User talk:Missvain/Archive 25

Martin Lee Stephenson
Hello Sarah, You recenty declined a submission of mine regarding sound artist Martin Lee Stephenson, a notable artist in his electronica field with the article containing many references. As far as you've said, "Allmusic and wiki references are not reliable references", however, on the "golden rule" guide regarding notable artists it is given that sites such as allmusic are a good source for information. I have since taken discography references out of the article, including allmusic, wilipedia {!} etc, but I am wondering the logic of this. Frustrating for me, as I've spent a fair bit of time researching the artist, but it seems that the guidelines for reference submitting regarding discography as "proof" lacks clarity. regards Janey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Songsurfer23 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Janey. Allmusic is a tricky subject - I have seen subjects that use Allmusic as a guideline for notability kept and deleted. Allmusic has rarely been used as a singular source for defining notability, but, perhaps there are other cases where it has been. I'm taking a look online at sources for Stephenson. So far, I have came across: Discogs.org, Soundcloud, Myspace, Last.fm, MTV (which isn't reliable because it's an entry about his music with information provided by the subject or his management), Allmusic (and that page, with the discography information is also unreliable, as it's content provided by the source) and similar sites. Basically, I can't find any reliable sources that talk about Stephenson in an expansive - it's either content provided by the source, or mere mentions about Stephenson's involvement with the band Spooncurve. I even looked on Highbeam and didn't find anything. So for me, he isn't notable, based on my research experiences. But, perhaps there is something missing. You're welcome to stop by Teahouse for additional help or insight, too! Good luck, and I do hope you'll consider expanding content on other artists that we desperately need help with. SarahStierch (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Sarah. Music artists are referenced throughout wikipedia using allmusic, so I don't seen how this artist should be any different. Actually, according to wikipedia itself, it is a good source, so I think you may have made a mistake with this. If you check the references on the article it also lists magazines, billboard, idmb, NME,Musicbrainzz, various websites from established recording companies, and others. The original article also used allmusic and wikipedia itself, but now deleted after your comment. According to guidelines given by wikipedia, the artist meets at least two and probably many more of the criteria. I'm rather confused as to why you believe that the allmusic reference was a single source, when over 30 references were used, and some link to hollywood films and soundtracks that have charted in at least two Countries {US and UK}, and tracks that have had substantial air play..As a producer it is also clear that he has worked within genres that have held him in high esteem, and produced notable musicians. I would like to offer more work to wikipedia, and I'm willing to learn as I go, and as a minor engineer myself have been looking at various artists I admire to write pieces on {I have made some minor edits to various articles in the past}, but after a first attempt is met with negativity it feels a little disheartening to work on a piece if the referencing guidelines are not clear. I will admit that the article may need expanding, but I thought I would at least get the article up first. However, thanks for the time getting back to me. Janey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Songsurfer23 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Janey, well, as Wikipedia says: Ignore all rules.  :) Feel free to improve and resubmit the article, perhaps someone else will feel that it passes the guidelines! SarahStierch (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Songsurfer23 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

References vs. External Links
Recently you declined Julie Dermanksy's page submission from me. About half the references and external links were to outside sources (not her writings & photographs), such as other websites, universities, cities, publications. My question: can I just include the outside sources in references (and Julie's work in external links)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aka99ma (talk • contribs) 20:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there. All sources about subjects need to be reliable sources (click that link to learn more). Reliable sources are basically sources that have nothing to do with the subject - news articles, media coverage, interviews - from notable reliable publications (not blogs, or little small time student publications). Websites related to the subject are also discouraged and can and will be removed (meaning the information in the article about that subject will be removed, too, if cited from that source) - so, if it's her university or publications made by her company, etc, then they are not reliable. I hope that helps. Feel free to stop by the Teahouse for additional help. SarahStierch (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ack, and re: external links. External links are links, not references. So, please replace the unreliable references with reliable sources/links. The external link section is a non imperative part of the encyclopedic article - it's a special perk, so to say - that allows for at least one link to the subjects official website. I hope that helps! SarahStierch (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Colette Mourey Wikipedia Page
Good day

A few days ago you declined the article I created regarding Colette Mourey due to references and meeting the guidelines for music related subjects.

With all due respect, I would like to point you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Keelan which has been published and is public and has even less references and information than what I did for Colette Mourey. I would like to also point out that at least one of the references for Hugh Keelan is similar to the reference I provided for Colette Mourey (i.e. Price Rubin).

I would like to request for you to reconsider and approve the article I wrote regarding Colette Mourey.

If you have any questions and/or concerns, please do not hesitate to email me at aa@pricerubin.com

Thank you very much

Avguste Antonov Price Rubin Webmaster http://pricerubin.com aa@pricerubin.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avguste (talk • contribs) 20:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I went ahead and tagged the Hugh Keelan article with the necessary clean up tags. His article has no reliable sources and that's highly frowned upon in Wikipedia. Just so you know, editing on behalf of your clients and writing articles for them is a conflict of interest and something that is highly frowned upon at Wikipedia. As we say: if your subjects or clients are notable enough, they'll be written about. So I'd refrain from writing articles about your clients, especially using promotional or unreliable sources, and let the articles just appear as they often do :) Thanks. SarahStierch (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Coco Johnsen
Hi Sarah. My name is Stephen Butler and I created the Coco Johnsen page, not Coco herself. Yet it is about her and being fairly new to the complicated workings of Wikipedia, I ask you, what does it take to actually get a page reviewed, approved and live?

Thanks you

Stephen

PS I can be reached at info@coquisolutions.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocojohnsen (talk • contribs) 23:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Stephen. I'm not sure if you are associated with Coco, but, it's conflict of interest to write Wikipedia articles about a subject you represent, work for, or are really close with. So please keep that in mind. You did submit the article, which is good, but obviously there were problems about it - did you take a look at the reason why it was declined? Wikipedia follows notability guidelines, and perhaps Coco isn't ready for a Wikipedia article based on those guidelines. You can always request an article, here. If Coco Johnsen is notable enough, she will most likely have an article made about her eventually. Hope this helps. You can also stop by the Teahouse for further assistance! SarahStierch (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

copyvio question
Sarah, I didn't find an exact source for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SANGFOR Technologies. The product information seems to be similar to various parts of the web site, but I cannot find an exact equivalent, & it would be difficult to write a section like that without some similarities. And even if it is there & I missed it, I don't see a source for the first two descriptive paragraphs about the company, and the article could be reduced to that, and might in any case be the better for it. If you've done it better than I & found the source(s), of course, just renominate it with some specifics.  DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey there! I simply googled "Transmission optimization - Refine transmission environment Data reduction - Improve bandwidth throughput Application proxy - Application-specific acceleration" and found multiple hits. It could fall into WP:LIMITED, but, i think this is a clear example of where copy and pasting is a fail on Wikipedia. There is no reason to copy and paste content from a company document to promote the company. But, I didn't quite explain that :) SarahStierch (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * of course writing an article by that sort of cut and paste is wrong, and  I would never accept an article with anyc copyvio content. And, with or without that section, the article is in no condition to be accepted. But  CSD is only if there is no non-copyvio content. The simplest thing to do is to remove the section,either yourself or tell them to do it. (In mainspace I'd use WP:Copyright Problems if I didn't want to fix it myself. But they are so far behind I don't want to burden them with AfC.  CSD G12 is only if there is no non-copyvio content, with the copyvio either from a discrete single source or hopelessly interwoven in the entire article.
 * The same problem with Lumber Liquidators You correctly found that all the descriptions of the various types of flooring were taken from an outside source. But they would be promotional in any case. Since its a NYSE firm and notable, and the cuts were very easy, I just made them and accepted it--it's easier sometimes than explaining to the ed what to do.   DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Submission Troubles
Sarah, thank you for reviewing my first article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Alex_Smith_(entrepreneur))! I'm a bit concerned though as I've worked diligently gathering almost 40 sources. More than half of the citations follow the golden rule. A similar figure's page compelled me to draft this article on the person who actually created the project and organizations around the project (#HipHop4thecity). The similar figure is listed on wikipedia and with less citations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyzzy_Nyce)? What can I do to make my first submission a success? Liilbuck (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fern Kupfer
Hello, SarahStierch. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Fern Kupfer, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) edit the page
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Skrelk (talk) 09:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've removed the PROD and expanded the article. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

CONTRADICTION
Why are all the reviewers contradicting themselves? One time you say that the article needs more references and at other times you say that is not the problem! This article is a hundred times better than thousands of articles on Wikipedia and they are all still up. what is the problem?!

Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: The reason this Afc was declined was not because of lack of sources, but because of the tone of the article. There are many peacock terms in the article, which show off the subject of the article. Encyclopedic articles need to be written from a neutral point of view.Rushbugled13 (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Mohamad_Jebara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickelbranderwier (talk • contribs) 19:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Posen Foundation
Hi Sarah, Thanks for your feedback on the site Posen Foundation, on which I've been working for months now. I'm more than surprised to see that since my last submission a new site under the same name with erroneous and out of date information has been submitted and accepted. How does this happen? Is there no oversight on this site? How do I ascertain who was behind this site? I'd appreciate any information and advice how I can proceed? Should I add all the material from the unpublished site of Posen Foundation to the published one? How do underhand practices like this sneak into Wikipedia? Heather Chait (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Heather Chait
 * Hi Heather. It's no secret, I wrote that article. I saw your article was having problems because of the reliable sources, so I decided to just write a short article myself. I used published reliable sources to write that article. See, on Wikipedia, articles are not supposed to use the website's own resources - i.e. the Posen Foundation. So, I had to use press coverage (reliable sources). People who are associated with the organization are not supposed to edit their own articles, this is because of conflict of interest policies we have in place (basically, you can get blocked from Wikipedia for editing your own article). If you would like to submit updated reliable sources, or suggest changes to the article, you're welcome to do so on the talk page of the Posen Foundation article and Wikipedians will validate the sources and update the article accordingly. Thank you! Feel free to stop by the Teahouse for additional help or a third opinion, if you wish! SarahStierch (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, Thanks for your comments. I understand the policy you describe but it does seem counter-intuitive that someone outside the Foundation would know more about it than I do. Maybe you can be more objective, but more knowledgeable, I think not. Anyway, as soon as I have time, I'll suggest changes. Right now, the submission contains at least one typo (university) and overall it really lacks the focus and direction of the recently rebranded Foundation. That's why I'm so disappointed. Heather Chait (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Heather
 * Hi Heather, Wikipedia articles do not have "focus and direction", they tend to be boring, dry, and factual; that is one reason that PR people are asked not to write their own articles. heather walls (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Article on Karen McCrimmon almost completed, Would like to put the picture now...
Hello Sarah,

I dont know if you noticed the article on Karen McCrimmon lately, but it has improved a lot. Would you remove the band, so I could insert the picture and infos to complete the article. The references are a lot more professional, thanks my darling daughter...) She is holding the baby in one hand and writing with the other. She is great.

Thank you all for your support,

Best wishes for the New Year 2013,

Sincerely,

De Medicis--De Medicis (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zack Norman
Hi Sarah, I just received word that you, on behalf of Wikipedia, have rejected my revised and resubmitted article on Zack Norman. Although I thank you for taking the time to review said article, I simply do not understand why it has once again failed to meet your criteria for publication. You say the submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability, which, with all due respect, seems to me simply impossible. The subject, Zack Norman, is notable primarily as an AAmerican Film Actor. He has appeared in dozens of films, including major Hollywood Studio releases. Every role of his that is mmentioned in the article has been clearly referenced and can be easily verified through the Internet Movie Data Base, the motion picture industry's primary source for information verification. Is the Internet Movie Data Base for some reason not an acceptable resource for Wikipedia? Or am I somehow incorrectly inserting the reference footnotes etc.? The article currently contains 35 reference footnotes, all of which I believe meet your criteria for information verification -- are you unable to see and/or acces them? Please let me know, as specifically as possible, as I have spent many, many hours trying to shape the article according to your guidelines and would really love to get it right. Thank you so much.Matzohboy (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sarah -- I just resubmitted the Zack Norman article, this time with the references displayed. Here is the link to the resubmitted version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Zack_Norman&oldid=529507046 Hopefully, this will resolve any issues standing in the way of the article's acceptance. If not, please let me know (in as much explicit detail as possible, as I am clearly a novice here) what I need to do. Thanks so much! Matthew Weiss Matzohboy (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Thank for wanting to contribute to Wikipedia. The article, sadly, doesn't display that Zack Norman passes our notability guidelines based on the sources used. See, Wikipedia needs the majority (i.e. 95%) of the sources to be reliable, meaning that, for example, they come from trustworthy news sources, books, magazines, etc. IMDB, and the other sources you use, are not reliable, because they are either created by members of the public (i.e. like Wikipedia, anyone can edit, or blogs) or are from websites where perhaps the person, like Norman or his manager, provided the materials (i.e. press releaeses, bios), therefore they are not reliable. Basically, if Zack Norman is as notable as you believe and say he is, then there should be plenty of coverage in magazines, newspapers, etc, about him. If you can write an article that meets those guidelines, using those types of sources, and meets our layout guidelines, then the article can be reviewed again, but, right now it still doesn't match our quality and notability standards. Feel free to stop by the Teahouse for further help, they often provide it faster than I do. Thanks! And also, be aware of our conflict of interest policy. If you are associated with Zack Norman, it's against Wikipedia policy for you to write about his article. Thanks again! SarahStierch (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Sarah. Thanks for getting back to me, but I'm afraid you're wrong about IMDB. While it is true that "anyone can edit" the information on their website, numerous trustworthy items need to be submitted for verification before they will add or change anyone's credits, etc. Also, I went and checked the references provided to Wikipedia by actors of Zack Norman's stature whose articles have been accepted by Wikipedia and was surprised to find that many do not provide any sources at all for their credits; the credits are merely listed in a "Filmography" section without any references or footnotes etc, which leads me to believe that if I simply eliminate the sources I previously provided, my article would be accepted as well. Is this true? I understand that you must receive a lot of angry correspondence from people who are frustrated with your conditions for acceptance because, well, for one thing, they're frustrating. They're also confusing, inconsistent and contradictory, which makes it difficult at times not to feel singled out by your editors for unconditional rejection. I realize of course that this is neither the case nor your intention, but the conflict between what you are telling me and the reality of what can be gleaned from thousands of articles already accepted by Wikipedia that offer little or no verification support at all is really quite glaring, and I'm not sure what to make of it. I'm happy to further attempt to conform to your guidelines, but it would be nice to receive from you at least the impression of some sort of assurance that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Surely you understand. Please advise. Thanks so much, Matthew Weiss75.27.241.209 (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sarah! Hope you're well, and sorry about that rather maudlin last missive of mine. I had a quick question: does Wikipedia consider the New York Times website to be a reliable reference source? Because, for example, if you go to http://movies.nytimes.com/person/52994/Zack-Norman/filmography many of Zack Norman's film roles are listed. So could I just cite that url as verification for his accomplishments as an American film character actor? Or would I need to cite a separate url for each role, i.e.: http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/41997/Romancing-the-Stone/cast for his performance in Romanicing the Stone? If you could let me know if this would be acceptable, that would be a huge help, because then I could just replace the reference footnotes where necessary, then redo the layout according to Wiki guidelines, and ... is there something I'm forgetting? There's certainly no conflict of interest, as I am not associated with Mr. Norman in any way. I'm just a writer with an interest in submitting articles to Wikipedia, and chose Zack Norman as my first article subject simply because he's not yet represented there and seems like he should be. I look forward to your response, and Happy New Year! All the best, Matthew WeissMatzohboy (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there. That is a good question, since the New York Times pulls information from another website for those biographies. Would you mind asking at the Teahouse? I think it's best to get another opinion - as i'm not sure :) Happy New Year to you! SarahStierch (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for advice or help
Hello! I would like to ask your help with the page List of massacres in the United States. Some people have raised the point that page could be all one list with a column for state. I was wondering if you had an opinion on that and/or if you had advice of why to combine it all to one list or not. I am asking you for help because of the work you did on California Landmarks by county for the WikiLovesMonuments project. Those lists are really great and I would like to make the list of massacres page equally good. Thanking you for your help. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Great news on this page! A more experienced table editor fixed the whole thing last night!  I'm still adding citations, but it sorts and has all been put in one long table.  Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Infastech.
Hi Sarah

You recently rejected the Infastech page created in Articles for creation citing 'copywrited information' as the reason. I wanted to ask what copy written information you are referring to as the content is my own and or all cited and referenced from news articles publications and the Infastech website which allows use of its content in their website privacy policy. This is the fourth review of the article, which is only my second contribution to wikipedia so I am still learning but no other reviewers have identified copy written information objections.

Please be a specific as possible with any changes so I can avoid any further problems with the article.

Thanks Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danpils (talk • contribs) 02:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Daniel! I know it can be frustrating - I was there once, trust me :) I did a Google search on some of the content in your article. For example, the statement: "How to maximize performance of miniature fasteners during installation with enhanced drive alignment," appears as a title for a press release/content seen here. That page is copyrighted by Assembly Magazine, and it does not allow reuse, and the content on the Infastech website is also copyrighted (you can find the copyright stuff I read here, which clearly states: "All web site designs, text, graphics and the selection and arrangement thereof, are the property of Infastech Intellectual Properties Pte Ltd. and are ©2010 Infastech Intellectual Properties Pte Ltd. All rights reserved.") Please do note, if you do work for the company in any capacity then you have a conflict of interest which is heavily frowned upon in Wikipedia. Wikipedians believe that if something is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, it will eventually get written about - heck, you can even request that your article get written, here. I hope this helps a bit. You are welcome to also stop by the Teahouse for further help, or a third opinion. Folks can generally help there a bit faster than I can sometimes :) SarahStierch (talk) 02:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, thanks for your reply, the content and articles you refer to are all referenced and cited in the references section of Infastech articles for creation, they are available in the public domain and therefore it should be suitable for Wikipedia. I would expect 95% of websites referenced on Wikipedia including infastech.com contain an 'All rights reserved' statement, I found examples on the Nike, Apple and Bloomberg websites all of which have content heavily referenced and featured in articles on Wikipedia. The articles you mention are from a Magazine and were only added because a previous reviewer asked for more external links to reliable content. Also they are only referenced as external links. I'm writing the article because soon Infastech will no longer exist as a standalone business but it's useful to have information in the public domain about where it came from and where it ended up especially given the recent news and investor interest around it's merger with Stanley Black and Decker. I also checked and there are several other Wiki pages that reference articles in assembly magazine including http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package_on_package, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_for_assembly and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect. I'm not trying to be a pain but it seems inconsistent to allow this referencing and links in other articles but not in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danpils (talk • contribs) 04:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Daniel. We created the Articles for Creation project as a way to monitor new article contributions - with over 3 million articles on Wikipedia, it's hard to monitor every single one of them - and a large majority of them are problematic, for reasons like conflict of interest, and more. The articles you included, Package on package and Design for assembly actually don't use Assembly as a citation. They use it as an external link. The Hawthorne effect article actually cites an article written by an Assembly writer. The citation you used for the Infastech article appears to be a press release, or content written for or on behalf of Infastech, not written by a non-associated author. Regardless, it was copy and pasted from the article and that isn't allowed in Wikipedia without a written statement sent to our volunteer customer service department who handles copyright releases.


 * Also, there is a difference between an external link and an inline citation. An external link provides a resource for readers to learn more about the subject outside of Wikipedia. An inline citation uses references, many that are often online, to cite content, from reliable sources. That has to be content created by reliable secondary sources - not people or things associated with the organization. I hope that helps a bit to clarify. SarahStierch (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Help with Articles for Creation
Dear Sarah,

Many thanks for leaving a note for advise. Please can you help / advise where I am going wrong in creating the new article for James Reuben

Articles_for_creation/James_Reuben

Best wishes for 2013

kind regards, Prash.
 * Hi Prash. The reasons myself, and other reviewers cited, were related to the notability of James Reuben. Notability means that the person has made a big enough impact on the world that other people - secondary sources, such as newspapers, magazines, radio programs, scholars - have documented that person - written about them, interviewed them, published about them. And, that coverage has to be more than just a brief mention. Here is a break down of the citations you used - and you did a great job at adding inline citations, but, not all were able to establish notability because:
 * Director Check is a non reliable source that includes content provided or created by the subject or those related to him.
 * Melbury Capital is a company he works for, it's non-reliable.
 * Reuben Foundation is another organization he's involved in, and it's just a photo gallery, it's non-reliable.
 * Reuben Foundation is just a general link to the organization and has no reference value
 * Metrobank is a non-reliable source as it's a company he's involved in and his company bio written by said company (or himself or whatever)
 * Bloomberg only provides one very small mention of him and does not establish notability
 * Financial Reporter does provide one link towards notability - this is a reliable source written by a reporter at the company covering his new title.
 * Uttoxeter Racecourse is a non-reliable source as it is just a press release written by a company he's involved with.
 * City AM is just a mere mention about a change in his work. It does not establish notability
 * To summarize, you'd need to have a few more sources like the Bloomberg source to establish notability for James Reuben. I hope this helps! Feel free to visit the Teahouse, a space I co-created on Wikipedia to specifically help new editors like yourself! You can often get faster help there. Thank you for wanting to improve Wikipedia. SarahStierch (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Also Prash - please don't forget to "sign" your Wikipedia talk page posts. After you are done writing what you'd like, just type four tildes ( ~ ) to sign your name! Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Review of article on Catherine Hunter (Australian filmmaker)
Hi Sarah

Thanks for reviewing my article on Catherine Hunter. I've adopted your suggestions and removed anything that might be regarded as fluff. It's now as neutral and boring as I can make it! I'd be grateful if you could have another look at it.

Regards

Anselm57 (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Anselm! Great job. I did approve it. Congrats :) I did remove some peacock words and made some minor copy edits, other than that, it's a great start! Thanks for working with us, and for wanting to help improve Wikipedia. I hope you'll consider contributing more :) SarahStierch (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sarah

Many thanks for your help with this. When I do a Search for Catherine Hunter it comes up only with the Canadian poet Catherine Hunter. I fear I'm too much of a novice to go fiddling with disambiguation - don't want to mess anything up. Are you able to help?

Thanks again for your advice and encouragement - I'm certainly looking for other topics to have a crack at.

Regards

Anselm57 (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Psychotronics
Since you approved Psychotronics from Articles for Creation, which I believe you did in good-faith without looking carefully enough at the sources or the article content, and since the author is citing you in support of his article which was nominated for speedy-deletion, you may wish to weigh in on the talk page. GDallimore (Talk) 13:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Totally as a good faith approval. I think I've reviewed 500+ articles in one week :) That's what I get for reviewing a subject I know little to nothing about! :) Glad it's been improved, thank you. SarahStierch (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Munzee
I reworked the article and added citazions. It is now here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Munzee What do you think about it now?

Regards Hanky27 (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I would second Hanky27's request. He has improved the article considerably since you declined it. I have been coaching him on references and so on, and in my opinion the subject DOES have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I just did a partial rewrite on his submission, to make notability clearer and organize the article better. I would urge you to give the article another chance - or possibly to put it in mainspace and then AfD it, so that a community consensus can be developed about its notability. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Great job to you both! Awesome work Hanky, and thank you Melanie for coaching our newest Wikipedia :) SarahStierch (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * p.s. All it needs is catagories! :D SarahStierch (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll get right on that. It has one category (attempted) but it's linked wrong. --MelanieN (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles in Spanish
Hi Sarah! I'm new so for some reason I'm a bit nervous, but I was just wondering, what if I start my collaborations by translating some articles from English to Spanish, since I really don't know where to start, can I do that? How or Where?... Thanks in advance and happy holidays! Ac.orantes (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!
and for letting my VERY FIRST article though. Hooray!!!Now, I'll celebrate with a cigarette.

Arildnordby (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Amirite.com Article
Hi Sarah,

I love some of your pictures on your pages btw:)

I was just messaging you because one user has tried to delete the article you approved and submitted a deletion case.

I've responded to the case in full: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amirite but was wondering if you could be so kind enough to close it,

Look forward to hearing from you,

Best,

Philip — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Philip. Sadly we have to let it go through the seven day deletion discussion process. I'd work to improve the article with more reliable sources and keep your fingers crossed! SarahStierch (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey Sarah - thanks for your quick reply!

ok no problem - I'm new to all of this but would love to be more active on Wikipedia!

Can you send me a link about the 7 day deletion process - will the entry on Amirite be automatically deleted after 7 days?

Best,

Philip (talk —Preceding undated comment added 00:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Philip! I'm glad you want to keep contributing - thanks for not letting this get you down. Here is some information about how deletion discussions are closed. And you can read a bit about how you can contribute to the conversation, here. It will be deleted by an administrator after seven days, if the consensus is deletion. Also, one tip - don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes ( ~ ), it adds your signature and lets users know who made the post :) SarahStierch (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sarah - yes I don't let things get to me that easily lol! I met Jimmy Wales recently and was very inspired - I also agree with Wikipedia's core principles and what you are trying to achieve in these early days of the Internet!

I was wondering if there was any chance you could write your opinion on the deletion case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amirite

Any contribution would be really welcome since I would love for the article on Amirite.com to be accepted - I am an avid Amirite user and they are similar to Wikipedia in a sense since its an encyclopedia of Opinions!

Philip Craddock1 (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sock puppet and COI allegations
Hi Sarah - can you please take a look at what I've posted in the sock puppet case you started against the De Medecis account. I think it would be more fair if you alerted those you accuse in such ways. I only came across the investigation page by accident. I don't appreciate this underhanded approach.

If you also look at the revised Karen McCrimmon page, you'll see a lot of progress. Enough, I believe, to warrant removing the COI banner. I know it isn't against wiki rules for peole close to a subject to start the page. This was the case at first. But it has since been neutralized and many valid sources added, if you care to look them over.

In closing, I don't plan on contributing to wiki again. This has been aa dreadful experience, just seeing the way wiki guardians suspect the worse and generally treat people nastily. I was trying to help make an entry better, but getting accused of illicit activities when my edits basically limit themselves to being a code monkey and proofreader - bah. Never again.

Nathalie J. Caron (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Eden Garden Boarding School
why the page Eden Garden Boarding School is propoed for deletion. Isn't it about a school? For now I am removing the template. i know the page has many blank topics. it is beacuse I have not got the correct info till today. But I have asked it to my principal. if the page is not improved till 31 december 2012 then only please do the action. otherwise it must be remained. -KrozanDarshan (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there, Krozan. Sadly, being a school does not merit inclusion into Wikipedia. The school must prove notability - and to do this, it has to use reliable sources. Your article has no sources, and thus proves no notability for the school. Reliable sources are things like magazine and newspaper articles that talk extensively about the school. The article will most likely be deleted if these sources aren't found. Sadly, this is just the way Wikipedia works. I'd try your hand at improving the article - and other articles! Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

References/Sources
You recently declined a page involving Red Haircrow. I continue to find it absolutely puzzling why a page creation like that is declined, which has as many verifiable sources/references as this one Barbara_Dawson_Smith, yet Red Haircrow is declined while Barbara Dawson Smith was approved. Why is there such a clear discrepancy on some many pages of this sort? I have noticed just reading through other posting on a variety of subject that people like you are declining for reasons that in the end are subjective, not objective, as wikipedia claims to be.

That writer is actually a colleague with similar sources as Red Haircrow. Why do the people approving/disapproving allow one like that but decline someone very, very similar with similar sources, yet is a person of ethnic heritage? And by the way, the Barbara Dawson Smith page has no newspaper or magazine article references on it, yet you state that as a reason Red Haircrow was declined, and Haircrow actually does have some. So the reasons you have cited, actually have clearly not been applied to other pages, so, in the end, the declination is entirely subjective.

Just looking at the previous comment above this anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eden_Garden_Boarding_School, that article was approved by someone although it had ZERO references or any sort. And then you have an article with resources, equal to others already on the site with references and sources, yet it is declined. It makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributingauthor (talk • contribs) 18:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Contributingauthor (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)ContributingAuthor


 * Hi there. Thanks for bringing the Smith article to my attention, I've tagged it appropriately and proposed it for deletion based on the lack of reliable sources which aren't able to prove the notability of the author. It also appears that the article might have been written by someone associated with Smith, so we'll see happens. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to prove notability and importance about subjects - citing the subjects website, or sources related to the subject (i.e. publishers websites, bloggers who write reviews, and the like) don't establish notability. I have no doubt your subject might be notable - but, using poor sources doesn't establish that. I actually write extensively about women and Native peoples (heck, I have my degree in Native American studies!), and I have had to bow out of writing articles about certain people due to lack of reliable sources.


 * And yes, sometimes reviewers or Wikipedians (new Wikipedians, generally) submit or write content that shouldn't be there, or that is poorly sourced. WIth over 4 million articles it's really hard to maintain every single one of them and know what one's should and shouldn't be included in the encyclopedia (which many think is a promotional tool). Feel free to stop by the Teahouse for another opinion. I know it's tough, but, we're an encyclopedia - and if everyone was able to have an article on here I'd have one for all of my non-notable family members talking about how much I love them and how awesome they are. :) SarahStierch (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And for the record - the Eden Garden Boarding School article was NOT approved via Articles for Creation. The Wikipedian who wrote it wrote it directly into the article space and didn't have it reviewed. So yes, there are ways to "beat the system," but eventually the articles that are new get reviewed in our brand new reviewing system. SarahStierch (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

My previous message "disappeared": You made personal comments about content adding to wikipedia which I stated were irrelevant to the discussion. Stating the fact you have a degree in Native American studies is irrelevant, as there are a number of people who do but that doesn't automatically mean they have personal knowledge, understanding or appreciation of natives. That is academic. Also, no, there are some like myself who wouldn't create articles about non-notable family members even if it were possible, because that, too is irrelevant. I don't know you, so respectfully that personal information means nothing to me. I see this as an information source, an encyclopedia, and no, not a promotional platform for any particular person or entity.

Thank you for clearing that up about the boarding school's posting/approval. In the end, however, your response was very much subjective as was the declination, and your solution was to suggest another generally and obviously acceptable article be deleted, again very subjective. Wikipedia is rampant with it. Contributingauthor (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)ContributingAuthor


 * Yes, but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is never a good argument - it's well-known that a good chunk of articles don't belong, but with millions of articles and a couple of hundred active admins (most of which have normal day jobs), we don't get to all of them (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

secondary schools
I've removed your prod on Eden Garden Boarding School -- the consensus has been that all   secondary schools, are notable  though it is not a formal guideline. 95% of those taken to afd are kept, even when the articles are as weak as these, DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

About a block
Just a heads up that consensus is that usernames such as "Bob at MIT" are valid, as long as they're not promoting the org contrary to wP:PROMO and WP:COI. If they do, they should be blocked for spamming, not for a username violation. As such, this userid is actually by policy totally fine...but their edits were not. We should not be forcing her to change usernames - it's always nice to actually track her COI. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Article Declined (Caslin Rose)
Please explain to me why my article, found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Caslin_Rose#Caslin_Rose) was declined. You have given a very brief explanation that makes no sense and is not helpful. I have very reliable sources. Check them yourself. Seriously. You have clearly taken NO time whatsoever to verify the information and instead you pasted a template that is completely inaccurate. My article is fine. If you continue to decline articles simply because you are "too tired" to verify them then I may be required to contact an administrator who will verify to see if you are worthy of approving and declining articles. Please, this is not meant as a threat. You need to approve my article because absolutely NOTHING is wrong with it. If there is an actual mistake, please direct me to it. -Mallen22 (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Mallen. Wikipedia has a guideline called "notability" (you can read about it here in regards to actors and actresses) - in order to display notability, you have to use what is called a "reliable" source (you can read about what a reliable source is here) - the four citations you used: IMDB and her website (or related links, a CV and a bio) sadly are not considered reliable sources. (We even have a section about why IMDB isn't necessarily reliable - you can read it here.) If you're able to find reliable sources - such as: newspaper interviews and reviews, magazine articles, radio interviews - about the subject (not just a simple mention it has to be decent coverage) - in multiple resources, then that will help establish notability for the subject. These policies were put in place by Wikipedians for a number of reasons - and I ask you not to take it personal. Of course, you're welcome to resubmit the article if you'd like and see what other reviewers say. Good luck and thanks! SarahStierch (talk)

05:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, The templates were delete was a mistake , sorryGhiathArodaki (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Article deleted (National Collaborative of Women's History Sites)
Hi Sarah, and thanks for your message; I'd love to follow up with you about women and wikipedia (and museums and historic sites) once I get this article issue cleared up. I checked in and rec'd your note about copyright over the holidays, and when I went back in to work on it today, found that the article has been deleted by another administrator. I posted something on his "talk" wall as well, and do hope that the article is still retrievable--I appreciated your note above re: being busy, and I am, too; I'm afraid the draft seems to have been deleted b/c I just couldn't get back to it fast enough after seeing your note. So I appear to be unable to check to see what the copyrighted material might be that appeared in the article--I'm a board member of the NCWHS and do remember quoting the mission statement from the webpage, but thought that it did appear in quotes, but now I can't check to see. Am very new and this and just trying to self-teach....Mrmedit (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC) mrmedit

Hi Sarah You rejected my article about Lumigon because it already existed. And this I find a bit weird... The existing article was created and published after I submitted my suggestion on the 21 December. It seems that somebody used my draft for the final article as all the sources are identical. Did you create the article? It is fine by me - I was just a bit curious about how this works...

Best regards Rikke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Froekenjul (talk • contribs) 13:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Please pause to think
Congratulations on the fellowship. I realize that you must be very busy, what with 24 pages of archived user talk space. Nonetheless I urge you to pause for a moment and think while working on topics that you have absolutely no idea about, such as, for example, Talk:Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources. Especially as a connoisseur of things indigenous, you should be capable of taking the care required to comprehend that this program is indeed an important one, on a national and on a global scale. I don't fault you for not knowing that, a priori, but next time please just leave it blank if you haven't a clue. Regards, Keitsist (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused. I added maintenance tags to the article - which is common practice on Wikipedia. Using the word "connoisseur" to describe an area of study (Native American Studies) in which I've devoted a good portion fo my adult life too is rather insulting. But hey, whatever. SarahStierch (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

AFC and NPOV articles
You approved |Psychotronics, which it says is "based on the use of a type of energy that is produced by the interaction between presumably energy psychic and atomic (matter), the well known Mind–Body problem", and which discusses a device, by Robert Pavlita who found "that there are at least sixty-eight centers of biological energy in the human body, and he had invented a generator for each one. Each of these generators is fueled in a different way, and each of them performs a different task." Apparently then "Psychotronic generators were fastly modified and transformed into weapons of the most diverse kind". Also while you are there: "There is a fairly extensive catalogue of effects that have resulted from low frequency signals, these include: vertigo, retinal bleeding, burnt face, nausea, sleep disturbances, palpitations, loss of concentration, loss of memory, disorientation, severe headaches, temporary paralysis, faulty speech co-ordination, irritability, and a sense of panic in non-panic situations." Apparently, according to the article, schizophrenia might not exist at all, and it's just people messing with you through radio. But seriously, this article is a shambles and the sourcing is even worse. Can you please explain your reasoning for accepting this article:, which self evidently fails basic neutrality, verifiability, and grammar. Why did you approve this? (Someone had to rewrite it from scratch anyway). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been told by some people to accept articles even if they need work, and to not accept articles if they need work. I give up on AfC. I think the reviewers take one hell of a beat down and it wears me out. I'm over it! SarahStierch (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Oaklandish
Can you explain this to me please? (→‎Background: removing Oaklandish art exhibition coverage. That's not the same as the store.) (undo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheonis (talk • contribs) 23:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. From what I understand, the Oaklandish art exhibition and Oaklandish event group is not the same as the actual Oaklandish store/collective. Hence why I never included the Oakland Museum information out of the original article when I wrote it. Of course, I could be wrong? SarahStierch (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * p.s. Please don't forget to sign your messages. When you're done writing a post on a talk page, just write " ~ " (four tildes) afterwards so we know who wrote the message :) SarahStierch (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sara, thanks for your message. Your statement that Oaklandish events and arts exhibits are NOT a part of the Oaklandish clothing company is not true. They are in fact produced by the same organization. Please advise. best. Cheonis (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, great. It was confusing when I was writing the article because of some other sources which seemed to conflict with that. I think it'd be great to just simply state that Oaklandish sponsors free community events and activities with a citation to link to it, instead of specifying all of the types of events. Feel free to add it, with a reliable source :) SarahStierch (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Predrag Pupovac
A10, A7, G3 take your pick but it should go. NtheP (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ SarahStierch (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Username warnings
Hi, Sarah. I hope you're having a good one. Over the past few months I've noticed that you often leave username warnings like this one through your work at AfC. Let me tell you that's good news to me because there are so few username patrollers. I have the concern however that the template you're using is not often ideal—e.g., you often use message for users with real names, like in the one I linked. Those aren't actually username policy violations (WP:REALNAME), but I think you might be aware of that. Do you use the template because you believe the editor may be a representative of the person they're writing about? If that is the case, I would recommend using the template instead. That way you can explain that the actual issue with their real name username is that we want to protect them from impersonation and to avoid confusing other editors about their identity. The template you've been using thus far instructs the user to change the name or create a new account, but this is not in fact necessary if the person is the person referred to in the username. In that case, they can keep the name; if not, only then would they need to change it. NTox · talk 19:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi NTox! Thank you for this constructive and polite post. I'm so used to getting not so constructive messages from editors about my wrongs that I generally just ignore them now ;) (Bad manners = fail), so I appreciate this! Yes, I have been posting that template because I thought it was for organizations or companies that write about themselves, and their username is generally the name of that organization. I gets pretty confusing, so many templates (and Twinkle doesn't help since you can't really preview things and the explanations of templates are so meta). I'll just start using that template you linked me too - it's also less threatening :) Thank you. SarahStierch (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, no problem. I'm glad to help. Keep up your great work by the way in AfC. What I like about your approach is that you tend to give very personalized feedback, whereas others rely on the templates. And I probably don't have to tell you that AfC can be a trying place to work. I used to spend some time there but it was tough for me to gauge how strict folks wanted us to be with the standards. NTox · talk 00:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words about AfC. I'm to the point where I don't really know if I can handle working there anymore. Between the comments from Wikipedians who question why you accept things to some of the really hurtful and sad comments from those who submit content....it's just draining. It's always nice to get a pat on the back. :) Thank you. SarahStierch (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Amirite
I feel that I should say something to you about Amirite, since you were the person who moved it into the mainspace. The AfD has been a complete circus and the creator of the article got themselves blocked for their behaviour there. Even the dimmer members of the ARS have realized that it wasn't salvageable. None of it was necessary - the article should never have been moved to mainspace with the sourcing that it had. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, sorry it caused so many problems. I did review about 300 AfC's in a short period of time, so a few hiccups ain't too bad, it's just a shame it caused a bit drama. The guy had good faith too, oh well! Hopefully people will just delete it and move on! SarahStierch (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Mark Harbottle
Hey Sarah,

Happy New Year!

This is reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Mark_Harbottle which was declined for not using reliable sources. One of the sources declined was CNN relating directly to the wiki article and one of the others not accepted was an article on the exact same site of a citation that was accepted. I guess I'm confused as to CNN not being reliable and a source being reliable in one footnote, but not another. Can you please clarify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.84.156 (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there. The CNN article doesn't even mention the subject, but a company he is associated with. That doesn't establish notability of the subject (but could help establish notability about his business). I hope that helps! You can learn a bit more about our notability guidelines here, or stop by the Teahouse for a second opinion if need be! Thanks for aiming to improve Wikipedia and happy new year to you. SarahStierch (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

OK great, that does help. Ill fix it now. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6045:D6:150A:F84A:503D:CEED (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

And done, with 3 new citations and bad ones removed. Thanks for being so helpful and, well, nice :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6045:D6:150A:F84A:503D:CEED (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Keymon Ache
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Keymon Ache. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Forgot to put name 11:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles for creation/James Reuben
Hi Sarah,

Happy New Year

Sorry have been away for a few days, but I cannot see your message posted on the 28th Dec. I would appreciate any help on getting the article added to WIKI.

Many thanks - prash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prash2000 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year prash! You can find it here: in my archives. Also, please don't forget to sign all of the posts you make on talk pages. To do that, after you are done writing what you wish, just type four tildes ( ~ ) and then your username will appear :) That way we know who you are! If you have any questions about my comments, you can cask here (no on the archived page). SarahStierch (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Alvin Lustig - now with footnotes
Hello again Sarah

I notice you added the no footnotes tag to Alvin Lustig back in October.

FYI I've just done some work on it, so you might think it passes muster now ? :)

All the best & happy New Year Ekphraster (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

B Desmond J S Fernando
Thank you for your constructive and helpful comments about improving this page. I will be making the necesary changes using the links you have provided. As a non native English speaker i would be very grateful if you could point out areas of grammar that need improvement. I would really value your advice as i am quite committed to contributing on issues related to my country and home town Mt Lavinia on Wikipedia Liannalianna (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I have moved the comment to the talk page as the recommended changes are being made apart from the grammar which I trust those wikipedians who are native English speakers will correct. Liannalianna (talk) 08:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiWomen's History Month
Hi Sarah, hope you are doing well! I saw your recent edit where you removed 2012 events to plan for upcoming 2013 events. Rather than "writing over" 2012-related information, do you think it might be beneficial to archive the information, perhaps by creating a page WikiWomen's History Month/2012? This way the details won't be lost in the page history. Just a thought--I am trying to convince contributors of the value of archiving meetup pages rather than recycling the same pages. People can see how a project has progressed over time when they have access to archived subpages. Thoughts? -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that is a great idea. Would you have time to take care of it? No pressure, of course! I'll be in Portland for an unconference Feb 8 - 10. Perhaps we can have a drink! SarahStierch (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, and YES! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I moved the 2012 events info to a 2012 subpage. I did not combine the information with the 2012 outcomes page, but I suppose that is another option. Also, I went ahead and categorized the 2012 events page as well. Check it out! Hope to chat soon. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm interested in finding out if a WikiWomen's History Month editathon has been planned for the Bay area for March 2013? If so, can you (or a page stalker) point me to it? Thx, --Rosiestep (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Rosie! There isn't one planned yet. I'll most likely be planning one, it'll be posted in the appropriate places (meet up page, the WikiWomen's Collab meta page, the WWHM page, and invites), will you be in the area? SarahStierch (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I'll plan on it and I'll spend the weekend with my fam which lives in the city. Not sure if I'll be driving or flying in, but if flying, then it'll be into Oakland. Thx, --Rosiestep (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Estrid and Estrid Sigfastsdotter
Hello, SarahStierch!

I noticed your recent attention to the Estrid Sigfastsdotter. I have just redirected this article to Estrid, as it is the same person. I tried to redirect the page Estrid to Estrid Sigfastsdotter, as this is the full name of the person. However, for some reason, this did not work. Could I ask you to do this, and rename the article Estrid to the person's full name, Estrid Sigfastsdotter? As it is now, the article Estrid is named after the name itself, and was (until I corrected it recently), even linked to the article of the name on Swedish language Wikipedia, rather than to the article of the person. Could this be corrected? The name Estrid should perhaps have its own article eventually, and an article of a person should have the full name as its head line, rather than just the first name. My best greetings --Aciram (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears that the Estrid Sigfastsdotter article redirects to Estrid. Looks like it works fine to me! SarahStierch (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, as you can see on Swedish Wikipedia, her country of origin, the article is named after her full name. Should not articles about people be named after their full name? Isn't that a policy? Why should she be known only by her first name, when it is not her full name? Is there a particular reason to this? Normally, I do not see so many other articles named such a way when the full name of a person is known. --Aciram (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there, in English Wikipedia (it might be the same else where, I'm not sure on other languages) the article should use whatever the most "common" name is for her. So, if she's known as "Estrid" most commonly, then the article should be. But, if she's known as her full name most commonly in sources, then it should be Estrid Sigfastdotter. If you want it changed to the latter, let me know. :) SarahStierch (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. I recognize this, and I believe the policy is the same on Swedish wiki, where as you can see she is called by her full name. Just to be sure, I will investigate further what name she is most commonly referred to, and get back to you if a change is necessary! :)--Aciram (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)