Roads Wikiprojects at WP:ONRD and WP:CRWP. Cheers,  Floydian  τ ¢  12:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Rylands v Fletcher
Hey K7L :). Thanks for your contributions to Rylands v Fletcher; would you be able to provide a reference for the most recent addition (the Court of Appeal statement)? Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The court of appeal decision is (C52491; 2011 ONCA 628) Smith v. Inco Ltd. K7L (talk)

Wikitravel Link
On Wikivoyage/Summit Alexander has suggested me to contact you to get some help on finding the wikitravel links on it:w and on how to substitute them (hopefully automatically) with the relevant ones in it:voy.

In case the it:voy doesn't exist I just need to know in order to create it. (please leave me an answer on my it:voy talk page). Thanks, -- Andyrom75 (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Replied on it:voy. K7L (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

your 'municipal reaction' section edit on lac-megantic derailment
Hi K7L... I once was resident at 3N6 ;) I think

I am concerned that your edit, in which you added 'Municipal Reaction' to the Political Impact section of the Lac-Megantic Derailment wiki, downgrades the impact of the grassroots. Can you suggest an alternative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.53.80 (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * That code looks familiar from somewhere...Queen's University? In any case, the political impact was getting lengthy, so I was looking for a way to split this into subsections (Canada federal, Québec, Municipal, US and Maine...) but it looks like the federal section is a mess - quite long, and I'm not sure what is "political impact" vs. "regulatory impact" as much of this documents a long history of federal refusal to fix lax regulation of rail safety. Most likely the federal politics (excluding any actual regulation created because of the derailment, which is "regulatory impact") will need to be its own subsection so that it's not crowding out the concerns of municipalities and mayors clear out to Calgary (which had a train dangling from a damaged bridge during a recent flood, so is raising the same questions). Split this up some other way if you like... it's just getting rather long.
 * I've split the lengthy "Canadian federal impact" as a subsection and moved it to the end of the section, after the municipal, Québec and Maine local reaction. K7L (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Queen's ghetto, yes

thanks for the considered response here.

i've replied to your toronto star question on my page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.53.80 (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

i've now responded to your toronto star question with a question of my own — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.53.80 (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful feedback - quick question before we re-submit
Hello,

We are working towards something similar to this entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAXI_(advertising_agency)

I'm wondering if you can specify for me what it is that they did differently from us to help us ensure our next round of edits is not rejected again?

Thanks in advance for any help you can provide.

Sarah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepseyedi (talk • contribs) 15:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * That entry likely shouldn't be here as it is very one-sided and promotional in tone and not neutral - it's slanted toward minor but laudatory claims promoting the agency while containing no complaints or criticisms. That sort of content risks nomination for deletion as spam. There's also the question of notability; Wikipedia is not a telephone directory. Most of these companies are simply not newsworthy (one possible exception being Groupaction's role in a sponsorship scandal which all but destroyed the Liberal Party of Canada, but many ad agencies in that scandal have no article here).
 * I'd suggest looking at Notability (organizations and companies). Not every company which merits a Scott's, Frasers or Thomas Register listing is important or notable enough for an encyclopaedia article. More importantly, editors writing about themselves or their own companies are problematic - especially when dealing with advertising or product placement firms. Wikipedia is not a venue for self-promotion, so it's best to wait for something to obtain significant coverage in independent, reliable sources and be written as an article by someone with no ties to the agency and nothing to sell. K7L (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Uncited material
Hello. I saw your changes at Mathematical joke. You may not be aware, but that material's verifiability has been challenged, so its restoration needs to be supplemented with inline citations to reliable sources, per WP:V. I've opened up a discussion on the talk page if you want to discuss further. — Bdb484 (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am aware that you blanked three-quarters of the article. To me, this appears to be vandalism. Please do not do this again. K7L (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I get that seeing something disappear from a page you like might feel like vandalism to you, but that's not really what the word means. If you want to brush up on what constitutes legitimate and illegitimate blanking, you can read more here.
 * Anyway, it looks like you're making some good progress on sourcing the article out, so I'm happy to wait a while before pulling anything else down. — Bdb484 (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Bullying
Hi K7L, thanks for your good comments at WP:BULLY I'm interested in working on that essay and I've left some comments there. I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say. Also, I just published my own essay WP:POV RAILROAD which is a form of POV bullying and would appreciate your input and help in improving it if you have any time.Thanks!-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 15:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mathematical joke, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Adder (snake), Scalar and Vector (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) 11:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Faro, North Carolina
Many thanks for expanding the Faro, North Carolina article. When I saw the article about the bombs landing near Faro, North Carolina, I knew an article about Faro, North Carolina was needed. Again-many thanks-RFD (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Trout
For nominating a new user's user page for deletion just two days after they joined. This is not an acceptable way to treat new users. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request
Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Canvassing. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment
As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

xLinkBot no longer running at all
Hello K7L, you may remember me from the xLinkBot talkpage -- I'm the person that suggested the blacklist be publically editable. :-) We may not agree on everything, but that is neither here nor there.  Although we were acting in good faith trying to convince Dirk the bot was bitey, apparently we went too far.  As of October 10th xLinkBot has been shut off entirely, and Dirk's userpage says Status=Wikibreak (mentioning something about arbcom along the way).  I've been patiently waiting for xLinkBot to make more mistakes this past week... so I could try and correct them with diplomacy, as well as document to Dirk that xLinkBot *does* make mistakes.  But my goal was never to get the bot turned off entirely.  It was reverting about 100 external link submissions per day, and a large percentage of them were *good* reverts, even if done in a somewhat-bitey manner.  Do you have a suggestion about what ought be done? Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My guess is that this has nothing to do with the WP:BITE questions; the outage is unrelated, temporary and unintentional. It'll be back and biting tasty n00bs sooner or later. K7L (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well... eight *days* of outage? That's probably 25 instances of WP:BITE by my rough calculations, but over 800 *correct* blocks of WP:EL spam.  Who do I complain to about bot problems, if not to Dirk the botmaster?  I hesitate to bring it up to him, partly because I would rather urge him in the direction of positive improvements to it, rather than use up whatever limited conversational capital I have left with him, but mostly because he says explicitly he's on wikibreak, and nobody likes to interrupt their vacation.  I'll try to find some random admin, maybe... I already ahe a random admin on the hook to help me with some kind of filter-block that is preventing me adding myself to a member-list (open but filter-blocked sigh) over on mediawiki.  Anyhoo, thanks.  Do not lose hope, we'll get the biting thing worked out sooner or later.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * p.s. Turns out that xLinkBot is officially owned by VersaGeek, but the perl program is by Dirk.  I left the former a note.  User_talk:Versageek   See you around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Versageek has neither replied to my note, nor turned xLinkBot back on, which means it has been down for two full weeks. Arrgh.  In other news, I have a proposal to improve the error-messages for the Antivandalism-bot of AbuseFilter (actually just a regex ruleset rather than 'technically' a bot), if you have any interest in that kind of WP:BITE.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)