User talk:Rankersbo/Archive 1

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Phasegram
Hi! You recently declined the AfC concerning the "phasegram" on the grounds that the information was not verifiable. Can you please review your decision? - The phasegram method was published in a peer-reviewed journal (Royal Society Interface), the paper is available as a PDF on an open-source basis. If that is not verifiable, then what is? - Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BratschistHenri (talk • contribs) 15:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry for not answering earlier, but I did comment on the page in question. Basically a published paper proves someone has published a paper on the topic. There needs to be sources independent of the inventor of the process to verify the claims in that one paper. Basically until others pick up on the technique and use it, then the technique is not notable. Rankersbo (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rebecca Taylor (politician)


The article Rebecca Taylor (politician) has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Issue closed as sources now added Rankersbo (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:DWspinoff
Template:DWspinoff has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bondegezou (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Issue closed Rankersbo (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Changing Titles
Hiya - I amended Wildthyme at Large so that it was a series page for the first Iris series, but realised when I finished that I have no idea who to change the page title (to Iris Wildthyme Series 1 or whatever). I haven't redirected the other play in the series because of this, but can't find anywhere how to make this change. Can you point me in the right direction? StuartDouglas (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ignore me - I no sooner posted this than spotted the drop down arrow! :) StuartDouglas (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I was in Belgium yesterday picking up our car that broke down over the weekend and paying a huge garage bill. Glad you have it worked out. Rankersbo (talk) 06:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion removal
Hello, I'm Citrusbowler. I removed a speedy deletion nomination from User:Ljsgotgame/sandbox because G2 does not apply to userspace (and definitely not sandboxes!). Please don't be nominating sandboxes for deletion. Thank you. Citrusbowler (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks Rankersbo (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Huxley (unit)
Dear Rankersbo, I am still new at wikipedia. Maybe I should take some more time to get used to everything. I have just seen that you rejected my article about the "Huxley (unit)".

However, there is not much to say about it. It is simply the case that I actually needed that unit but did not know how it is defined. Then I asked a colleague and he told me. Since I could not find much information neither by google nor in wikipedia, I thought it might be nice to - at least - post the definition.

Is it thus possible to accept this article anyhow? The article is similar to the one of the Townsend (unit)

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkch2 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to approve the article as it is, but my rejection isn't the end of the line, the article can be worked on. You could submit the article again. Articles have to conform to a set of rules to get through articles for creation. Perhaps I'm looking at it through Engineers eyes, but for me units always measure something and you haven't described what it measures. The Townsend article says it is related to the E/N ratio and links to an article on the E/N ratio, I think you've not copied the Townsend article correctly. There is no article on the B/n ratio so that bit of yours is a bit meaningless. I think while you've tried to copy the format of the Townsend article you haven't succeeded. Rankersbo (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Added more sources to article for creation
I have added more sources to my article for creation. If you could re-review the article that would be great. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Radiation_City Andise1 (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm a new reviewer to the WP:AfC team, and I'm concentrating on doing the "quick" reviews and admin at the moment, freeing up the more experienced reviewers to concentrate on the more in-depth stuff. You've remarked your article for review so an experienced hand will be along to look at it presentlyRankersbo (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

KPS
Hi, thanks for message. Although the article had references, the referenced text was interspersed with essay/OR text with a promotional tone and unknown origin taken from a source which asserts copyright ownership. The AfC review seems to have concentrated on the style (formatting and references) rather than the content. It should have taken account of Wikipedia policies on advertising and copyright. The point of speedy deletion is to quickly remove blatant infringement of our rules without consultation. I'm sorry if you see that as lacking in civility.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Your request for undeletion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that a response has been made at Requests for undeletion regarding a submission you made. The thread is Kernow Positive Support. JohnCD (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks JohnCD, more than I could have asked for - Rankersbo (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing AFC articles in User space
Hello! I see that you have been reviewing articles that are hosted in the User: namespace such as User:Babablacksheep102/sandbox. In order to do that you must be reviewing them manually without the Reviewer script. I suggest activating and using the script, which can be found by checking the box in front of. As a heads up, the script does not currently work to review articles in the User: namespace, but if you look at the "Review Waiting" box, near the bottom there should be a "move" button. Clicking this button will either move the page to the proper AFC project space page or tell you it can't be moved because it already exists. If it already exists, it will take you to Special:MovePage and you will need to enter a new pagename to move it to. Normally this happens in the case of a userspace draft that ends in "sandbox" in which case you will need ot look at the article and try and pick an appropriate and descriptive pagename to move it to (you may use what I did for User:Babablacksheep102/sandbox as an example of how it is done). If you have any questions, feel free to ask (I'll watch your page for a bit to see). Happy reviewing! Technical 13 (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate the thought. I am keeping an eye on the talk page and learning lots from other people's questions, and looking at other peoples reviews and learning from other peoples mistakes. I've seen lots of other people's reviews on userspace drafts, and indeed fixed their mistakes without making a song and dance about it. I've seen various manual declines that have missed out the "inform the original editor stage" for example. And of course I have observed the various bots that don't like working on articles called sandbox.
 * I've been busying myself with admin, ncluding doing lots of moving userspace drafts to AFC space so other reviewers can start work on them straight away to free the experienced eyes up for the bits that require more judgement. I don't ask many questions on the talk page, but that's mainly because the questions I want to ask tend to get asked before I need to ask them. I have got the script installed and have been making good use of it, and am also aware of its limitations.
 * Thanks again for the friendliness and advice. Rankersbo (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

CSD G13 declined
Hi. I'm just  letting  you  know that I have declined a G13 on  Woodstock Union High School and moved the AfC draft to  mainspace. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, that's fine. The original author had given up on the article. Rankersbo (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Fairchild rejection
Hmmm, and I just got chewed out three ways from Sunday for doing the exact same thing to an article about another politician. While it fits with what I said/did, but I was told in no uncertain terms that because he was elected to a state position, he's notable. (See the last set of conversations on my talk page and on the People Notability Talk page).

To serve President pro Tempore of the Nevada Senate you would be elected into the Nevada State Senate, but I've made it clear in the article. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I wasn't really arguing notability, I was just wanting it to be clear. It was a v rejection- not on notability. He seems like he should be notable enough, but is there more on him? I know it can be hard going back into history. Rankersbo (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm... this also means that the elected officials of the Saarland state parliament qualify, but I'm not sure I want to write about them Rankersbo (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Heiko Maas, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! 78.26  (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 12:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Copyright violations
Dear Rankersbo: Several of the articles that you have declined recently as unsourced were found to be blatant copyright violations. Please don't forget to check for that before you decline for other reasons, because copyright violations have to be blanked and marked for deletion as soon as possible. Thanks! &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK will do. Rankersbo (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah it's been clarified that the decline reason was OK. But I will be on the lookout. We seem to be reviewers of a similar level of skill and experience, with a similar level of dedication and dilligence. We just had a different view on this occasion: reviewing does involve judgement calls. Rankersbo (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If something is a copyright issue (or an attack page) that has to come before anything else, even if other criteria are also valid, because for legal reasons these things need to be removed right away. If you check the WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions and read the "Quickfail criteria" you will see what I mean. I have arranged for the removal of three of these copyright violations, but I see that I have messed up the notification process somehow (sigh).  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * See we both make mistakes of similar magnitude. I think it was perfectly fine of you to clear up after mine, it just could have been done with a little more tact and respect. I have put a lot of work into WP:AfC over the past few weeks, 99% of it has been good and helpful. Rankersbo (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Rankersbo: I am sorry if I have made you feel uncomfortable; please tell me what you would like me to have done instead. I made a point of not naming you at the Afc talk page, as has been done in some other cases, but I needed to ask for advice on how to fix the copyright problems and whether user pages that weren't currently submitted should be moved.  I have reviewed over 900 articles in the regular Afc queue, but because these ones had a different review status my efforts were imperfect, and I accept your amusement at my expense. I hope to do better next time. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps this is an inter-cultural thing, but maybe show me some respect? Something like "I appreciate all the effort you're putting in to AfC but..." Maybe just drawing my attention to the minor problems here "I saw you moved sandboxes to their respective user accounts, but I don't think that's the right way to be doing it.", and keeping it to the one copyright issue when you absolutely needed to ask questions. The way you raised question after question about my articles, seemed like you were being a little too ...relentless. And I have noticed you mess up manual declines, but either left them or fixed them quietly. I left you a peace offering in the form of a brownie on your talk page, and expected you to do similar mark of respect. With a message like "WHoops sorry, I did go a bit over the top." and a note of appreciation of my efforts. Maybe that's a bit British management culture, but I call it politeness.Rankersbo (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize once more. About the brownie - I really thought that you were being sarcastic, laughing at me, and reading that right after realizing my embarrassing mistake with the re-submits, my first thought was to get my mistakes fixed up.  I agree with you that I could have asked about one copyright problem and then fixed the other two without mention (or, as it turns out, maybe I couldn't, as it seems I didn't follow the advice given correctly.)  About being relentless - I was just going through the list of recently declined articles looking for ones that just needed an extra source or two, and dealing with problems as I came to them.  I saw that there were a number of sandboxes and user pages to be fixed.  I didn't even notice that they were all yours until I got to the Pritch article, and I have apologized for the two after that.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks Rankersbo (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggested WP:CIVIL wording
"Dear Rankersbo: Thanks for helping out at WP:AfC your efforts are much appreciated. But several of the articles that you have declined recently as unsourced should actually have been declined for copyright, because I found them to be blatant copyright violations. Please don't forget to check for that before you decline for other reasons, because copyright violations have to be blanked and marked for deletion as soon as possible.  Thanks! signature

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/LiveMedia
Hi there- I admit that the article has problems, but rejecting an article on a small business because it relies on trade publications is a bit like rejecting an article on a flower species because it relies on scientific literature. I've just chatted to the author, and he's going to do what he can to add a lead section and some more newspaper sources. After that, some heavy copyediting and this one may be good to go? J Milburn (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Um... check again, the article was rejected for tone, not references. The comment is additional, not the reason it was declined. I said I would prefer it if there were more mainstream sources, it was a nice to have on top of doing the fixes in the pink box. I did not say This article has no reliable sources Wikipedia is not a business directory, but this company seem to be doing significant business so, yeah, if the lead section is added and tone fixed, I think it could be OK. Rankersbo (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologise- I'm not completely familiar with articles for creation. Your reply seems very reasonable- I do agree that there are problems of tone. J Milburn (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's OK; so does this mean you're guiding the editor in putting the article into shape then. I probably won't review it when s/he resubmits as there's a drive on and not many articles left to review, so someone else will pounce on it if it looks good to go. Rankersbo (talk) 10:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings!
Hello there, thanks for the help. Being new I'm sort of baffled with the amount of 'moving' that is continuously happening to the article I'm attempting to write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidspyker (talk • contribs) 09:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, it should have just been moved the once to a page with the same name as the article. Dealing with multiple moves should not be one of the things you need to get your head round! Do contact the teahouse, they're friendly folk. Rankersbo (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Will do! Thank you, by the way the Visual Editor doesn't work anymore. When the article was in my sandbox(before trying to submit) I used both Source and Visual Editor(for lazily linking), but now it doesn't display here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Uttaranchal_University_(2) Sidspyker (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah! That's something I can't help with because I don't use visual editor. It might be disabled in the area for creating WP:AfC articles Rankersbo (talk) 10:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear :| is there a way I can use the Visual Editor somewhere else? perhaps on my Talk page then? Sidspyker (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Geoff McDonald & Associates.
Wow! How often does that happen? We both rejected it at the exact same time! The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Not often! It'd be worse if we gave vastly different verdicts. Rankersbo (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi, I just wanted to stop by and say thanks for helping CSD tag all those old AFCs. Cheers! Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 09:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Blizzard Protest Massacre
Really? A quick look at the Revision history will shows that it was blanked when it was declined for being unsourced. It's been well over a year so I can only guess why I clicked the blank button on the script, but a look at the submission will suggest was probably because it's stepping into WP:BLP territory talking about mass shooting etc. Rightly or wrongly, what's the point of reverting 15 months later when it's still obviously unsourced and clearly not going to pass. -- KTC (talk) 07:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, really. You don't blank articles just for being unsourced, you only blank them in WP:AfC space for being attack pages or if there is a copyright problem. Otherwise you give people a chance to develop the article and find sources. I've been clearing out the blanked pages and no-one else was blanking them on such spurious grounds. A blanked page should be speedy deletable under g10 or g12. There were a load of pages in 2012 that you blanked on similar grounds, but I either generously G11'd them or just G13'd them where there didn't appear to be substantial content. I would have G13'd this one too, but there is a lot of angst in WP:AfC about simply clearing out the abandoned submissions and that they must be sifted through for material. Rankersbo (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't blank submission for just being unsourced. Unsourced was one of the criteria that it failed, and since the AFC script doesn't allow multiple reasons to be selected, I picked one. You are wasting everyone's time by reverting a perfectly valid decline because you disagreed with the blanking. In terms of the blanking itself, if you don't think a, what appears to be false and made up, accusation of "deliberate shooting of demonstrators" by Blizard's employees leaving "3 dead and 6 wonded" as a BLP violation and possibly libellious, then I seriously question whether you should be continuing going through old AFC entries. -- KTC (talk) 11:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As I stated, this was just one of your problematically declined articles I nominated today, and I was pretty kind withyou over the others. Given the generocity I have shown you, I find your behavior, frankly, inappropriate and uncivil. Had you flagged your concerns fully in a comment I would have maybe nominated the article for deletion, but as it was I had the decline reason of unsourced to go off. Rankersbo (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I stand by my AFC reviews and comments. If you have a problem with them, you are free to raise it up at an appropriate venue for community discussion. Regards -- KTC (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The article appears to be a hoax and has accordingly been deleted per G3. I would ask that you research material first before restoring it, and if restoring material, add in references you'll find when researching, even if they're just bare URLs it does at least given editors material to use and admins sources for verification, thanks. Nick (talk) 11:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help Nick. To be fair to me, however, the article was restored so the article could be properly judged and treated appropriately. I didn't pass the article for mainspace, nor did I say one way or another whether it should do. I just flagged it up so it could be checked out and someone could deal with it properly. You have done, and had I not acted the article would have remained in the limbo forever. Possibly it would have been G13'd. Instead it has met with an appropriate end, and I thank you for your part in this. Rankersbo (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Deleting "811"
By all means, Rankersbo. I had no idea that poor old thing still existed. It was my first, ill-fated, ignorance-inspired attempt to contribute to Wikipedia. I have moved on since. Bronsonboy HQ 15:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bronsonboy Rankersbo (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

CSD:G13 and you
I notice that you're nominating AfC articles for CSD:G13. I just wanted to inform you that part of User:HasteurBot's mandate is to go through and nominate for G13 old AfC submissions. I would like to suggest that it might be better to focus your efforts elsewhere (such as Category:AfC pending submissions by age or Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template) as the bot can handle the mindless nominations. Hasteur (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Hasteur, point taken, but it would have been WP:CIVIL and respectful to put "thankyou for your help, but" in there. Other than that, fair enough, although I have been doing a lot of work in the missing templates category already. Rankersbo (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If you are just nominating them and not re-reviewing to see if they are worth saving, then I agree with, but if you are looking them over again before nominating, I've noticed that about 30% of them are actually savable, and I encourage you to continue doing what you are doing. Feel free to use the   version of the AFCH which actually has buttons to help you tag for G13 (with logging) or tag as "spared from the axe".  To use the develop version (which may be very unstable at times due to its nature) simply uncheck the box for "Yet another AfC helper script" in your preferences and add   to your Special:MyPage/common.js and WP:BYPASS your browsers cache.  Happy tagging!! Technical 13 (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Technical 13, you are right I am not just nominating articles for deletion mindlessly, I had been checking them over, and only nominating articles that were insubstatial or had more serious problems other than. I am unsure why I was directed to work I already doing plenty of, but I suppose that's the perils of cut and paste messages. Rankersbo (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ytech International
I re-submitted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ytech International on behalf of the original submitter as it is no longer a duplicate of an existing article - the existing article was deleted as a duplicate of this submission. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  19:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks Rankersbo (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Coburg Harriers
Hi...trying to get an entry for my athletics club...we have a long rich history including Olympians and paralympians and have been active since 1896...this is my first attempt so hoping I can get some help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frosty67 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there...what do you think now...I'm trying to add stuff as I go

Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frosty67 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Submitting a new article
Hi there, can I please get some help in submitting a new article? --Pradeep 16:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poojagirl (talk • contribs)
 * Hello Poojagirl. I'm actually not going to be around for just over a week. Have you tried the WP:Teahouse. Rankersbo (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Poojagirl- do you still need help? Rankersbo (talk) 09:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

A little help?
Hey, been a while. I was doing this article if you remember http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sidspyker/Uttaranchal_University and I now have supporting documents, etc. now, the problem is I have them as photos with me and I have no idea how to proceed with that. A little help? Thanks. Sidspyker (talk) 11:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you ask this at the Articles for cretion helpdesk, I'm in the middle of writing up my thesis at the momemnt. Rankersbo (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey there, sorry. I was out for a while and didn't ask over there, now I have to finish this up. Still busy? Sidspyker (talk) 07:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Samuel Lipkin (No external links)
Hi there,

Recently you've declined a major Edit to the page Samuel Lipkin for the reason that it does not have enough External Links (citations).

The problem that arises is that most of the books are written in Russian and therefore not available as sources for the English Wikipedia.

Since most of these books are in Russian, Yvonne Green (Who I write on behalf as) has translated them and put them into one book. I have read these books and they contain all the information for where the article arises from.

If the page could be resubmitted again and accepted based on these explanations I would be very thankful.

Thank you, Danny — Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyTS (talk • contribs) 20:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi DannyTS. I don't have a problem with citing the Russian books, but the article needs multiple sources and they need to be cited inline. You can resubmit the article once you are happy with the improvements by pressing the button on the decline box. Rankersbo (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, How exactly would I link citations to a book which is in physical format and not digital? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyTS (talk • contribs) 17:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Basically in any way you would cite in an essay or a paper, between tags. There's a template called Template:Cite book that is useful, but I appreciate that the way to use it isn't obvious to some. Rankersbo (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Accidentally submitted a blank submission?
I submitted an article on the Kestenberg Movement Profile Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kestenberg Movment Profile on October 17, and you declined it, saying "We don't accept blank submissions." I was not trying to submit a blank submission. So I went back to look at the article. After I finish and click on the green "submit when your article is ready for review" button, I get another page with only about 4 lines of text saying "Don't do anything! Just hit the "Save Page" button, and your article will be reviewed!" I tried adding the text of the article to that page, on the theory that maybe the reviewer was just seeing those 4 lines of text, but it won't let me. The only way I can submit the article for review is if I don't do anything on that page. So I don't know where the text of my article is going, but clearly it was not visible to you. If you could please let me know how to make sure you can see the actual text, I would really appreciate it. I am a beginning who is having some difficulty getting used to Wikipedia conventions. Thank you. Miriam584 (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Miriam584
 * OK, I'll look at what you're doing. Rankersbo (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I got your message on my talk page. Maybe the second time I submitted it (after I got the first note about it being declined), I did it correctly. I am glad that it is in the queue for review and not accidentally sitting blank somewhere waiting to be re-declined. I am curious, though. Are you the one who declined it originally because it was blank? That was certainly how I read the note on its being declined the first time. Thanks.Miriam584 (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Miriam584

Tony T
I've declined your G13 as it was being edited in July 2013. It's been around for a while, but it's only three months left alone. Looking at the de article, he could well be notable. Peridon (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry about that, I thought I'd already cleared all the recent ones. Thanks for letting me know. Rankersbo (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Article For Creation Source
Sorry but is TMZ not a reliable source? 100.0.90.43 (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Not by itself, no, it's a "Celebrity News" site. I mean you can use it, fine, it would support mention of the arrest, but it's not a reliable source in my book. Rankersbo (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I submitted and article and Rankersbo rejected it because it had only one source. I just want to ask, does that alone mean the article is suspect? You didn't comment on the quality of the source, as you do above with TMZ. I don't see any rules on Wikipedia for number of sources, like three at minimum. You also criticized my article as being too short. Let me ask you, how much time and length should I make an article if you'll reject it on the basis of its number of sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinfauns67 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:42 otherwise known as the golden rule. We need multiple, reliable sources. I have to be honest I didn't check the one source that is there, because there is only one. How many sources is a value judgement, but it is clear that there must be more than one independent, reliable source. If you are cross with me personally for declining your article, (it does seem a bit intemperate in its phrasing) I think you may want to direct your question to the articles for creation help desk Rankersbo (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, the article claimed nothing except that something (in this case a book) exists. Prior to providing a news article about the book (which, by the way, ran in a publication that caters to residents of Chicago's North Shore, one of the most prestigious areas of the U.S. However I understand one can't determine that if one doesn't bother to check the source) I provided a link that shows where the book is for sale, and when there one can see not only that it exists but that it's selling. I understand if the idea of multiple sources is to verify a particular account of something. But if all the article is claiming is that something exists, and there is a news article sourced that says as much, and one can easily go to a site like Amazon or Barnes and Noble (the first as a link was initially provided to your editors) and see that this is so, then the multiple sources rule seems unnecessarily bureaucratic, if not daft, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinfauns67 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The point is that simply claiming the book exists is not enough for a wikipedia article, you need to say something about it (even for a stub) and show it is notable. Rankersbo (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. I read the notability blurb. It says if "no" reliable 3rd party sources are available to verify something. But I provided one. It says nothing about providing more than one, which seems to be what you are insisting on. I'd be happy to make the article more informative. The case the book is about generated hundreds of news stories for decades, and was a front page NY Times story, though it happened in IL. The 7 page bibliography in the book lists many of them. And one of the leading booksellers has deemed it good enough to be advertising it. But you can understand that I'm hesitant to spend time on the Wikipedia listing if it will not be added to the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.67.124.127 (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Submission Declined
Dear Rankersbo, you have rejected my submission for GDG Professionals. Can you please advise the reason and what should I do so you could accept it? This is my first attempt to contribute to the Wikipedia and I might have done something wrong. Apologies. p.s. GDG Professionals is one of the most famous HRM companies in my home country which is contributing to the community and trying to implement innovative ways of the Human Resources in the Caspian Sea region. Thank you, DovakinsShadow (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Rankersbo, you have also refused my submission for not providing enough evidence. However, I did provide a link to Music Canada which proves this song was certified gold.   As for the chart position from Nielsen, the Canadian Singles Chart is only available by special order, so I posted what SoundScan sent me.  I just asked if they post this chart anywhere else online and they said no.  If you look at the [Canadian Singles Chart] page on Wikipedia, you'll discover it's not as popular as other charts and rarely used, but it's still an accomplishment we'd like to include for this page :)  User:rhamelmann (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As I remember I turned it down before you added the link to Music Canada. If you think the article is ready now and want the article assessing again, click the blue resubmit button and it will put the article back in the queue. The snapshot of the charts on the website of the group isn't great. If I have time I'll see if I can copyedit myself. Rankersbo (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Please Help Me!!!
Lil Beat <-- Please review this.. :) Thanks!


 * I've added the submissioion template so it will get reviewed again. Rankersbo (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

AFC backlog drive
I'm challenging you to get to 500 reviews and 100 re-reviews by the end of the backlog drive. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  21:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Gosh I did it, I think.Rankersbo (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Douglas Haig in 1917
Hi, just saw you called by this sub-article. Nowhere near ready for presentation yet, although the sub-article for 1918 is up and running already.

Am presently finishing off Hubert Gough, another major British WW1 general (and who has grown so long he probably needs splitting as well, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it). Will hopefully be resuming work on Haig pretty soon, to get him ready for the anniversary next year. Regards, Paulturtle (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I was just doing some routine maintenance, I won't be reviewing it until you're ready. Rankersbo (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Ghost People
Hi, Rankersbo. The album meets WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. It has been featured in numerous publications such as BBC (here), Clash (here), Exclaim! (here), and Pitchfork Media (here). I don't know why you declined the submission. Could you please take a second look and explain why you think it's "non-notable"? 122.29.97.8 (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I made a mistake, I thought there was some problem with the sources. I have reversed my decline and it is now re-awaiting review. Rankersbo (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Article not in the search results
An article created by me Kalpitiya cannot be found in the search results when I googled the name. Earlier it was redirected to another page. Why is not appearing in the search results. Plz help.Rameshnta909 (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You only created the article today, google need some time to find the new page and add it to their index. Rankersbo (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thankz mate Rameshnta909 (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Still not appearing in the search results. Can we alert google about this article? Rameshnta909 (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I can't help you with that. Rankersbo (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

New article for GPUpdate
Thanks for the feedback and links. I'll have to do some reading; not sure if I have the time now... paul bica (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Keith Patterson
I can find no button to click on to write to you so kindly excuse me if this is not the way to do it. I understand you are reviewing my article on Keith Paterson submitted on 13 October 2013. As this is my very first contribution I hope you will get back to me if there are any irregularities in the article. Please don't hesitate to offer any suggestions on how to make it acceptable by Wikipedia if it is not so. Thanking you in advance.

Peminatweb (talk) 06:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Peminatweb


 * Hi, it's in the queue, I'm not dealing with it personally, but most submitters at AfC are first timers and there are usually pointers given, even if as a standard answer. Rankersbo (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Review of Woodland Scenics wiki article
Hello Rankersbo,

Thank you for reviewing my Woodland Scenics article. I have complied with your comment and edited the existing article I will continue to add information in order to comply with the second comment from the other wiki editor Samwalton9, who indicated that the article needed to include more recent information regarding 1981 to present. Again, thank you very much for your help. Mitch Mitch2018 (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your speedy deletion tag on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Levenstein
Hello Rankersbo. I just wanted to let you know that you had tagged Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Levenstein with a criterion that does not fit the page. Speedy deletion criterion G7, the criterion that you used to tag the page, only applies if you are the major editor of the page and you request that the page that you had a huge part in editing gets deleted. Looking through the edit history of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Levenstein, the editor who had the most work (and all of the work) on that page was Leahcim100; this means that the only editor who could tag that page with the CSD G7 criterion and have it deleted is Leahcim100.

However, that page did qualify for the CSD G13 criterion, so I have tagged the page with a Db-g13 tag. Hope this information helps! Steel1943 (talk) 06:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Steel1943- I don't understand. I just checked and it was Leahcim100 who blanked the page (with the exception of the header), not anyone else, so G7 does appear to apply. Rankersbo (talk) 07:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Rankersbo. After looking at it closer, you are correct. My apologies for any confusion my previous comment created. Just as a caution though, since I made this mistake, someone else might be bound to make it as well, and here's why: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Levenstein isn't technically completely blank. That, and there's a chance that someone else might be alarmed seeing a CSD tag in the "Articles for Creation" space that is not G13. If a page in the "Articles for Creation" space is eligible for G13, I would recommend marking it with that instead. But as I stated, you are correct regarding the G7 tag, so I apologize for any confusion. Steel1943  (talk) 07:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, thanks for pointing this out. Whenever I learn something new from one of my mistakes, I appreciate it. Cheers! Steel1943  (talk) 07:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. Rankersbo (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

ACURIL
Dear Rankersbo,

I have a colleague who is trying to establish an article for ACURIL. This association of Caribbean libraries and research centers has a rotating directorate among the Caribbean countries and it is impressive that it has persisted and persists. In 2011 the annual conference was held in Tampa and we produced an e-version of proceedings here: http://guides.lib.usf.edu/ACURIL_2011

Here is the official blog of ACURIL detailing the 2013 conference in Puerto Rico: http://cibernotasacurilcybernotes.wordpress.com/ Here is the website for the 2012 conference whichw as in Haiti: http://acuril2012-haiti.blogspot.com/

ACURIL members speak Spanish, Creole, French, Spanish and have multiple publication outlets that could be pulled together in a solid Wikipedia article. I hope these references are useful in your deliberations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmccook (talk • contribs) 13:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC) Kmccook (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Myoelectricity
Hello Rankersbo. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Myoelectricity, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I think this can be salvaged - only a dicdef now, but sources should be available to support at least a stub. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK JohnCD Rankersbo (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

AFC reminder
On October 21, you put Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ali Siddiq under review. There have been no significant edits since. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  21:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

G13 Rescue
Hi, Rankersbo. I see that you have checked the April "I" submissions. I noticed that you tagged a few "H" submissions as well. Did you check these also? I put my name next to the "H", but fell asleep after checking only the first few, so if you did I will skip the rest. Now that we are a month ahead of the bot, I guess we don't have to worry about doing them in order. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No I did I in reverse order and just looked at a few of the H at the end. Rankersbo (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Wynn Speece
You left a message about an AFD titled Wynn Speece. I created the Wynn Speece article. Is there anything I needed to do to retain it? Sandcherry (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I answered on your talk page. Rankersbo (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

AfC Johan Bollan
Many thanks for your edits! I'm new here and a bit confused that these AfC pages don't seem to have a talk page yet, as they seem to be edited "In" an actual talk page. Anyway, I wanted to ask if there's anything I need to do, or that you would recommend me to do, to make the article ready for public status. --Bluyten (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sadly I'm a bit of a janitor on AfC- I do minor fixes and clearing up, and deal with clear decisions, but beyond a certain level I have to leave things to the more experienced people. Rankersbo (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

NOAA and ESA on SIDC
Does the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, US-based) and the European Space Agency (ESA) count as valid external references for the SIDC??? >:) Talking about the Solar_Influences_Data_Analysis_Center article that you declined...


 * I think the comment here illustrates why the article was declined. When I checked it was not apparent that any of the links were to reliable sources and one of the sources you mention was not referenced. Rankersbo (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
MisterShiney   ✉    16:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Ooops Rankersbo (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Tofael: The Tea Stall Boy
Hello, Rankersbo,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Tofael: The Tea Stall Boy should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tofael: The Tea Stall Boy.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)