User talk:David FLXD/Archives/2012 1

Please only edit BELOW this line

Please place any talkbacks or new sections at the bottom of this page.

IRC

Do you use irc at all? You should get on the AfC irc channel if so, much easier than using talkbacks ;) avs5221^{(talk|contrib)} 13:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Dave Days

Hi there, I'm working with you on this one to get Dave Days unsalted so we can move Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dave_Days to mainspace. I have submitted a DRV request here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_July_6#Dave_Days. Zad68 18:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Zad!

Paul Lukas (Blogger)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Paul_Lukas_(Blogger)

Do I think you have a vendetta against me, or Paul, no. Maybe you have one against my last remaining marble I have left.

(By the way, I do kid around a lot.)

But, on a serious note, do I have this whole thing backwards. Or, got the right idea, but with the wrong efforts?

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but let me say this: the first time I saw the article, there were no "reliable" sources, decline, end of story. Not a lot of patience with explaining to the contributor, not with "(blogger)" in the title! Second time around, I saw you'd largely addressed the sources issue. You had shown enough evidence, taken together, that he could well be worth an encyclopedia entry. If I mentioned it again, it was to say that you need to put the emphasis on the best sources, as far as possible. Yes, I did say "take out most of the blogs and self-references", but that was in the expectation that you would be able to find other refs of the conventional type. Wikipedia has its rules and guidelines, but we are also allowed to bend them when it seems to be necessary.

What I try to do if establish that he does what I say he does, then try to prove that someone noticed that he did it?

Yes, pretty well put! If he's written a book, you can reference the book, but that doesn't make him notable. Good sales figures on the book, now, a reference to that will by itself show notability. If he writes regularly for a big newspaper like the NY Times, that shows that a lot of people will know of him. Notability again. And if there are independent, reliable figures on the no. of hits on his blog, that too. The combination would be enough. We are currently reviewing a YouTube performer with a massive fan base, and it seems the WP admins are leaning towards approving the article, so there is hope!

Then come to my next question. Where do you draw the line on someone who free lance writes, and independent sources? He has contributed many an article to many a media outlet. Certain things, where he was a staff writer, I understand are off limits, but, does one article take that away too?

If he is a regular staff writer, that doesn't mean the references are completely off limits, but they must be accompanied by outside references, and they must not be used as the sole substantiation for dramatic or controversial statements in the article.

-- SeanPat73 says 03:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me say plainly: I believe you have a worth while topic here. It will take a bit of work to show it to everyone, but I think it can be done. You may consider changing the title to "Paul Lukas (writer)". We WP reviewers' blood pressure goes up when we just see "blogger", "YouTube" or "outstanding, amazing, wonderful, groundbreaking, trend-setting...."! It seems to me that PL is really a writer who just happens to work primarily in electronic rather than print media. Keeping in mind what I've said here, go back and look over the comment I made on the article, particularly the "things to do to improve the article". David_FLXD (Talk) 05:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hope Internatioal Article

Hello David FLXD,

Thanks for your advice on my article about Hope International. I have gone through and shortened several sections in the article and tried to take out unnecessary detail. Would you mind taking a second look at it when you have a chance?

Thanks again for your advice- it was very helpful.

RunLeahrun (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)RunLeahRun

Great- sounds good David. No rush. The articles I used to make comparisons were Finca International, International Justice Mission, Grameen Bank, Special Olympics and Bank of America- just for kicks.

Thanks!

96.225.134.115 (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)RunLeahrun

David FLXD-

Wow! Thanks so much for your help! I really appreciate the time you took in making the revisions. You're correct- though it is difficult for me to do without some of the info I had in there- its omission does put a different spin on the article and it is more encyclopedic. I see how some of the facts I had in there, though relevant and from outside sources, lent a slight bias to the article. Your notes explaining the corrections were very informative. I will go back through and add different sources for the citations and make a couple more changes and then send it back to you for one more look over before I resubmit.

Thanks again!

RunLeahrun (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)RunLeahRun

Eric P. Hamp submition

David FLXD:

I am the daughter or Eric P. Hamp. He lives with me. He was shown a copy of the Wikipedia page and wanted some items cleared up. He initially gave his cv to a grad student at U of C and they were going to assist in 'cleaning' up and correctly entering factual info.

That seemed to prompt a response from Wiki editors? of stating on the page it was too unbiased and resume like.

Dad never submitted or wrote/created this page. Someone, somewhere did. I even tried, unsuccessfully, to contact that person (or who I thought was the creator of the post) but to no avail.

I then created an account with the sincere hopes of providing unbiased materials, in a short format but to the point. With the exception of the later materials, I used wording from the American Philosophical Society site that has info on him, as well as Wiki sites and general web sites to support information typed in his description.

I am exhausted with trying to figure out what has to be done and at this point after researching and trying valiantly to cite and do what wiki wants for this, am simply pooped.

I am willing to give it one more go, but I need SOMEONE's help at wiki that can provide more than, "Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
"

I did look at the Welcome to Wikipedia page as well at Talk and Sandbox, where I thought I was making some strides.

At this point unless I get some realistic help, this isn't going any farther.

So, where do I go from here?

I am respectfully asking for a human help with this and coaching if possible....

Thank you - Juli - daughter or Eric P. Hamp - creator of EricusPraticus wiki email... — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricusPraticus (talk • contribs) 17:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Juli, and thanks for contacting me. First let me say that I have every sympathy for your position and the trials you've experienced.

Let's start with the positives:

• First, and most importantly, Eric P. Hamp does qualify as notable under the Wikipedia "Academic" guidelines, which means we can get an article accepted.
• Secondly, you have good sources which, in general, support the article. That means the article qualifies for reliability.
• Third, the article has already been structured within the general layout which WP likes to see used for biographical articles. Format: check!
• Fourth, as I mentioned in my review, even though there may be a technical conflict of interest, we need not be bothered about it as there is no financial implication. Wikipedia is quite happy for family members of notable people to contribute to articles, so long as they remain objective about the content. Of course, we see a lot of material which is not at all objective, and we see a lot of submissions where family members think their relative was notable. We don't really have either of those problems here (see my next point).

The negatives:

• I mentioned non-NPOV (non neutral point of view) tone, and gave one example. Yes, there are several instances, but the article overall is not that bad. Most of it is perfectly acceptable.
• The biggest issue with this article is the lack of in-line citations where specific statements are made. This is very difficult for anyone other than the author to fix, as the reviewer does not know where among all the sources the relevant material is, to substantiate the particular statement.

I'm going to assume that you still want to see the article accepted and that, if you have some assurance that you can get to that point, and you have guidance to make sure you're doing the right things, you are willing to do the work. If I'm right in that assumption, then we can fix this fairly quickly.

I am going to do the necessary NPOV edit of the article for you, changing what I can change and highlighting where an inline citation, or perhaps a short quotation from the source, is needed. Don't worry about losing any of your work if I change something I shouldn't: on Wikipedia we can always go back to an earlier version of any article, ok? And if you feel you want to do that, I promise I will not mind a bit!

If you then are able to provide the inline references, I am confident that we will be able to accept the article.

The easiest method is to edit in reference tags like this:

<ref name="UNIQUE_NAME">Here would go an internet link, a book reference, whatever; the whole reference typed out ONLY THE FIRST TIME ON THE PAGE THAT YOU USE IT</ref>

On each subsequent occasion that you need to use the same source, you just use the short form:

<ref name="UNIQUE_NAME" /> (note the inclusion of the closing tag this time). For each separate source, you must identify it by its own unique name.

Then, change the heading name from "Bibliography" to "References" and immediately underneath that heading insert (type in) the {{reflist}} template (notice the curly brackets). This will automatically take all the ref name= references, number them in order of first appearance in the article, and present the reference contents in an ordered list.

I hope this is clear enough, and I hope it helps. I am happy to serve as your guide through this, for so long as you need the help, and at least until we get the article accepted. David_FLXD (Talk) 17:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. It helps a LOT if you always use the preview button before saving - but remember to save before leaving the article page! David_FLXD (Talk) 17:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Robert Harper wiki saga continues - please help

David, I have no idea what went wrong or why another editor stepped in when we were SO close to getting my article on Robert Harper completed. I have no idea what all this means that was left in my latest correspondence from Udeeza. Will you take a look? Did I do something wrong? Did all my work and references somehow get corrupted? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/BobHarper JoanneSala (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Joanne Sala

You were quite close enough. Udeezy is maybe a little new at the reviewing job. (An experienced editor, but back from a longish absence.) The script we use to help in the reviewing tasks will automatically blank a submitted article if you pick certain reasons to decline a biographical article, unless you tell it not to. Udeezy probably missed that (it's a new feature). Anyway, cut a long story short, your article is now up. I did a few little npov and formality edits, no major change except to formatting (separated career from lead paragraph). I added an infobx and the (hidden) persondata template, which YOU need to fill in, since I don't have enough information! See the article talk page, and the article itself, Bob_Harper_(producer). I had to change the name as there were a few Bob Harpers around! Do keep an eye on the article, and drop me a line on my talk page if there is any problem. Cheers! David_FLXD (Talk) 04:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Bob Harper (producer) Start Page Woo HOO!!!

How much do I love David FLXD? Let me count the ways!!!! You are fantastic! And Brilliant! Thanks for all the help and hand-holding. I filled in Bob's info box with as much info as I think he'd want disclosed (love that there's a "net worth" category). I hit save. Do I need to do anything else? I noticed the info box has an "image" area, but I'm not sure how to upload a jpg file of Bob there. Any quick tips for that?

JoanneSala (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Joanne Sala

Hi Joanne, glad to be of service! No, you don't need to do anything else at the moment. Keep an eye on the page from time to time (short intervals at first, longer later) and see what other editors do to improve it. Uploading images is not hard, but copyright licencing is a bear. I'll try to give you the short version.

• Before you start, you must be clear on the copyright status of the image file you plan to upload. If you have a suitable digital photo you took yourself, it is easier.
• In that case (i.e. you are the copyright owner), go to the Toolbox on the left side menu at WP, and click on Upload file. I would suggest you choose one of the Creative Commons licenses, I think the Share Alike one. (Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0). This allows anyone to copy the image, but requires that they attribute it to the source and that they not alter the image. Follow the instructions and fill in as much information as you can. The image file must be available on your computer before you start, the destination article where you plan to use it must already exist (in this case we know it does) and you must know the article name exactly. You should cope with that, otherwise feel free to ask for more detailed instructions.
• If you are NOT the copyright holder, then before you do anything you need to get a properly worded release in the form of the licence you plan to use. Ideally, this would be an email. If you need to do this, let me know and I will direct you to where you can get the right text.
• Finally, if you have a public domain image (or one you want to release into public domain), then it is better to upload to WikiCommons. If you need to know how to do that I can tell you.
• You might find a visit to my user page helpful, it has many links to useful pages. Regards, David_FLXD (Talk) 19:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

David: thanks for your considerate reply, and for my transition from 80% to 20%! I DO believe I'm close based on the other reviewer's comments, and i will take you up on the offer to re-submit after doing a little work. Will be later today (none hours earlier than you, of course). Have a good evening. -- Ed Ebdavids (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Nine hours, not "none" hours, of course

(...since, you being an editor, I'm sure you're good at picking up typos) Ebdavids (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I hove no idea what your talking about :-P! David_FLXD (Talk) 16:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, David. Back again with my revisions.

Good morning (I think, when you see this) down there in SA... (I'm in California, BTW):

I've incorporated your comments as well as the ones I had received earlier (while waiting for your response), and I believe I've corrected and tightened up the article to bring it up to snuff. Please let me know what you think.

The link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Peak_Corporate_Network.

Many thanks again.

Ed Ebdavids (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I had a look at the article. I'm really on the fence here, and the big issue is your sources. I accept your good faith, I can see why the topic could need an encyclopedia entry; the article is well written and factual and the layout is good. I like the way you have clearly worked with the advice you have obtained from various people on Wikipedia. If your sources were better it would already be online. Specifically, your best source is the LA Business News, which I can't access because I'm not a subscriber (and it seems to me that subscription is not free - if I'm wrong about that, I'm happy to register and take a look at that article). Then you have YouTube videos, which we don't really like. I realise they are clips of regular news / business news broadcasts, but isn't there another way to get access to the same materials? (Just asking!). Finally, Priel's perspective is not independent; nothing wrong with having it as an additional source, but it doesn't count as substantiation.

If you can supply just two - preferably three! - additional independent sources, it will be ok. You are allowed to use print media as references: newspapers, magazines (preferably not trade journals, as they don't demonstrate notability outside the trade). They don't all have to be internet-accessible. In addition to that you can also cite books which either or both of the partners have published, with the ISBN numbers supplied. Regards, David_FLXD (Talk) 04:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

E G Trobridge

Please seemy change to the article E G Trobridge. If you agree with my making it a redirect you might wish to move your review too? Quiet Editor (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my (admittedly brief) note above. I did not duplicate the article by messing up a rename - rather, I found two duplicate copies of the article and attempted to handle the situation by making the one with Trobridge's initials a redirect to Ernest George Trobridge. However If merging the two pages' edit histories together is a better way to clean this up, then go for it! Anyway, thanks for jumping on this quickly. Quiet Editor (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

My apologies if I misunderstood you. I am a new editor and learning as I go, so I was going by the apparent split history between the two pages, and since, yes, your note was not all that clear, I relied on the diagnosis supplied by Wikipedia documentation. I glanced at what you had done and was rather surprised that you needed to be told about moving a page (but anything is possible), and I went for safe rather than sorry. I do really appreciate your heads up on what was happening. Regards, David_FLXD (Talk) 04:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem! I am certainly capable of mistakes, and am still learning the ins and out so Wikipedia so take no offence when someone takes the time to explain something to me.

I too was puzzled about what had happened so I just spent a few minutes looking at the history of the two pages and see that User:Stephen2810 started the E G article back in May In the sandbox and submitted it for review on July 11: you then reviewed and moved to article space on July 16.However, in between his submission and your approval (on July 12) S2810 went ahead and created the Ernest George article in article space. Hence the 2 articles.

I guess that, at this point, the question is if we need the E G redirect to assist anyone who searches for E G Trobridge, or if it should just be deleted as redundant? I'll leave that call to you since you're part of the review process for Articles submitted through afc.

Regards Quiet Editor (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That will be up to whichever admin catches the history merge. David_FLXD (Talk) 07:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

thanks for tunnel people!

Hello, David FLXD. You have new messages at David FLXD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

thanks about that! enjoy jour evening Ransfortstraat (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stephen (Steve) K. Ray

Dear David FLXD:

Thank you for reviewing the Stephen K. Ray article and for your suggestions on addressing the issues with notability in the article.

Reading the guidelines and searching through existing Wikipedia articles, however, is only increasing my confusion and, frankly, my frustration with this process. There are scores of biographical articles that do not meet the criteria on notability to which you have directed me. Wikipedia's stated refusal to accept primary sources as references seems to be contradicted by the inclusion of articles that do. One of the basic tenants of historiography is that primary sources are superior to secondary sources and many, many biographical articles within Wikipedia use primary sources as references, yet you have refused to accept the primary sources in the Stephen Ray article as sufficient. I have even found articles which have no references at all. Also, the variability of the criteria for notability upon the field in which the person functions seems to favor one particular field over all others and, therefore, difficult to include people who make more substantial contributions to society. If contemporary persons are to be included in Wikipedia according to the guidelines set out by Wikipedia, then the authors of these articles would have to do much more independent research in city hall records rooms, newspaper morgues and hospital files to satisfy these guidelines.

All of this seems to suggest an editing process with an agenda that should not be present in the compilation of an encyclopedia. Recently, a co-founder of Wikipedia stated as much in an interview. If this is the case and due to the agenda present within the editing process the Stephen K. Ray article does not have even a chance of being published, please let me know now. Otherwise, would you please address more specifically the concerns I raised above.

Thank you.

Respectfully,

Marcus Woods — Preceding unsigned comment added by FireWriter154 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Marcus, thank you for coming back to me! (Many don't, ever.) Yes, unfortunately there are many articles on Wikipedia which do not meet our own criteria. It is a constant battle to keep the weeds down! (We get hundreds of new articles daily, and some slip through which should not. We do usually catch them sooner or later.) However, the fact that some articles which are unsuitable or not good enough have slipped through (temporarily) does not justify a lowering of standards for other new ones under review. We would rather address the weakness of the articles you mention. If you could give me some specifics, I would be grateful to bring them to the attention of the various relevant editorial task teams in Wikipedia.

Regarding your argument on primary versus secondary sources, I have sympathy with your view. However, it is usually very difficult, if not impossible, to check the accuracy of primary sources without good secondary sources. Particularly with regard to biographical articles, I as the primary source can claim anything about myself - and people do. I am not saying that this is the case in your article, just trying to explain why Wikipedia has the policy that it does. And we do try to apply it impartially.

The biggest specific problem I as a reviewer have with your article on Ray is that I cannot see enough independent notability. Just a couple of independent newspaper reports would be enough to establish that, taken with what you have already provided. These sources can also include print media - the Jerusalem Post, perhaps, even if they are not internet-accessible. Then also, Ray is a difficult notability subject because it seems he is a little bit notable as a speaker, and a little bit as a Bible scholar, and a little bit as a guide for the Holy land, etc. The thing is, all those little bits don't add up to a big notable. But if you can add suitable independent sources which show notability, that will address this issue.

The other big issue is that there is a lot of personal information which is not really appropriate to an encyclopedia. This doesn't chime with the formal language and neutral point of view which one expects, and should get, in a good encyclopedia article.

In conclusion, if you can find a way to address these two key issues with the article, I would be prepared to accept it for inclusion in Wikipedia. But unless they are dealt with, I cannot. Regards, David_FLXD (Talk) 08:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Good job.

Not that you asked, but I think you are doing a good job on Wikipedia, David.

Feel free to be more bold. Thanks. tahc ^chat 21:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Tahc! As I'm sure you already know, it's rather nice to see something like this instead of the usual complaints about article rejections! You do a pretty good job yourself! David_FLXD (Talk) 09:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/Stephen (Steve) K. Ray

Dear David FLXD:

Thank you very much for your very constructive critique of the biography. I agree with you about the unreliability of primary sources in a format like Wikipedia. It's unfortunate that such has to be the case. I, also, agree with you about the extraneous material and the timid way in which the notability of the subject is presented within the text of the biography. These concerns, of course, can be remedied fairly easily.

The issue with the references is the major one and an issue that cannot be resolved at this time, unfortunately. To comply with Wikipedia's guidelines, a substantial amount of time would have to be spent researching through documents, newspapers, records and files.

I appreciate your desire to know of which articles to which I was referring in my earlier message to you. Below is a list of some of them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_vibrator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joani_Blank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Land_Component http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regiment_Carabiniers_Prince_Baudouin_-_Grenadiers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Ray http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Kresta http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Hahn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Howard_(writer_and_scholar) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Howard_(author_and_Christian_missionary) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Elliot

Thank you, again, for your constructive criticism and for the civil discussion. I appreciate both. Take care.

Respectfully,

FireWriter154 (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Marcus, sorry I asked! I have now looked at all of the articles you listed. Lack of sourcing and/or citations is widespread. I have tagged almost all of them for improvement and proposed deletion for one, and a merge into another article for another. Had it been up to me I would have deleted Butterfly vibrator without discussion.

Just so you don't despair completely, there is discussion going on about finding a way to tag good quality draft articles, which are close to being acceptable (like yours!) so that we can perhaps follow up on them later. I hope that this will bear fruit. If it does, there is a good chance that one or another editor will pick up your article and dig up those sources (which might also be more easily available in time) which are needed to make it acceptable. Regards, David_FLXD (Talk) 20:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Meridian Water Wikipedia Entry

Hi David,

Could you advise on how to make this article (which you reviewed and declined 18th July) acceptable?

The information is sourced, and I have tried to remove biased language ("fantastic opportunity", "will transform the area", etc)

Any advice would be appreciated

Thanks

MW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meridian Water (talk • contribs) 07:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear MW (you company man, you!), a couple of suggestions. First, change your username, it screams "conflict of interest". (Go to WP:Username change). Secondly, we will need to get rid of everything that even hints at marketing. I am going to do a radical edit - I mean, RADICAL! - edit of your article for the purpose of illustrating how far you need to go. Clearly this is a big, and notable development, so it is worth including in the encyclopedia. But the article has to be purely informational and not promotional. When you've gotten over the shock, click on the history tab on top of the page to get into the page history view, and select "undo" to undo the radical edit (yes, it's that easy!). Then go to work to transform the article and AFTER you have done that, you can try to resubmit it. Make sure to consult WP:PEACOCK and WP:ADS when you are rewriting. Regards, David_FLXD (Talk) 10:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

trying to move ahead!

Hello again, David.

Thanks so much for the positive view of the article on Peak and especially for the honesty and details on specifics re what you would need to get you and the article "off the fence" (to the positive side, of course!) I understand exactly what you're saying in the source area . . . and have spent some time trying to address your concerns, trying to strengthen what I have and looking for more.

Let me address the news-stories-on-YouTube thing first: I've checked around, and to my knowledge, at least for these clips, I haven't been successful in finding a way to direct people to them in the references other than through the YouTube URL's. I see you're "just asking!," so I hope that explanation and the (I also hope) obvious authenticity of the clips can get THOSE references over the hurdle.

Next, trying to find/show you additional independent sources: I will tell you this -- I tried a number of means to search for more, and while I may come up with one or two additional, I was very surprised to discover that for a company of Peak's size and "presence," one that's been around (in essentially its current form) for 20+ years, there haven't been many more of the types of references you seek published about them.

My BIG concern relates to the LA Business Journal articles (I believe that's what you meant when you inadvertently referred to them as LA Business News). I'm so sorry you were frustrated when trying to view them. Yes, indeed, I have a PAID subscription. Sorry. So the next question is how to make it possible for you to be able to see them (because, as you possibly implied in saying they're my "best source,"I believe they are strong and do, indeed, substantiate the company's notability). Unless you are able to accept that last statement as a matter of faith, the only solution I could come up with would be for me to attempt to make PDFs of the articles and then somehow get those PDFs to you to view. It's important enough to me -- and obviously I feel I can have trust in you, that at first I was going to offer to send you my username and password for the publication -- but then I remembered how totally transparent all communication is on Wikipedia (and that's a great thing), so obviously I wouldn't want to share that info beyond you. Have you run into this situation before ? Any ideas?

I'll wait for your response to all of the above (especially the last point) and then do what's necessary. It's good (but frustrating, too, of course) to feel I'm so close to having the article posted. Glad I'm in the hands of a good, fair editor!

Thanks again, and cheers,

Ed

P. S. I wanted you to know that if/when I get it all right and the Peak encyclopedia article is published, I also would like to do individual article/bios on each of the two principals. Wanted to get a little more confidence in "presentation," though. Ebdavids (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Ebdavids (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ed, have you registered an email address on Wikipedia? If you have, you can send me an email summarising the contents of the LABJ article: from my Talk page, i.e. here, if you're reading this, look on the panel on the left in the Toolbox. There's a link for "E-Mail this user". David_FLXD (Talk) 19:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ebdavids

Hi, david:

That sounds like a great solution,and it was good to discover the Tool Box (and a little more about you!) . . . bit I couldn't find "email this user." These were the only categories in the Toolbox menu at the left:

Interaction

   Help
   About Wikipedia
   Community portal
   Recent changes
   Contact Wikipedia

Toolbox

   What links here
   Related changes
   User contributions
   Logs
   Upload file
   Special pages
   Permanent link

Print/export

   Create a book
   Download as PDF
   Printable version

Can you guide me to the email link? Thanks!

Ed 98.149.183.223 (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Going by your sig - were you logged in when you looked? It should appear between "Logs" and "Upload file", but only for a logged-in user. I have sent you one in the meanwhile. David_FLXD (Talk) 18:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sent an e-mail

Hi, David:

Just sent you a summary note, etc., via the e-mail form. Appreciate your guiding me how to find it. Please let me know if you don't receive it.

Thanks,

Ed Ebdavids (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

As of this date/time, nothing received yet. Did you receive my test email? (I did receive the copy to myself which WP system sent). To make your life easier, you can send directly to: sierra papa alpha mike charlie alpha november one word lower case at weblink1 dot co dot za. Regards, David_FLXD (Talk) 07:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Methodism work group

Yeah, the bot that does the assessments has been getting a lot of questions lately. It does seem to be, well, screwing up a little for several projects. I think they're working on it. I wish I could say more, but, honestly, I don't have a clue what they're talking about regarding the details, so I'm basically leaving it in their hands and hoping that they do. John Carter (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, but I'm somewhat unsure of precedents. I know that the Star Wars WikiProject has a "roll call" of active members on a regular basis, and that seems to work for them. But there is also a new WikiProject Editor Retention, which is really just off the ground, and I might like to run any ideas about moving editors to "inactive" by them first. I doubt it would change much, but for all I know there might be some study somewhere which indicates that people might be less likely to return if they are already moved to "inactive" or something like that. It might not be a bad idea to propose this at WT:X for the Christianity projects in general, and see how the others respond. John Carter (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I got started looking into it when I saw the work group talk page was hardly ever answered, and I wondered how many members were actually around. Then I thought to myself that we - maybe the "we" is presumptuous on my part as someone who has just signed up, and feel free to say so if that's the case! - that we need to know who we can actually count on if we wanted to ask someone to, say, keep an eye on the talk page so that we would have prompter responses to queries. Or for anything else that the group needs to do. In the meantime I've worked my way through just about all the unassessed articles, at least to provisionally rate them on class and importance. David_FLXD (Talk) 20:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I figure to put out the next issue of Ichthus around the middle of next month. The most recent issue is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/July 2012, and we could, I suppose, copy that into Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/August 2012, updating and changing content in roughly the same format. What do you think of adding a section there for the August issue indicating we have temporarily provisionally moved all members to an "inactive" section and asking them to move their names if they wish to indicate continued activity? Also, we might at that time, maybe, propose that some of the talk pages of the various WikiProjects and work groups be merged into WT:X, maybe in separate subsections, if I can figure out how to keep them through archiving, to maybe bring a bit more attention to some of them. And thank you very much for doing assessments. You have no idea how much I welcome seeing anyone else do such, particularly if they know something about the topic. I wish the bot were working as it should, but I think I saw comments that they're working on it, and I hope they get it fixed. John Carter (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to my very own copy of Ichthus (been reading over other peoples' shoulders in the meanwhile)! I think your suggestion on active members is very sensible. Oh yes, I rather 'boldly' added an invitation on the Methodism portal page to anyone who is interested in helping to work on the projects. I am happy to do whatever I can to assist. I plan to look over the higher importance articles next and see if there is an area that I can improve. You can also expect a few Southern African / African articles to come forward (slowly) over the next six months or so, looking at Methodism and/or Christianity in Southern +/ Africa. I have a couple of focus areas in mind which have not yet been dealt with. Similar to Seth Mokitimi; Paul Verryn for example, and Johannesburg Central Methodist Church. Figure you'll keep an eye out here, but if you would like me to drop talkbacks, just let me know. David_FLXD (Talk) 21:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The email...

For what it's worth, I didn't receive my requested copy of that email (through the Wiki email form) to you, either. Weird. Maybe with more time -- but meanwhile I WILL send it to the email address you provided. (Which is the same one from which your "test' mail came to me the other day; I was afraid to respond that that when your testcame through because it seemed like some kind of a Wiki spam catcher, judging from the address. But you confirmed it just now, so . . . look for it. Thanks. Ebdavids (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Stephen (Steve) K. Ray

Dear David:

Thank you for sticking with me on this. I appreciate it.

The biography uses three newspaper articles as references and the articles referenced provide sufficient material for the biography without having to use the references identified as being too close to the subject. "The Observer" is located in Livonia, MI, "The Michigan Catholic" is located in Detroit, MI and "MyWestTexas.com/The Midland Reporter-Telegram" is located in Midland, TX. Will these newspaper suffice as references for the biography?

Respectfully,

FireWriter154 (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Marcus! The short answer is, "Yes." You may, however, not be entirely pleased with me, as I found it necessary to do a major edit on the article to make it encyclopedic in tone, and to format it in accordance with Wikipedia style guidelines. I took out quite a lot of the personal details. I hope, however, that you will feel that the essentials are still there. Stephen (Steve) K. Ray has been created, and of course you can continue to work to improve it further. I have also set up a redirect, Steve Ray (Catholic evangelist) to make it easier for readers to find the page, as well as disambiguation links on your article and that of Steve Ray, the rugby player. Thanks for your patience through this rather lengthy process! However, I do feel that your article as it now stands should be able to hold its own against any critics who may come along. Regards, David_FLXD (Talk) ^{Review me} 20:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Resubmitting

After a review by you resulting in decline of an article I'm working to create, I have made the edits you mentioned and I'd like to resubmit the page. I don't see a way to do that like I did after the previous time my article was declined. Any help you can offer? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotthalestorm (talk • contribs) 18:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Scott. You've nailed the sources issue, even though one of the links (just one!) seems to be broken. I'm going to do an NPOV (neutral point of view, read "anti-marketing") edit of the article for you and then put it online. If there is anything I do which you are seriously bothered about, you can speak to me, or just fix it yourself, since you will of course still be able to edit the published article. Then again, any editor who feels that the article does not meet Wikipedia guidelines will also be able to do the same. Take a look when it goes up, you will get a notice on your talk page.

How to resubmit: for future reference: on the original decline notice (not on mine), which still appears on the article, we see:

Decline decision: Submission declined on 11 July 2012 by Herr Beethoven (talk).
Reason/s for declining, and guidance (the grey panel): This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
Further instructions (below grey panel): You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page.

When you are ready to resubmit, click here.

Alternatively, you can manually edit the page to insert the submission template by typing in {{AFC submission}}, or just copy and paste it, preferably at or near the top of the page.

I trust that's clear enough! Regards, David_FLXD (Talk) 20:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That's perfect, David. Thanks a bunch for your help. Interestingly, I didn't have the click here option on the original edit for some reason. the manual submission edit will be great for the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotthalestorm (talk • contribs) 14:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Stephen (Steve) K. Ray

Dear David FLXD:

Thank you very much for your excellent help and patience. The edits you made to the article were necessary and very good. I appreciate everything you've done.

Respectfully,

Marcus Woods — Preceding unsigned comment added by FireWriter154 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad I was able to help - any time! David_FLXD (Talk) ^{Review me} 19:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Check this out

The Lindsey-Fox Algorithm for Factoring Polynomials (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) => I moved this last night. Check the talk page.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lindsey-Fox Algorithm (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Grrrrrrrrrrr  :- ) Don 14:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and this talk: Csburrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)  :- ) Don 14:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll bet he still doesn't know how he created two submssions!

Help the poor guy, will ya? He needs it! David_FLXD (Talk) ^{Review me} 16:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

 Working it. Cool algorithm. Thanks.  :- ) Don 16:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi again -- Question about doing the next article(s)

Hi, David:

Now -- newly emboldened and proud of myself because of the Peak Corporate Network article (!),as I mentioned, I'm now going to try to create articles on each of the two Peak principals. You kindly said you'd review them -- my question relates how do I do that? My instinct is to go through Articles for Creation again, save the item, then come back here and give you the URL. I just want to confirm that if i do so, the article won't go into play in front of other editors -- but doesn't saving it do that? (What seems like eons ago, I think I was told that by NOT adding {{AFC submission}} to my draft before saving it, that won't happen -- is that correct? Please let me know. Thanks as always! Ed Ebdavids (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, nice to have your own article up, isn't it! To answer your question, if you draft the article in your User sandbox and do not add an AFC submission tag, then it is yours until you decide you are ready to submit it. You can work on it in that way for as long as you like. Regards, David_FLXD (Talk) ^{Review me} 19:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Besins Healthcare

Please let me attempt to address some of the concerns you raised in evaluating the Besins Healthcare wikipedia submission. The article on Besins Healthcare was written in a manner which was meant to reflect already existing wikipedia articles on pharmaceutical companies in the United States. In the category “Pharmaceutical Companies in the United States” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pharmaceutical_companies_of_the_United_States)looking only at those companies that begin with the letter A there are at least 7 examples of similar articles, with similar amounts of content and sourced material. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amylin_Pharmaceuticals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolor_Corporation

Additionally, while the article at present only has one sourced citation, the article that was submitted contained many more sources, including material from government websites, Reuters, and the New York Times. While you comment that these materials support speculative information, again there are several other pharmaceutical companies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolor_Corporation) on wikipedia that predominately talk about forthcoming research and development.

Besins Healthcare is a major multinational pharmaceutical company with 32 percent of the global market share for progesterone treatments and 62 percent of the global market share for testosterone treatments. We remain committed to having our company represented alongside other similar companies with similar articles on wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate your input or advice on the best way to resolve the apparent conflicts in the article and successfully re-submit for further review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P4SGRG (talk • contribs) 20:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately there are many articles on Wikipedia which do not meet our own criteria. (We get hundreds of new articles daily, and some slip through which should not. We do usually catch them sooner or later.) However, the fact that some articles which are unsuitable or not good enough have slipped through (temporarily) does not justify a lowering of standards for other new ones under review. We would rather address the weakness of the articles you mention. In fact, since you have identified Adolor and Amylin for me, I have tagged them both for non-notability and inadequate sourcing. Another editorial team will be looking them over and, since they already exist, trying to address these shortcomings. If notability cannot be established and/or acceptable sources cannot be found, the articles are likely to be nominated for deletion.

If your article does have these sources as references in the text, then you should cite them so that the reviewing editor can see them more easily. This is according to Wikipedia guidelines, see WP:REFS. Please realise that reviewers must deal with very many articles, and usually do not have the time to search an article for sources that may or may not exist within the text, most especially not when the article appears to be an unlikely candidate in the first place. We get a lot of company advertising and individual self-promotion submissions.

If (I'm expressing only a conditional, not doubt!) your company is so large and has such a great share of the market, then surely there must be publicly accessible sources to substantiate this. With this kind of article one must be careful to avoid both promotional language and speculation on future developments, and one must explain, in the article, why the company is notable. Your article, as I reviewed it, neither stated nor referenced the 32 percent or the 62 percent respective market shares. What it did say was, "privately held, fourth-generation family-owned pharmaceutical company" - which indicated to me, probably small! Those percentages, attached to a reliable, independent source, could possibly justify your company as notable by themselves. Although I would really want at least one more good, independent and substantial source to underpin notability.

Cite and source, explain without puffery, and ask me to have another look before you resubmit it formally. I will be quite happy to do that, and would be able to advise you on any other improvements that would be necessary or recommended before resubmitting. Regards, David_FLXD (Talk) ^{Review me} 21:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I also removed the speculative material from Adolor's article in the meantime. David_FLXD (Talk) ^{Review me} 21:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

About the next article

You said: Yeah, nice to have your own article up, isn't it! To answer your question, if you draft the article in your User sandbox and do not add an AFC submission tag, then it is yours until you decide you are ready to submit it. You can work on it in that way for as long as you like. Regards, David_FLXD

Thanks for that guidance. So . . . then, when I've constructed the article and I'm ready to run it by YOU, how do I do that? I'm guessing I place it on your User talk page, but do I "Save" it first in the Sandbox and then give you the sandbox URL? Or do I have to put it on a new Articles for Creation page and give you THAT URL? (I was fearful that saving it on the AFC page would open it up for others to comment on as well, but if I don't add AFC submission within double brackets, that WON'T happen right?) Please guide me . . . thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebdavids (talk • contribs) 22:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's the next article. (Went ahead and took a chance on transmitting correctly!)

So, I've completed the first of the two articles on the principals (title is Eli Tene), and assuming it CAN be sent to you from my Sandbox, here's the URL of the Saved version of the item from there. (If it's the editing version of the item that you need -- or some other form -- please let me know.)

As you know, i learned a lot with the corporate article, and tried to apply everything I learned with this one -- language, formatting, references (some of which are the same), etc. Please let me know if/where/how I've strayed. One question: the two External links came out side-by-side as opposed to one atop the other. New format? Something I didn't do? And then, of course, guide me as to (once its acceptable) whether I'll need to paste it into AFC to have it published -- or is that in your hands? Will now go to work on the final item, assuming I'm close with this one.

Thanks as always.

EdEbdavids (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I JUST GOT A WARNING?

Just got this notice discussing my Sandbox item being a "candidate for speedy deletion." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ebdavids&diff=next&oldid=503791182 Is that anything to worry about? (I've saved it as a word doc just to be sure.) Thanks! Ed Ebdavids (talk) 00:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stephen (Steve) K. Ray

Dear David FLXD:

I'm glad to have been of some service. If you would ever like more questionable articles, please let me know.

In your remarks today, you stated, "...there is a good chance that one or another editor will pick up your article and dig up those sources (which might also be more easily available in time) which are needed to make it acceptable." In the Stephen Ray biography, two of the references are articles in small, local newspapers, one of which cannot be found online. Is the small size of the paper in which these articles appear, that the one article cannot be found online or both issues the problem or problems with these two references in the Stephen Ray biography?

Thank you.

Respectfully,

FireWriter154 (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The small size of a source, including a print-only newspaper, is not necessarily an issue by itself. I cannot tell whether or not both small papers come from the same local area. If they came from different places, then that, taken together, is an indication of wider notability. On the other hand, they might well both come from Ray's home town, which is not much good for the purpose.

The big issue is that too much of the article depends mainly on the sources which are too close to Ray himself; they are not independent. However, if you can find any two independent newspapers which have an article or a substantial mention of Ray, I could live with that. You have plenty of evidence to show who and what he is, it is just a question of notability. And, as I said previously, trimming some of the unnecessary personal details out of the article.

I do think the article would look a lot better if you were to focus on Ray as primarily, say, a Holy Land guide and use the other skills or characteristics more as an enriching background to the focus. Best focus would be on whatever single aspect he is most (demonstrably!) notable for. David_FLXD (Talk) 18:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, David FLXD. You have new messages at IShadowed's talk page.
Message added 07:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

IShadowed (talk) 07:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Ready to go, i think

David -- Thanks so much for the comments and edits to the Sanbox. i understand and agree with them all. Made no changes other than to add one item to persondata and to correct a typo (shame on me!). Here's the Saved Sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ebdavids/sandbox. Is that all you need to publish? Appreciate the help -- now onwards and upwards with Gil Priel, a wiser and more confident writer! Ed Ebdavids (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Eli Tene

Hi David, the last edit before this was deleted by AfD was to remove a copyvio YouTube link - I've just removed two. YouTube links are always a red flag. I could tell the editor but as you passed it I'd prefer it if you explained why they can't be used. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Doug, thank you! Not sure about AfD, I don't think this article has gone that route. The editor is new and inexperienced; his last accidental creation on this topic was CSDd as a test. I'm developing a real hatred for YouTube after a couple of hundred AfCs. I did see the one YT source among his refs, but thought he knew better by now; I also knew the other sources were sound. He is also the author of the Peak Corporate Network article, which shares some text (not a lot) with Eli Tene; they are related articles. I understood that as the author of both he is allowed to use his own text? However, if you feel that passing patrollers might deep-six the article without checking carefully enough, it would obviously be better to just amend that passage a bit! I would value your advice on this. Your talk page says you'll be watching, so I'll refrain from dropping a tb there! Regards, David_FLXD (Talk) ^{Review me} 19:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

When I copy my own text I still try to mention it in my edit summary. Here is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eli Tene. I think I need to revise my talk page, I didn't have nearly so many pages on my watch list then! TB is good. The main problem I noted was the copyvio, but I didn't look carefully. Dougweller (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment on AFC Scruncho

"We understand it is hard not to admire good things, but an encyclopedia is supposed to report on things very objectively. "... I love this!!!!!! May I use it as:

"We understand how hard it can be to not be passionate about things that are important in our eyes. However, an encyclopedia is meant to present information on interesting subjects, like this one, with objectivity, neutrality and integrity."

I am always looking for a better way of saying, "geez... I'm too tired for this one" Cheers! Stella ^BATPHONE_GROOVES 05:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course! You do know that anything we add to Wikipedia we are effectively giving away, right? However, I appreciate your courtesy in asking. Feel free to use whatever I have written anywhere! David_FLXD (Talk) ^{Review me} 09:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

That YouTube video

Sorry, but that definitely cannot be kept in. TV programs, including news broadcasts, are always copyright unless specifically released, and thus you cannot link to one except on an official site. It might be acceptable to use Template:Cite episode here. Could you please advise the editor on this? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Questions about Stephen M. Coleman-AFC

Dear David FLXD:

Can you please tell me one or two specifics that make the Stephen M. Coleman article seem biased? This is my first (hopefully of many more) article for Wikipedia, so I'm still struggling somewhat to understand what makes a good article.

Thank you, --Judith59 (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Judith, thanks for bringing me your (eminently reasonable) question! And so promptly, too! ;-)

Ok, your article is stating facts, and is thoroughly sourced (I haven't looked at them all, by any means, but what I did look at was ok, and there are a lot of them), so I can't say it's because of the peacock language, although there is some of that.

What really bothered me is that when I looked at the article as being about Coleman, I kept running into statements about how wonderful Daedalus is. And when I thought, maybe the article is really about Daedalus, I kept finding praise for Coleman. So I think it is really about the article balance more than anything else, plus perhaps the admiration (whether for Coleman or for Daedalus) is just slightly more than is really appropriate for an objective encyclopedia article. Unfortunately, in the script we use to assist us in reporting on our reviews, there is no option for "the article seems to be out of balance!" - so I went for the next best thing, i.e. advertising. Which we get a lot of, on Wikipedia. Take another look at the article, come back to me, tell me if you think I'm wrong. I promise, I have never bitten anyone for having a different opinion to mine! Regards, David_FLXD (Talk) ^{Review me} 17:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I think I mean article focus, rather than balance. It's too balanced - right between two stools! David_FLXD (Talk) ^{Review me} 18:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

David,

Aha! I think I understand what you are suggesting. Actually, based on your comments, I think I should write 2 articles: one for Coleman, one for Daedalus. I will work on the two and resubmit soon.

Many thanks, Judith59 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Separate entities - a question

Hi David:

As you know, I'm making revs in YouTube references to conform to Dugweller's suggestion to use the cite-episode template, which I understand and is fine -- but in going back to the Corporate article to do so, I just noticed that the listing of the separate entities in the company has been deleted with this comment from Dugweller! (cur | prev) 07:23, 27 July 2012‎ Dougweller (talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,036 bytes) (-1,099)‎ . . (→‎Peak Corporate Network Entities: a list of subsidiaries and services doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, and is all on the official website) (undo) I guess I have to respect his comment if that's a standard Wikipedia rule, and there IS a logic to saying the list of entities is contained on the site, though in my mind, the list of entities is essential to defining the nature of the Peak Network and is more helpful to the reader if it's included in the article itself (and, in fact, bolsters the company's notability and thus,i would hope, would eliminate those cautions now at the top of the article).

I guess because I'm new at this, I'm feeling a little exhausted "fighting the good fight" (although please remember I love and respect the concept of Wikipedia and the spirit in which all comments have been made, including those of Dugweller), so -- unless you feel there's a chance/rationalization for me to challenge this -- if I just accept the deletion as is, my question to you is: may I add a reference to that portion of the website that lists the entities, right in the article at the end of this sentence--> "...representing a group of related separate legal entities, each providing its unique set of real estate services"? Or will that be kicked off as well because the entire site is listed as an External link? My mind is spinning a bit on the rules relating to this.

Thank you again for your guidance on this.

Ed Ebdavids (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

And this (IMPORTANT), too...

This is crucial:

I also now have absorbed the fact now that Dugweller deleted an entire section talking about how the principals have represented the company in conferences and media appearances (07:22, 27 July 2012‎ Dougweller (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,135 bytes) (-1,488)‎ . . (→‎Company principals and formation: the stuff about the founders isn't about Peak, it's bio stuff, this article should mainly be about Peak and that should mainly be about what WP:RS sources say about Peak) . . .but that in essence kicks the legs out from the article's notability. Because that section contained a number of references/sources, it leaves the article with only one source -- which puts it in danger of beingdeleted for "only one source" lack-of-notability reasons. I truly feel it's because of the strength of these two people that they are called upon to represent the company to the news and journalistic media -- and thus they carry" the notability of the company, so the inclusion of that paragraph and its citations ISN'T just "bio stuff. I am now very concerned by the risk that with all this work, the article will be pulled -- as I said earlier, I too am surprised by the fact that a company of this import hasn't been covered by more general articles in the media. I honestly think the citations that are not now there do a legitimate job of substantiation. What can we do?

Thanks,

Ed Ebdavids (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Silent No More

Please keep in mind at Articles for Creation that many contributors attempt to copy-paste information from other websites into Wikipedia articles to flesh them out. This is expressly prohibited here due to copyright issues. I have had to revert all of the contributions of Cath 220 (talk · contribs) due to them all being copy-paste copyright violations and no original material contributed. Please be more careful in the future when you accept AFC submissions. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I do try to keep it in mind; but I guess this is why we have more than one editor on WP! I will try to do better. David_FLXD (Talk) 21:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Bleary no more?

David:

Obviously . . . I did something in error.

Happily . . . I had the whole article still open in my Sandbox.

Nicely . . . you explained how to render it as something more tangible -- since I gather that my having provided you the link to the Sandbox wasn't enough for you to fetch the piece. Hope you can find it now.

Finally . . . here it is rendered anew (and I hope correctly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ebdavids/Gil_Priel.

Apologetically . . . I wish you (or, actually, me) a good night (because Ive run out of --ly words) -- and we'll touch base, I suspect, tomorrow (which it will be only in 38 minutes here but is way along its way there).

Ed

(P. S. Bleariness not entirely gone, I wasn't sure which user talk page to use to reply to you, so I'm putting this reply on both mine and yours.) Ebdavids (talk) 06:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Bleary no more? P. P. S.

P. P. S. Wasn't quite sure you what you meant by using Gil's full name ("use that instead") -- but his full name, and the title I desire for the piece, is Gil Priel.Ebdavids (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Corporate Notability/Promotional articles

Comment: You have done a lot of work here, and I am sorry to have to decline your article. However, please see Promotional articles, also Neutral language. Also very important (necessary here) is Corporate notability; without showing this the article cannot be accepted. David_FLXD (Talk) 19:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you please provide examples of where the text is too promotional? This would greatly help me in my revision. Thank you!NPC kasey (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for coming back to me! I am going to answer your question from my second paragraph, but because the corporate notability issue is a make or break factor, I would like to address that first. Corporate Notability is a requirement for getting your article accepted. You have presented a beautifully researched and fairly well-written* article which I am confident is factual, if read carefully. However, Wikipedia requires that if there is going to be an article on a business, company or product, then it must first have shown that it has external notability; in other words, that it is important enough to have been noticed by others. "Others" being those outside the specialist field, being the general public and, especially, widely-published and widely-read general media. Without a basis for showing the notability of the subject, according to Wikipedia's guidelines, the article cannot be accepted. So this must be fixed first (or you must be sure that you will be able to address this issue satisfactorily), or we will be wasting our time trying to fix the other issues. If you cannot produce reliable, independent, widely-published sources which demonstrate independent notability, then you must present another argument, which will have to be very convincing, to say why Heat Biologics is notable now.

• I say only "fairly well-written" because it is written in very good English, but leans a little too heavily on multisyllabic words and jargon terms to be readily accessible to an average reader. For one example: "Heat believes this blanket approach will provide each patient with a higher likelihood of a positive therapeutic response." How about: "Heat Biologics believes that this approach will give patients a more effective treatment." You could add "on average" if you wanted to be strictly correct. Hmm. While I think of it, if you are copying from company texts, you need to file a copyright licence with Wikipedia before the article can be accepted. It is usually much easier to just rewrite the text in your own words.

Ok, to your question. I will take just the first two paragraphs, and ask you to extrapolate from there. In your first sentence you claim a "novel" therapy, but do not provide substantiation here. (You do substantiate it in the body of the article, but generally you should support the first instance of any statement.) Secondly, you use the phrase "to combat", implying that this therapy actively fights cancers and HIV etc right now. Since the therapy is still being developed, that is not yet true (except in trial volunteers, if successful). Then there is "to pump out", where "to produce" would be less promotional. Also "robustly stimulate" (my emphasis) where I think the adverb is simply not needed, except for promotion. Also in the second sentence, "effectively reprograms tumor cells", again implying that this is happening now.

In the second paragraph, what you have said is that Dr. Podack has developed a technology platform (as I understand it, this means a foundation upon which further development can be built, or a framework within which research and development can be more effectively directed). What it soundslike to the casual reader is the Dr. Podack has developed a tecnology "that enables the immune system to fight specific stealth targets such as cancer cells." It is not immediately clear from the article text (which it should be) that when you write, "ImPACT utilizes live, ....cells... to produce a designer protein" that this is on a clinical trial basis. (I personally think that the adjective "designer" sounds promotional in this context.) "The secreted materials generate a potent immune response to cancer cells..." Are you promising a cure for cancer, or does it just sound like it? Does Heat Biologics have such a cure, or are they still developing it? Finally, comparative advertising ("In contrast to other vaccine technologies") seems promotional in intent.

I am very concerned that the whole tone of the article generally presents a far greater accomplishment (or accomplishments) than have actually been achieved, and that the purpose seems to be to promote Heat Biologics as the next big thing in medicine (which, for all I know, they may be - but they don't seem to be there yet, and an encyclopedia article needs to limit itself to the facts, stated clearly and unequivocally).

I trust you will find this helpful, and that I have not put you off unnecessarily. Wikipedia receives very many article submissions which are purely promotional. Yours is clearly not just promotional, and has far more substance than the average submitted article. While we do have to maintain our standards, we also welcome good quality contributions and are happy to help anyone who wants to develop one. If you can just begin by showing how HB meets Wikipedia's corporate notability criteria, then we can get serious about editing your article text to meet the other standards. And, in that case, I am prepared to help you to do that. Regards, David_FLXD (Talk) 21:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hope International article

Hello David,

I have made all the changes you suggested on the article including finding outside sources for citations. Would you mind looking it over one more time before I submit it for review?

Thanks so much for your help and sorry it's taken so long for me to make the changes!

wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hope International

RunLeahrun (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)runLeahrun.

Hi Leah, I have made a couple of very minor cleanup edits. I believe your article is now ok. Unfortunately, I cannot publish it immediately, because there is an existing page in the way. I have requested admin technical deletion, which is pretty much automatic and usually quite quick. If the admin does everything then your article should be online within the next 24 hours. If whoever it is just moves the problem page, then it might take three days, as I will be away from home for the next two days. David_FLXD (Talk) 21:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 12 August 2012 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Articles for Creation barnstar
		Whilst I'm not so involved in AFC, I've seen that you've helped many new(er) users, having reviewed so many articles. All your good work deserves a reward! --Peter Talk page 14:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yu-shan Huang

Dear David FLXD, I appreciated your help very much. Is this the correct Wikipedia space to say 'Thank you'? If not, I apologize. Thank you for doing the final edit. (I know nothing is final in Wikipedia, but at least the article on Yu-Shan Huang is more 'readable' now.) JoanX.Chen (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is the right place, and you are very welcome; it was a pleasure to be able to help out on what was already such a good article. Regards, David_FLXD (Talk) 14:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hope International

Thanks so much for your help David! I REALLY appreciate it. Feels good to finally have the ball rolling on this project. Thanks again. RunLeahrun (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)runLeahrun

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kunjir

Hello David,

You have comment on following pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Kunjir

I don't understand what it means for? If there is any page where i put this, please let me know.

Thanks & Regards,

Prashantckunjir (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Prashant Kunjir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashantckunjir (talk • contribs) 07:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Prashant Kunjir, sorry for the delay in answering your post; my internet service provider had a technical problem for a couple of days! What I was suggesting was that your article on a Marathi surname (I suppose, a family or clan name) would be more relevant on the Marathi language Wikipedia, with Marathi readers. If you visit this link, you will find it: Marathi Wikipedia (Sorry, I did not set up the link correctly in my comment on your article.) Regards, David_FLXD (Talk) 05:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Tddrdgr

Hey David!

I'd love some advice on how to get this page published. I'm a fan of Adam's developments, but have always found it hard to find information on him. Did I cite incorrectly? Or were you unsatisfied with my sources?

Thank you

TDDRDGR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tddrdgr (talk • contribs) 16:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tddrdgr, as I said above, I've been cut off the last couple of days so there is a lot I need to catch up on. However, you should expect a proper answer from me within the next 12 hours or so. Regards, David_FLXD (Talk) 05:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Methodism

The Christianity Group newsletter has informed me of your look at the Methodism article. In passing, one of my Gt gt gt gt grandfathers was one of John Wesley's Travelling Preachers, with letters from Wesley in 1779, my father is a retired Methodist Minister, and I have an interest in Methodist history and a personal library which includes 19 volumes of Methodist Magazines. One of the revisions of the Wikipedia Methodism article which I consider to be essential for accurate treatment of the subject is this. That Wesleyan Methodism, along with its various off-shoots, be distinguished from the Methodist movement as a whole. Because of his organisational genius, the Methodist societies under John Wesley became numerically dominant to the extent that most people have forgotten about any non-Wesleyan Methodism. However, Howell Harris started out as the "Methodist" preacher of Wales before John Wesley's conversion experience in Aldersgate Street in May 1738. Harris's first campaign was December 1735-February 1736. The designation "Methodist" may be an anachronism at that time, but fruit of his work was the Welsh Calvinistic Methodist Church, Harris having turned calvinistic in 1737. Further, John Wesley's "Methodist" societies were intended by him to be a revival movement within the Church of England, home meetings during the week with their members attending the local Parish Church on a Sunday. Perhaps one difficulty in the general understanding is the distinction between the philosophical concept of Methodism and the popular notion of "Methodism" as the activity of the Wesleyan Methodists. In the 18th century, "Methodism" was the common epithet of all evangelicals in Britain whether or not they had any connection with John Wesley. One aid to understanding the various branches of Methodism would be a family-tree diagram, showing both the various branches of Wesleyan Methodism from 1738 to 1933, and also the parallel strands of non-Wesleyan Methodism, notably that derived from Howell Harris, Whitfield's societies, notably the Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion, and the Methodist clergymen who remained solidly part of the Church of England. The other thing to consider in the article is how to organise it so that we can control the word-count, perhaps by splitting it into satelite articles. One option is 3 articles for Wesleyan Methodism in Britain, in the USA, and in the rest of the world. The last division is a very substantial word-count in the present article. BTW - the 1861 Wesleyan Methodist Magazine has some interesting articles on the revival in Jamaica. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Robert, thanks for your information. I was aware of some of it, but there is also a lot that is new to me. I am better informed on our South African Methodist history (Wesleyan, mostly, with a few Primitives thrown in, and a little AME on the side!). We do need to work on improving all of these, and I am prepared to contribute so far as I am able. Just a little busy in real life now, so hope to be able to do something soon if not immediately. Regards, David_FLXD (Talk) 12:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2558 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. PS: we have a great AFC helper script at WP:AFCH! News Good article nominee 04 Aug 2012 – Parental brain (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Carina1205 (t · c); see discussion AFCH script improvements 1.16 to 1.17 Batman still works!

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation. If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.
Happy reviewing! TheSpecialUser ^TSU

• Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 08:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Jenkins

Hello there, I am currently seeking adoption by a more experienced editor. I have a couple of questions for you in the sections on my talk page. Please review them, if you have time. You can choose to edit each section or reply to the whole page at once.

Hello, David FLXD. You have new messages at StephenDJenkins's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

S. Jenkins (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Frank E. Snodgrass picture

Hi David, I just noticed that my picture of Frank Snodgrass has been removed. However, I am a bit confused because the one they say they removed 'profile frank e snodgrass' was not the picture on the page. I provided another picture 'frank 1970' to Stephen at Permissions@wikipedia which came from my own family photo albumn and I gave full permission to release all copyright. That picture is now gone. Can you look into this and get it reinstated. Here is my correspondence with Stephen [my name taken out]:

Dear Stephen, Thank you for uploading the picture. I have removed the old caption. Everything looks fine now and I hope that it can now be approved. I do not know who took the picture. But agree to release it with the wording you have given and have changed the date accordingly. Many thanks!

I hereby affirm that I [my name] am the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the file uploaded as: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Frank_Snodgrass_1970.jpg I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution- ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. [my name and email appeared here] Copyright-holder

31 July 2012 Silvergirl27 (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Peggy, sorry for the delay in responding: as you can see above, I am on a necessary wikibreak. However, I will make the time to look into this over this weekend and come back to you. Regards, David_FLXD (Talk) 15:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, what seems to have happened is that a copyright patroller on Wikimedia Commons has found that your photograph uploaded there either did not have permission or had not been approved quickly enough (there is often a backlog), and deleted the file there. After that, a cleanup bot came along and removed the link from your page, as the picture was no longer available in Commons. I am assuming that Stephen was the person you contacted at OTRS.

When you say that you do not know who took the picture, you are saying that you do not know who is the copyright owner, did you realise that? This may also be why it was deleted: you had given permission, but your permission was not that of the copyright owner. I suggest that your best course at this point is to start over by uploading the picture to Commons again, under a new unique name, and going for the Reasonable Use permission. At the appropriate point in the process, explain that it is an old family album picture; that the author is unknown; that it is for the purpose of illustrating the subject of your article only; if you can, give an estimated date (year) when it would have been taken; point out that it is not being used for profit and that the copyright holder is very unlikely to object to its use on Wikipedia. If approved, this will result in an image which is NOT free to copy, but which has a satisfactory permission to be used, and thus won't be deleted again. You must make sure that you have received approval from OTRS, and I suggest that, after uploading the picture to Commons, if you wait for OTRS approval before you put the picture up on the article page, then you will not have a problem in future. I hope this helps, come back to me if you need more information. Regards, David_FLXD (Talk) 06:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you help me

I created a page for Colin Ratushniak. This was given a grace C listing and published earlier this year. I have just realised that someone has now gone and merged it with another page due to lack of figure skating notoriety for this person. I dispute that but don't know how to get my page back. Please can you help me get the page back up. Thank you. Karendawes (talk) 07:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Karen, I will look into it and come back to you in the next day or two. This is just so you know I have seen your message! Regards, David_FLXD (Talk) 15:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi David, thanks very much for responding. I did manage to find out how to undo the edit that had been done to merge it and got the page back up but the person who had done the edit responded by nominating the page for deletion. I have added another source to try to improve the article and I'll continue to do that. I don't think there's anything else I can do for the moment but I did want to thank you for getting back to me. Karendawes (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Karen, I have added my comment on the AfD (Articles for Deletion) discussion page. Based on the views expressed to date, I would be surprised if the nomination for deletion did not fail. Bear in mind that this is not a majority vote: the admin who will close the discussion will rule in accordance with the arguments presented which are most in agreement with Wikipedia policy. I still expect that the result will be "keep". Regards, David_FLXD (Talk) 05:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

==== Heading text ====Frank E Snodgrass Hi David, I am also just back from hols. Thanks for your reply. I will try again. They don't make it easy, do they!? Best wishes, Silvergirl27 (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject:Articles for Creation October - November 2012 Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 22, 2012 – November 21, 2012.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

EdwardsBot (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Article to review

Hi David FLXD, thank you for reviewing the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Collateral_Management_Conference

As the conference has finished I was able to add 2 new sources, so please look at it again if it could be published now. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkortvel (talk • contribs) 09:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kunjir

Hello David FLXD, Thanks for your valuable suggestion. I change the category of the article. Please check. Is it consider to resubmit this article?

Hello, David FLXD. You have new messages at Prashantckunjir's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Articles for creation needs YOUR help!

Articles for creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2558 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our help desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. Plus, reviewing is easy when you use our new semi-automated reviewing script! Thanks in advance, Nathan2055talk - contribs

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation at 22:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC). If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation newsletter

Delivered 01:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC) by EdwardsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the spamlist.

Sam Tata article

Thanks for reviewing my article of Creation for Sam Tata. I have been working on it my sandbox and have made some major changes (improvements I hope). I got away from the cut-and-paste style of writing and rewrote it in my own words; removed the infobox which didn't add any information; improved the sources and added some external links. It was my first Article Creation and I have learned a lot. I hope to obtain some images for illustration, it will be my first attempt to obtain copyright (the right way). Thanks again1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curiocurio (talk • contribs) 20:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! I have put the infobox back, because bio articles are supposed to have one. Your other new edits I are good. No, it doesn't give any new information, but visitors to the page can get a potted overview of the person by glancing at it. For more improvement to the article I suggest you look at dividing it into sections with headings, which would make it easier to read. Try looking at other biographical articles (especially those rated as Featured and Good articles!). Keep up the good work and yes, stay away from cutting and pasting content - but you know that! David_FLXD (Talk) 02:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks adding the info box back, I was reading about dis-infoboxes which is why I deleted it. I was a little lazy in creating the article (hence the cutting and pasting), but after submitting the article for creation, I started to read how to do things the right way. I've since rewritten the article in my own words. Your instructions on how to create an article directly are a little difficult at first glance, but I'll take the time to study it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curiocurio (talk • contribs) 16:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Linda A. Mason article

Thank you for reviewing my article and leaving such helpful comments. I believe I have followed your instructions. I have reviewed my sources and removed the ones that might be seen as blog-like. I kept BusinessWeek in because that is a major publication and the articles I am pointing to were first published in print, not on their blog-like website columns. I also have removed any statements that could not be corroborated by acceptable third party sources, whether they were factual or more narrative. I look forward to receiving your feedback...and learning if this piece is now ready for acceptance! RachelJBH (talk) 21 December 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 18:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rachel, yes, that's much better - thanks for making the improvements! I cut the Personal section because I felt that, in accordance with the policy on bios of living persons, Linda Mason's privacy needs to be respected. What she has done and who she is does not depend on who she is married to or how many children she has, nor does where she lives make any difference. Wikipedia also prefers not to take responsibility for telling some nutcase with a grudge where to find someone. If said nutcase happened to read this article. Anyhow, well done, good article. I look forward to your next, if there is going to be a next one! David_FLXD (Talk) 19:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

copyvio tagging

When you tag a page for copyvio, as you did for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PDFill PDF Tools. please remember to specify where it has been copied from. (it was in this case their website, which i guessed and checked, but it would have been easier still had it been specified; so of course I deleted it) DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, sorry about that. David_FLXD (Talk) 01:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

GC&TS article

Thanks for reviewing and creating my article on Grace College and Theological Seminary. I am excited to see it up finally, and I am working on finding more reliable sources and more comprehensive information. taoistpage (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Kenneth Rand

I don't understand what the problem is with the Kenneth Rand article. As for the issue of notability, this poet was considered important, his poetry significant and interesting, in the early 20th century, as evidenced by the sources I referenced. Furthermore, his poetry continues to be quoted around the Internet, including in "quotes/poetry about" listings, for example concerning straw-death (showing what the concept was). The only thing that is missing is easily locatable biographical information, which is why a Wikipedia article is needed.

I especially don't understand what the problem could be with the verifiability of the referencing. I referenced practically every statement with specificity, and they are completely verifiable by checking the references cited. Are published "paper" publications not sufficient, or do you require citations to publications that can be read online? What kinds of additional citations do you want? You say to add citations to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject. I've read the discussion of what that means; so do you mean, for example, a published literary criticism? What more do you want for an initial page about a poet? If I get a better idea of what the problem is I can try to improve it. - Embram (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Embram, thanks for coming back to me. Let me say first that I did not particularly want to decline the article, which is well written and well referenced. However, I felt that I was obliged to decline it as the article as submitted did not show the necessary notability in regard to the criteria which I referenced in my comment. There are three of the four which Rand may be able to meet, and I will highlight my thinking on each criterion when reviewing:

• The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

The article neither claims nor shows that Rand is regarded as an important figure, or if he were, by whom. While you do show that he is cited, the fact that all your links go to blackcatpoems means that you are not showing that he is widely quoted, nor that any reference to his works is by peers or successors (i.e. other poets).

• The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

I don't dispute the significant body of work, but it does not appear - from your article as it now stands - that Rand or his work has been the subject of an independent book or film, nor of multiple articles. He appears to have been included in two books, but not to have been a major focus of either (unless the books say more about that than you have shown - maybe you need to do a notability quotation from one or both?)

• The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

I don't see, at present, how he might meet this criterion, but you may have an idea.

I have quoted all this not in a spirit of justifying myself, but to offer you some directions in which you might be able to make the necessary improvements in the article, which I personally would like to see happen. You do not have to meet all of these criteria: any one of them will be enough to justify accepting the article. When you do (I assume it will be when and not if!), don't bother to resubmit it to the (very long) AfC queue: just drop me a message here and I will create the article in main space for you; it will be a pleasure. David_FLXD (Talk) 21:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much! That will be a big help. I've added some more information showing that his work was contemporaneously considered to be notable. Is that enough, or am I at least heading in the right direction? - Embram (talk) 18:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I imagine the fact that the article is now accepted answers your last question! What is now the last sentence of the lead para shows that Rand was regarded as an important figure by his peers, and what is now the last sentence of the biographical information section shows that he was at least widely published. That meets two of the criteria for notability. There is of course, still room to improve the article... ! David_FLXD (Talk) 10:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! If that hadn't done the trick I was about to give up, because I'd pretty much exhausted what I could find. While he was apparently a notable figure in the poetry world 90 years ago, he's been largely forgotten today except that his poetry appears on various "Poems about X" lists on the Internet (poems about love, poems about death, etc.) I'm glad you were able to add it as a page, because it's precisely information about people who have been largely forgotten that is most needed. For instance, in my case, I was looking for an example in literature of the use of the phrase "the straw-death" (which I had previously come across only in an Icelandic saga). I was happy to find Rand's poem about it, because it was quite illustrative. But when I tried to find information about who that poet was I came up against a brick wall – except for those blackcatpoems.com listings there was almost nothing. That's what caused me to think there was a need for a Wikipedia article, so I did the research. It would be a shame if the best reason for really needing a Wikipedia article (that it's very hard to find the information otherwise) would be the very reason (notability) for its not being able to become a Wikipedia article! - Embram (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Steve Ray Article

--Stephenkimray (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello David:

Thanks for your comments on my Wikipedia page "Steve Ray". Another person made the page, partially due to two reasons: 1) he wanted to do the site on my work has had a big impact on his life, and 2) since I don't have a clue how to set up such a site. However, I have edited it along the way.

I see the problems that you pointed out so I will be working on it to make it fit your guidelines better. There are other 3rd party sources which will soon be added. I will also study the guidelines to insure I am doing all you ask. Thanks for your help and Merry Christmas!

Steve Ray

Hi Steve, thanks for contacting me. I had a look at the article on you, and was not happy about what had been happening. User:Firewriter154 originally submitted it, and I reluctantly accepted it after a lot of improvements. Since then, most of the changes appear to have been promotional in nature (possibly not intentionally), enthusiastic (therefore not in the neutral, formal tone of an encyclopedia entry) and a lot of links have been added which go to your store (I suppose because this is a convenient reference for the books etc, but I'm afraid it comes across as marketing), which is why the article now has the Wikipedia admins interested. I have done a major edit, partly to protect the article (by fixing some of the issues) and partly to protect my own reputation, since I was the one who originally accepted it! I have also removed all sources I would consider primary sources, in order to show where the article needs independent substantiation, and I have removed much of the personal content, for two reasons: one, it is WP policy, in articles on living persons, not to reveal too much of their personal lives, and, two, excessive personal content makes the article look like an individual's Facebook page, and not an encyclopedia article. I trust that you will understand that it is not my intention to vandalize the article! If you really want to go back to how it was before I made the changes, view the article page history and click on undo with regard to my edit. My advice would be to leave it, and start adding independent sources asap: the article may be nominated for deletion, and, if it comes to such a discussion, the more neutral, formal and well-sourced and referenced it is the better. Regards, David_FLXD (Talk) 22:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Ric Dragon

On the notability issue - are articles about an subject from regional newspapers/journals not considered acceptable? Must the sources be major journals or newspapers?

In the arena of marketing, the most prominent sources are the major blogs/ezines, such as Search Engine Land, Marketing Land, Marketing Profs, Search Engine Strategies, and Social Media Examiner. Are these not acceptable sources? Thanks in advance! --Rdquay (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC) BTW: I'd like to do many more bios of prominent people in the digital marketing industry - it seems like it's going to be a challenge with Wikipedia's notability criteria - as what makes for notability in that world, and in other worlds, can be very different. For instance, in digital marketing - speaking at events is central. --Rdquay (talk) 14:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rdquay, thanks for contacting me. Sorry, the holidays have delayed my responding. However, I have gone through all of your sources (so far as I could access them) thoroughly. Please see your article page where I have commented on each source.

To answer your questions:

• Regional news sources are acceptable, but if all regional sources are from the same local area then this limits their value as to notability. If you had a local or regional news reference from New York, and another from Chicago, and another from San Diego, the fact that you could access such a geographical range of local sources would in itself show notability.
• Blogs are not regarded as very reliable sources, as anyone could post an article. However, they are acceptable as supporting sources where the main facts, notability, whatever have been independently established by at least one reliable and independent source.

In the RD article, you do have one good source which supports notability; find one more and you have answered the notability question!

Wikipedia will welcome the effort on your part to provide more digital marketing bios, it is an area in which quality contributions are hard to find, for just the reasons that you have stated. However, if you apply what you are learning from the Ric Dragon article, you may make a name for yourself on Wikipedia! Regards, David_FLXD (Talk) 06:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)