User talk:Bellerophon/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Question/suggestion for AfC protocol

Hello, Pol: I see a move of my List of people from Palm Springs, California to the AfC page. Reason being a move to the "preferred" page. To let you know, I simply used the article creation wizard to set up the proposed article. When done, I hit the "submit" link. The review pending template was then created. All of this is fine with me, including your move. But I am wondering -- is the article creation wizard putting proposed articles in the wrong location? If so, can it be fixed so that the submissions go directly to the "preferred" page? Fixing this might save you and other reviewers some work. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a good point you raise. I'm not quite sure what has happened, as the article wizard is supposed to be putting submission in the AfC project space anyway. I've had a quick look at the code but can't find the problem. We also have a BOT that moves and cleans up submissions for us, but it seems to be mysteriously broken at the moment, I don't know why... we're working on it. Pol430 talk to me 21:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. FYI, I used the wizard because I've only done one other new article. The edit count is high because of my gnomish efforts, not because of any real in-depth experience. --S. Rich (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah ok, no problem :) Pol430 talk to me 22:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed Our bot is up and running again. Pol430 talk to me 14:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Chester J. Cavallito

Good Day Pol430: How do I redirect "Chester J. Cavallito" to "Chester James Cavallito" so the latter is no longer an orphan page? So far, in attempts to link the former citations to the latter page, the former remain in red. Also. how do I bypass the "post a request" to directly create an article myself? The Wikipedia instructions are not clear on this. ThanksDolly442 (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dolly, to create a page directly: Simply type the name of the page you wish to create into the Wikipedia search box (note: It is 100% case sensitive) and click go. If the page does not exist you will be directed to some search results; towards the top of that page, you will see "You may create the page "XXX", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered." Simply click the red link page name and you will put that title in edit mode. Then, just edit normally and save the page. Please be aware that whilst an registered editor can create pages, you will not be able to delete them yourself. Pol430 talk to me 08:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Query regarding deletion of post

Regarding the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/N._Ravichandran

Could you pl mention the areas where my post was not neutral in tone so that I can rectify the same? I am resubmitting the same with minor modifications. Kindly request you to review the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Threek85 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, the general tone of the article is promotional. Its sole purpose seems to be to promote 'Dr. Ravichandran' and his work and achievements. The line "as a head of one of India's premiere management research institution" is particularly problematic: who says it's India's premiere management research institution? Notwithstanding the concerns about the writing style, I am also concern that this person simply isn't notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Pol430 talk to me 12:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Dandot

It seems possible Dandot is a reverse copyvio of [1] - has that been investigated?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it is a reverse copyvio. It would appear Dandotvillage (talk · contribs) added the extra info found at http://www.askbiography.com/bio/Dandot.html in this edit. I've removed the unsourced info and the CSD tag. Pol430 talk to me 14:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Review of March 7 2012 Apple media event

Which exact part of WP:NOT means the article isn't suitable? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like some clarification of this as well. WP:NOT covers a HUGE range of things, if you could narrow it down then I can improve the article accordingly. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 03:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I was looking at it from a WP:NOTCRYSTAL perspective. The exact subject of the event is still a matter of debate and therefore attempts to discern exactly what it's all about, would seem to fall squarely within that criteria. I didn't believe the submission could reasonably be expected to survive an AFD nomination—and I see it's there now—so I declined to create the article. Pol430 talk to me 08:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 00:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Good Evening Pol430!

Good Evening Pol430.

I hope the cold and rain in the U.K. didn't make the day too dreary.

I'm writing to you in response to your review of an article I submitted about a U.S. musician/rapper "Willard Hill". I fully appreciate your feedback and have addressed the concerns to the best of my ability and understanding. This message is my way of saying thank you, and to also ask for any tips you would care to impart to help me write more effectively in the future.

I do appreciate your time and attention, and look forward to your correspondence.

Thank You and goodnight!

-SoulSchool504

SoulSchool504 (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, unfortunately I have had to decline the submission again on the grounds of notability. Upon scrutinizing the references, it seems that there is not quite enough coverage of Hill in reliable, independent sources to establish his notability. If you can find at one more more good quality, reliable, independent reference that discusses Hill in detail, then the article is likely to be created. this was the best source listed; it's more of this kind of source that is required. Avoid blogs, social media, press releases and sources that are directly connected with Hill. Best Pol430 talk to me 11:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Questions about Pillsbury wiki

Hello - I understand about the peacock terms and have taken them out. Many of the facts in article like his date of birth, place of birth came from his bio that was on his gallery's website. Is the gallery site and any of their press releases considered not a reliable source? Abaldman (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abaldman (talk • contribs) 16:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The edits you made have fixed the problem and the article has now been created. Good work. Pol430 talk to me 09:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Weather/whether

Just a helpful piece of information in word usage:

I wasn't sure of whether you were aware of weather.

Hope this helps. - jc37 20:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't Pol430 talk to me 20:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Lol, you don't know how much better that has made me feel :) Pol430 talk to me 21:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Question about US SIF Article

This is regarding the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/US_SIF:_The_Forum_for_Sustainable_and_Responsible_Investment

We have attempted to resubmit this article a number of times with different responses from reviewers. We have complied with the requests -- added more sources, changed sources, and changed the tone of the article in several sections -- and we're still being rejected. We offered to submit this article for a client -- with no guarantees it would be accepted -- however, they are understandably annoyed and we would like some definitive feedback so we can provide them with a more satisfactory course of action. We've complied with the various review requests, participated in live chats, and attempted to follow Wiki's standards and practices.

US SIF are used as a source for much of the data on the following page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socially_responsible_investing) and their financial analysis are used as a primary source for articles on socially responsible investing.

With the following provided, please let me know what we can do to publish this page. CallCbd (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I declined the article because I had some reservations about the reliability of the sources and the coverage they give to US SIF. Having just noticed the external link in the body text to this page, I am more or less satisfied they meet the notability criteria. It might be a good idea to re-format that link into an inline citation (like the others). I will now create the article. Pol430 talk to me 19:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reconsidering/reviewing this. I greatly appreciate you taking the time. All the best! --Mike CallCbd (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Constuctive explination required for the rejection of Valley Council of Governments

Dear Arbiter,

I request, with great frustration, the reason as to why you believe my contribution to be under-sourced or lacking credibility. My cited sources include U.S. federal census data, state charter, and other federal documentation to legitimize the mission and scope of the Valley Council of Governments. I will be awaiting your response.

Best, B. Coppolo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coppolo,B (talk • contribs) 19:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry that this has become a frustrating experience for you. I will try to explain: I declined the creation of the article, not because of concerns about the number of sources or their credibility (that was the previous reviewer), but because I do not believe the sources evidence the notability of the subject sufficiently to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. In order for a subject to be considered 'notable', it must have received significant coverage, in multiple, reliable, independent sources. The problems with the sources at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Valley Council of Governments are that some of them are primary sources (the organizations own website), some of them are census lists that do not discuss the subject in detail. The pdf at http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/ddbe/35580_-_Final_Title_VI_Process_Review_Report_of_the_RPOs.pdf does discuss the subject directly and in some detail, but that, in its self, is not sufficient to establish notability. The Shelton source does not discuss VCOG by name. Wikipedia can not be used as a reliable source for articles. I hope that answers your question? For the article to be accepted, it requires some more discussion in independent, reliable sources, some local or national media coverage would be good, if you can find it? Best Pol430 talk to me 19:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Page Triage newsletter

Hey guys!

Thanks to all of you who have commented on the New Page Triage talkpage. If you haven't had a chance yet, check it out; we're discussing some pretty interesting ideas, both from the Foundation and the community, and moving towards implementing quite a few of them :).

In addition, on Tuesday 13th March, we're holding an office hours session in #wikimedia-office on IRC at 19:00 UTC (11am Pacific time). If you can make it, please do; we'll have a lot of stuff to show you and talk about, including (hopefully) a timetable of when we're planning to do what. If you can't come, for whatever reason, let me know on my talkpage and I'm happy to send you the logs so you can get an idea of what happened :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

RfA

I must say, you weren't remotely deserving of the ridiculously terrible start your RfA got off to. Happy to see the pendulum's swinging the other way now, though. Anyway, just here to say good luck in your RfA. Regards, Swarm ^X 00:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Swarm, for your support and kind words. :) Pol430 talk to me 05:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Swarm. I've !voted "strong support" and disagree with the opposes, especially number 2. Ridiculous. Self-nominating oneself for adminship has no issues, so why did you deserve an oppose for that? Either way, good luck! Everybody appreciates your hard work at WP:AFC! --Bmusician 07:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Bmusician :) Pol430 talk to me 18:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pol430!

Your self nomination would be improved also by deleting the first 4 sentences, in my judgment.

Good luck!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi again Kiefer! Firstly, thanks for taking the time to post here and give me some advice, I appreciate it. As a result of User:Axl's oppose, I am reluctant to make any more changes to the nom statement. I can understand why he thought it was disingenuous; although, that never occurred to me at the time. I hope you won't think this an affront to your advice. Pol430 talk to me 18:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps too obviously smart to be admin: As you knew, RfA is all about the Oppose momentum. That was Step 1: Identify your enemies. However, you now have evidence that WP is not "overrun with Einsteins" ready to implement your wise insights into how policies should be reformed. Back to Plan A: "All I intend to do is follow policies, as written, or ask other admins for advice, and I know my role as admin is not to improve policies, nor be nicer to users, nor improve WP's worldwide reputation by numerous better ideas." Go along to get along. It is too risky to reveal you are 10x smarter than everyone else. Anyway, many of us long-term editors have been inspired by your wise insights... Of course, "lock the article" during intense edit-wars to "take away the ball" without block-hounding the users, unsure as to who are the more "innocent" guys being goaded, not deserving of any block. Blocking everyone is almost certain to be grossly unfair to the innocent, and such blocks would empower trolls to edit-war to get the other guys blocked. Of course, a guy POV-pushing the article "Writing" is vandalizing text by false claims that the accounting-origin of writing is now the "old paradigm" or the "Maya language" has been in "continuous use" for 19 centuries (I'd love to read sources trying to prove such a fantastical claim in jungles which eat almost all ancient artefacts within 500 years). Plus, yes, some of the Oppose !votes are from functioning vandals, who blank whole sections or delete long-term images without consensus. I think if a randomized "jury of peers" (rather than "jury of sneers") reviewed your RfA nom, you would be approved ASAP. However, you have identified the enemies, so beware any future institutional vandals and blockaholics who might thrive on the suffering of innocent users trolled into entering edit-wars. Meanwhile, thanks for your keen insights into how policies should have been prioritized. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

  Hi Wikid77, thank you for your detailed examination of my actions at Writing. I appreciate the time you took to compose your analysis and also that CharlieEchoTango (talk · contribs) went out on a limb to support my actions as well. I accept the concerns of some opposers, that I labeled those edits as vandalism. It was a bad decision. Unfortunately, I have recently contracted man flu and so I'm not editing much at the moment, except to answer any additional questions on the RfA and to acknowlede my gratitude for your efforts at that page. Pol430 talk to me 19:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

  Man flu? Terrible! I hope you feel better. (If this RfA fails to succeed, I will be happy to nominate you next time.) --Bmusician 09:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you Bmusician, I appreciate your continued support. I am feeling a bit better now and I should be back to chisel away at the AfC backlog in the next day or two :) Pol430 talk to me 16:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• More concerns about lack of content experience: There are a sizeable number of !votes from long-term users (under "Oppose") who think you need more experience in writing articles, not just analyzing requests about articles. At least that is not a criticism of what you have done, but rather what you have not done. The oppose-momentum seem unstoppable at this time, so next time, perhaps have contributions to expanding more articles or uploading fair-use images (such as music album covers), or more dialogue under WP:Templates_for_discussion and such. Thank you for taking the time to address so many questions in this RfA. I think many other editors can learn from your responses there. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi again Wikid. Yes, I resigned myself to this RfA's fate some days ago. I have taken on board the advice of those who have opposed and will endeavor to improve on my shortcomings. I have no intention of abandoning WP:WPAFC, but I do intend to increase my participation in other areas of Wikipedia. Thank you for your advice and for the considerable amount of time you have invested in responding to concerns at the RfA. You were correct in your assumption that I am not a linguistic scholar (or any other kind of scholar) but that I believed the edits made to Writing to be unconstructive. I fully accept the concerns, raised by the opposes, of my mis-labeling those edits as vandalism. I hope now, to move on from this incident, and continue to 'improve my craft in editing'—as Kiefer so eloquently put it. Pol430 talk to me 16:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

recently declined new article submission: already exists, but does not...

Hi, you recently declined a new article submission for Devil's Garden (Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument) for the reason that it already exists, when it does not. Please read the disambiguation page and notice that the pointers in the related Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument article (in photo captions) point to the incorrect park - Arches N.P. - which also has a place called Devil's Garden. It is the reason I wrote the new article, and planned to fix the photo caption links once the new article was in place. Please re-check the article. Thanks, Brian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian W. Schaller (talk • contribs) 22:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Hi, yes, sorry about that. I got my Devil's Gardens mixed up! Article created Pol430 talk to me 22:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That's OK, Pol. It was an easy mistake to make. Thanks for taking time to review new articles. Cheers! Brian W. Schaller (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. When you recently edited Sarvi Kalhor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Paan Singh Tomar ,Paan Singh Tomar (film) and Paan Singh Tomar (Athlete)

Hi Pol,Paan Singh Tomar (Athlete) is in namespace now,and as you said on talk page that Paan Singh Tomar is to be deleted and renamed as Paan Singh Tomar (film).Earlier Paan Singh Tomar was deleted and moved to Paan Singh Tomar (film) but soon after that it was undone.Now Paan Singh Tomar (film) redirects to Paan Singh Tomar.Please do as per conclusion at talk page.Let me know if any more discussion is required.Thanks.

Hi, it would seem there was some confusion during the technical page move. I have contacted the administrator that handled the request and asked them to look into it; hopefully it will be sorted out soon. Pol430 talk to me 17:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed everything should be in the right place now Pol430 talk to me 20:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage newsletter

Hey all!

Thanks to everyone who attended our first office hours session; the logs can be found here, if you missed it, and we should be holding a second one on Thursday, 22 March 2012 at 18:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. I hope to see you all there :).

In the meantime, I have greatly expanded the details available at Wikipedia:New Page Triage: there's a lot more info about precisely what we're planning. If you have ideas, and they aren't listed there, bring them up and I'll pass them on to the developers for consideration in the second sprint. And if you know anyone who might be interested in contributing, send them there too!

Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry about your RfA.

It doesn't seem to me that you are going to pass this one but, with 60% support already, wait it out a couple of months and try again. Better luck next time.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,722,641) 12:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Cyberpower, it's been an interesting experience and I'm glad I undertook it. I've had some good advice from some experienced editors, who I respect, and who have opposed for perfectly valid reasons. I've also been heartened by the support I have received from some equally respected editors. Whilst it is probable that I will wish to run again, in the future, I am in no hurry to repeat the RfA experience. Pol430 talk to me 14:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Because of the combination of good and bad I saw, I voted neutral because I couldn't decide.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,738,609) 14:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely understandable :) Pol430 talk to me 14:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hey, Pol, sorry it didn't work out this time. If anything, though, you should be encouraged by the amount of support you got. Just keep the concerns in mind in your future editing, get some more content work under your belt and give it another go in 4-6 months. Best, Swarm ^X 18:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi Swarm, yes, as above, I am happy to have received the support I did. Although I'm disappointed, adminship is not everything to me. I've got some plans for improving my content work in mind; I look forward to working on those in the near future. Thank you again for your support, which was especially important to me, as you were the first editor to support and gave a very positive rationale :) Pol430 talk to me 18:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, man, you seem pretty awesome. Glad to see you're taking it in stride and considering the actual concerns people brought up (as opposed to the downright silly ones); if and when you do go crazy enough to try again, hopefully you'll probably have better luck, indeed. Meantime I don't think anyone has to tell you to keep up the good work with all them new pages and whatnot. — Isarra (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for applying for adminship. Obviously you are an excellent editor, and even though I opposed your adminship this time, you seem to have a good attitude about the experience of doing an RfA. I would love to see you apply again in the future after you have a little more experience, if still feel that you want to do this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks Isarra and Bluerasberry :) Pol430 talk to me 18:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I endorse everything Blueraspberry said. Your handling of criticism is very impressive, which is always a good sign. Keep up the good work and hopefully you'll push me into the opposite column next time round. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Thank you Alzarian :) Pol430 talk to me 23:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Notice

I am sorry to inform you that I have closed your RFA as unsuccessful. This was primarily based on the good faith comments relating to the level content contribution and judgment in situations such as vandalism reversion and CSD tagging. It was not based on comments related to edit rate. I would like to note that many of the opposes were positive about your overall contribution to the project and expressed faith that with more time and experience, you will be a more suitable candidate that they would support. Best of luck. MBisanz ^talk 19:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks MBisanz, onwards and upwards... :) Pol430 talk to me 18:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

IDEAS - not notable

Hi thanks for taking the time to review "IDEAS" for a new article. You declined it under the grounds of notability. I've ready the General Notability rules since then and they all seem to apply to the event.

Can you please give me some guidance?

Thank you for your help.

--MMChampion (talk) 09:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, when I first reviewed the article I got the strong impression it relied mostly on one source, and therefore lacked the level of coverage required to demonstrate notability. I have just tidied up the references and can now see a number of news sources, and others, that sufficiently demonstrate notability. I have now created the article and also linked it from the disambiguation page at IDEAS. Happy editing! Pol430 talk to me 20:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

about a software

Hi,

I am Alok Gupta doing job user experience, interest in software industries. I searched a Video Downloader software which I like Fast youtube downloader (fastytd.com) But I don't found any information on Wikipedia. So can you inform me that this is reliable or not. I also found this software listed on download.com, softwareadda.com, softonic.com etc. but Wikipedia not have any information. You are a most popular editor on Wikipedia. so I asking you.

my email address: alokpg@gmail.com

thanks & regards Alok Gupta — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.140.242.146 (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Alok, You're right, we don't have an article on 'Fast YouTube Downloader'. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, all articles must have multiple references that give significant coverage of the subject, and are independent of the subject. The fact that the software is listed on the sites you mention doesn't quite meet our criteria. I have done some research, but could not find many reliable sources on 'Fast YouTube Downloader', that meet our requirements. If you can find some better sources that talk about 'Fast YouTube Downloader' in detail (like review sites or news sites—not blogs, listings, paid placements or press releases) then message me back with those sources and I will help you to create the article. Best wishes Pol430 talk to me 13:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

DavidBirnbaum (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC) re "Summa Metaphysica"

DavidBirnbaum (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Hello, Thank you for your note regarding Summa Metaphysica. Please guide me through the finding of the article on the web. I tried typing "God and Evil" but nothing came up but when I tried "Summa Metaphysica" wiki I saw the article. How do I make "God and Evil" visible also on the web? Thank you for your assistance. -DBDavidBirnbaum (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for advertising what I presume is your work? Search engines index pages differently and Wikipedia has not control over that. Wikipedia articles may appear at the top of search engine results but not always. The point is, that people on Wikipedia can easily find both God and Evil and Summa Metaphysica by searching for it in Wikipedia's search box. Pol430 talk to me 14:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Laween Al-Atroshi

You declined the Laween Al-Atroshi profile, The articles are genuine and there are press releases as well. The ambassador for peace, is also in the public domain if you was to type 'Laween Al-Atroshi' and is an achievement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bounce5050 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the article was accepted by another editor; however, on close examination of the sources, they are almost all written by Laween Al-Atroshi. Wikipedia is not a place to establish 'profiles' nor is it a forum for advertising. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that should only contain articles about things (including people) that are notable. We generally consider that people are notable when other people take the time to write about them, not when they write about themselves. I'm not disputing that he received an 'ambassador for peace' award, I am disputing that it is important enough to make him notable. The article will now be discussed by the Wikipedia community for 7 days, after which time it will either be kept or deleted. The fact that this article has been previously declined 10 times, by other reviewers, leads me to suggest it should never have been accepted in the first place. Pol430 talk to me 12:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bellerophon. You have new messages at Alpha Quadrant's talk page.
Message added 22:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/C. Lorenz AG

Earlier you rejected my article (V. Lorenz AG) because it "included copywritten" material. I will point out that the said material was from a book that I wrote and hold the copyright. This asside, I rewrote the offending section and made several other minor changes and resubmitted the article. Now you have rejected it a second time, saying that I made NO CHANGES in the resubmittal. If you cannt discern the changes, you should not be a "filtering" editor.Raymond C. Watson, Jr. (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Raymond, I wasn't the only editor that could not discern the changes. Because you edited the article elsewhere and copy and pasted the text in your second submission, the differences can not be discerned by the Wikimedia software. This gave rise to the impression that you had simply restored the original text. Additionally, the issue of close paraphrasing was brought up by another reviewer and some examples of that remain in the rest of the text. For example: "this radar had a range of up to 7 km for surface vessels and 20 km for aircraft" vs "provided a range of 7 km for surface vessels and 20 km for aircraft." Anyway, this all rather a mute point, because you have now identified that you own the copyright and therefore Wikipedia does not have to worry about legal action should that text make it live into the encyclopedia. However! If you wish to use the text published in your book, you will need to formally release it to Wikipedia, by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Pol430 talk to me 00:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

help triage some feedback

Hey guys.

I appreciate this isn't quite what you signed up for, but I figured as people who are already pretty good at evaluating whether material is useful or not useful through Special:NewPages, you might be interested :). Over the last few months we've been developing the new Article Feedback Tool, which features a free text box. it is imperative that we work out in advance what proportion of feedback is useful or not so we can adjust the design accordingly and not overwhelm you with nonsense.

This is being done through the Feedback Evaluation System (FES), a tool that lets editors run through a stream of comments, selecting their value and viability, so we know what type of design should be promoted or avoided. We're about to start a new round of evaluations, beginning with an office hours session tomorrow at 18:00 UTC. If you'd like to help preemptively kill poor feedback, come along to #wikimedia-office and we'll show you how to use the tool. If you can't make it, send me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org or drop a note on my talkpage, and I'm happy to give you a quick walkthrough in a one-on-one session :).

All the best, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

topicon

May i know the template used for topicon of wp:RCP i wanted to add it but unable to find, thanks-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 23:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You'll need to inser the following code: {{topicon|imagename=RCPatroller_Badge.png | wikilink=Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol | description=This user is a Recent Changes Patroller | id=RCP Badge-icon | icon_nr = {{{icon_nr|{{{number|0}}}}}} | extra_offset = {{{extra_offset|{{{offset|55}}}}}} | width = {{{width|20}}} | style = {{{style|}}} }} Pol430 talk to me 00:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

for helping with the topicon ÐℬigXЯaɣ 06:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Good work

Thanks for chipping in at RFP. Good observations. Wifione ^Message 07:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem, happy to be of help :) Pol430 talk to me 22:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of BikerOrNot.com for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BikerOrNot.com is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BikerOrNot.com until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Re; Edward Margolies Submission

Hi Pol430, Thanks for taking the time to respond to my query yesterday. I did read the FAQ and hopefully have addressed any outstanding issues. My submission did contain a Kirkus review of Margolies's work (link and citation) that was a 'rave.' I'm wondering if that was possibly overlooked If helpful, I could cite and include discussion of his work in newspapers and magazines (Wash Post, New Yorker, etc). But I am not sure if doing that in scope of a very brief article would be compelling to readers, and think it might come off as very stilted. Thanks again for your time. I know you are volunteering and editing Wikipedia is not glamorous or easy to do. Best regards, cob brooklyn Thecobbrooklyn (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for getting touch. Yes, I did notice the Kirkus source, but the notability guidelines require evidence in multiple reliable sources. Discussion in well known newspapers and magazines is exactly what we're looking for and the wash post and New Yorker are good quality sources, so please go ahead and cite them. It's also worth mentioning that any biographical information needs to be cited to a source. Pol430 talk to me 21:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pol430, Thanks again for the very useful advice and all your help. I have added additional information, citing an additional respected source on Margolies' importance, and have also included citations for what, I hope, are considered good quality sources that discuss Margolies' work-- The New Yorker, The Nation, Wash Post, etc). Hope you have a good weekend in the UK--I just saw off my Aunt and Uncle, they live in Banbury, Oxfordshire, who'd been visitng us here in NYC. Best regards, cob brooklyn Thecobbrooklyn (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Dogeared

Hi Pol430 Thank you for the edit. I wanted to know why the following are not credible sources

the Los angeles Business Journal, the national jeweler, the Pittsburgh post gazette.

Heal the bay and Stand up 2 Cancer are both well known and well established non profit organizations in the states. Any help will be useful. Also, How would I remove it from the articles for deletion. Any help is appreciated thank you

Mtheisner (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)mtheisner

Hi! Firstly, let me just clarify that the basis for my decline was notability, I am not disputing the accuracy of the information contained in the submission. I forgot to mention the Pittsburgh Post Gazette when I made reference to Seattle Times, I do consider both of those publications to be reliable sources. I could be missing something obvious, but I could not see any mention of 'Dogeared' by name, in the LA Biz journal? Even so, our own article on the LA biz journal reveals it to have a somewhat limited circulation. Generally speaking, when it comes to newspaper, and similar publications, we look for major regional or national dailies to evidence notability. The National Jeweler is an obscure publication to me. There is no definitive list of reliable sources on wikipedia, so reviewers often have to exercise judgement in deciding if a source is reliable; I could not be sure that National Jeweler can be reasonably expected to be so. In order to establish notability, we generally look for significant coverage in a minimum of three, independent, reliable sources. In the case of this submission, I considered that PPG and ST meet those criteria, but I had to dismiss the sources listed above for the reasons I have mentioned. HealtheBay and Standup2Cancer could also not be considered suitable sources for evidencing notability, because they are in partnership with 'Dogeared' and therefore fall short of the requirement to be independent. These concerns notwithstanding, because the article has been previously deleted via a 'deletion discussion' and, due to re-creation', has been indefinitely create protected, it's creation should be discussed at deletion review (follow the instructions at that page for info on how to request a deletion review). If you do request deletion review, be sure to include mention of this discussion and the helpdesk discussion. Hope that helps. Pol430 talk to me 23:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bellerophon. You have new messages at The Earwig's talk page.
Message added 17:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— The Earwig ^(talk) 17:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

AfC

Hi! you've recently blanked a content on my AFC due to wiki-policies violations containing emails and contact numbers...I just want to ask, can I still restore the content without adding emails and contact numbers but the source appears still the same? 112.198.245.180 (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, yes, if you go back into the page history you will find the previous content. You can re-add the content, but please remove any contact information (such as emails and phone numbers). Pol430 talk to me 17:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks very much...You're such a good asset in wikipedia existence...More power and GOD bless you always... BrowneyesPercy 03:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Declined Redirect

Hello - I saw you declined my request to have the page for "Pasadena POPS" redirect to the page for Pasadena Symphony and POPS, stating that it was unlikely and asking for some source. In 2007, two individual orchestras (The Pasadena Symphony and the Pasadena POPS) merged into one organization and combined names. There are still large segments of the Southern California community that refer to them as their original names, and the organization even produces multiple brochures for their Pasadena POPS season and Pasadena Symphony season under those respective names. Here are some links for you:

http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2011/08/04/20147/hamlisch-pops - an article from the local NPR affiliate discussing the appointment of Marvin Hamlisch to conduct the Pasadena POPS http://www.elliottforrest.com/pasadena-pops.html - A stage enginner who designed some of the productions for the Pasadena POPS http://petersmusicnews.com/2011/07/laughter-charm-and-good-music-mark-hamlischs-pops-debut-with-pasadena-pops/ - a news review of a recent Pasadena POPS concert http://issuu.com/pasadenasymphony/docs/pops.2012.seasonbrochure_final?mode=embed - The Pasadena POPS 2012 brochure, where they refer to themselves almost exclusively as Pasadena POPS

I hope this helps inform you of the ambiguous and common names for the organization, and we hope you reconsider allowing the redirect to occur.

Thank you Ivan Btonetbone (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Redirect created. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! Thanks for supplying the sources. Pol430 talk to me 11:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/Nolelover

My apologies for not catching your comments here...I completely missed them. My thanks for the review though :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 02:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome Nolelover :) Pol430 talk to me 10:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/De zwarte met het witte hart

This will only take you five seconds. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.157.121.92 (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for contacting me. I would have accepted your submission but Martijn Hoekstra (talk · contribs) beat me to it :) Happy editing! Pol430 talk to me 20:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

A big NPT update

Hey! Big update on what the developers have been working on, and what is coming up:

coding

• Fixes for the "moved pages do not show up in Special:NewPages" and "pages created from redirects do not show up in Special:NewPages" bugs have been completed and signed off on. Unfortunately we won't be able to integrate them into the existing version, but they will be worked into the Page Triage interface.
• Coding has been completed on three elements; the API for displaying metadata about the article in the "list view", the ability to keep the "patrol" button visible if you edit an article before patrolling it, and the automatic removal of deleted pages from the queue. All three are awaiting testing but otherwise complete.

All other elements are either undergoing research, or about to have development started. I appreciate this sounds like we've not got through much work, and truthfully we're a bit disappointed with it as well; we thought we'd be going at a faster pace :(. Unfortunately there seems to be some 24-72 hour bug sweeping the San Francisco office at the moment, and at one time or another we've had several devs out of it. It's kind of messed with workflow.

Stuff to look at

We've got a pair of new mockups to comment on that deal with the filtering mechanism; this is a slightly updated mockup of the list view, and this is what the filtering tab is going to look like. All thoughts, comments and suggestions welcome on the NPT talkpage :). I'd also like to thank the people who came to our last two office hours sessions; the logs will be shortly available here.

I've also just heard that the first functional prototype for enwiki will be deployed mid-April! Really, really stoked to see this happening :). We're finding out if we can stick something up a bit sooner on prototype.wiki or something.

I appreciate there may be questions or suggestions where I've said "I'll find out and get back to you" and then, uh. not ;p. I sincerely apologise for that: things have been a bit hectic at this end over the last few weeks. But if you've got anything I've missed, drop me a line and I'll deal with it! Further questions or issues to the usual address. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A S College article creation

Thanks for reviewing, editing and creating the article I submitted and asked for help with. I will continue to find more and more information and improve the article and contribute to other articles on Wikipedia.

Thanks again.

--Rawender (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Pol430 talk to me 21:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

This was really nice of you, especially for Malleus--who hates DYK, haha! 66.168.247.159 (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem :) Pol430 talk to me 21:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

GOCE March drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive GOCE March 2012 Backlog Elimination progress graph Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 Backlog elimination drive! This is the most successful drive we have had for quite a while. Here is your end-of-drive wrap-up newsletter. Participation Of the 70 people who signed up for this drive, 40 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Special acknowledgement goes out to Lfstevens, who did over 200 articles, most of them in the last third of the drive, and topped all three leaderboard categories. You're a superstar! Stfg and others have been pre-checking the articles for quality and conformance to Wikipedia guidelines; some have been nominated for deletion or had some preliminary clean-up done to help make the copy-edit process more fun and appealing. Thanks to all who helped get those nasty last few articles out of the target months. Progress report During this drive we were successful in eliminating our target months—October, November, and December 2010—from the queue, and have now eliminated all the 2010 articles from our list. We were able to complete 500 articles this month! End-of-drive results and barnstar information can be found here. When working on the backlog, please keep in mind that there are options other than copy-editing available; some articles may be candidates for deletion, or may not be suitable for copy-editing at this time for other reasons. The {{GOCEreviewed}} tag can be placed on any article you find to be totally uneditable, and you can nominate for deletion any that you discover to be copyright violations or completely unintelligible. If you need help deciding what to do, please contact any of the coordinators. Thank you for participating in the March 2012 drive! All contributions are appreciated. Our next copy-edit drive will be in May. Your drive coordinators – Dianna (Talk), Stfg (Talk), and Dank (talk) To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. EdwardsBot (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Pageant the Documentary

Hi...thank you for your review. I'm flummoxed. I have submitted this over and over. I either get the references are fine and the style is wrong; or the style is right and the references are wrong. I've used very good sources--New York Times, Village voice, and many others. I hate to sound thick, but I have gone to live help; I've used the wiki MANY different style pages none of which are consistent, btw! and each time I get a different response but all sort of along the lines of you're almost there. HELP?

Pageant is a relevant film. I have supplied reliable relevant sources, materials. I've checked it against several documentaries that came out recently GOD IS THE BIGGER ELVIS, WHICH WAY HOME, a couple of Michael MOORE's and in fact, I have more sources than some and done the same way. Please help me because I followed the format in the wiki pages to make the footnotes and I don't understand where the problem is? Thank you

Bonchic (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)bonchicBonchic (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Footnotes are explained in WP:CITE. I've gone through and cleaned it up some. I don't think you followed the format of very good articles, and I've reorganized it. Pol, please send the article on; it's no worse than a lot of others and it has a couple of reviews. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Accepted Firstly, both of you should know that I did not review this submission. Another editor alerted me to the fact that it had been previously declined for inappropriate reasons, so I resolved that issue. However, I have now accepted the submission and it is live in Wikipedia. I'm sorry this has been a frustrating experience for you, that submission probably should have been accepted sooner. Pol430 talk to me 20:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Pol. BTW, I did not intend any criticism of you here. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Pol430 talk to me 20:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

One last question--is it possible to just list it as PAGEANT? I try typing pageant in and it doesn't come up unless I put Pageant (documentary) sorry. Newbie error Bonchic (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)bonchicBonchic (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH---and for helping me clean it up and for accepting it. I really appreciate it and will hopefully be better at this for future.

Bonchic (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)bonchicBonchic (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bonchic! No, I'm afraid it can't just be called pageant because that title is currently a Wikipedia disambiguation page; However, I have added a link to the documentary from that page. Pol430 talk to me 21:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)