User talk:Jarkeld/archive6

non-notable ancestors of Muhammad

Hi, I've recently added articles of ancestors of Islamic prophet Muhammad in order to improve the article Family tree of Muhammad as there were members of his lineage without WP articles. Therefore I thought it would be of benefit to add stubs to provide brief information about each member, I hope that's OK, take care.

wwe champion

per this which is now in the article.--Dcheagle 21:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finally adding that. Your edit summaries weren't helpfull. Jarkeld (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

yea sorry bout that I was in a hurry the source above was in the page but it seems some one removed it.--Dcheagle 21:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

Why is Dream World not notable enough? Did you see the two referral things?

Aewadi (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Aewadi

1. They are only visible when you edit the article. To fix that please see WP:CITE.
2. They arent used in the text. See WP:INCITE.
3. The first seems to be a non-reliable source. See WP:RS. The second only mentions the game in passing.

The reason I declined is that the article does not state why we should have an article on this game. Jarkeld (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Why...

...did you delete my response on the help desk and replace it with yours? See [1]. Could you please put mine back? kthxbye. --Jayron32 05:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

All good. These edit conflicts do happen. Thanks for cleaning up. Toodles. --Jayron32 05:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, a weird EC glitch. When my response weighed in at -200-odd characters I knew there was a problem, so I reverted myself. Jarkeld.alt (Talk) 10:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for your help on the Michael Morrissey page. I could tell I had done it all wrong, but I found the wizard a bit... arcane, and couldn't find anyone in the online chat to help! Sorry for dumping it in someone's lap to fix. Cheers! Sheldon Bartleby (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Always glad to be of assistance. Jarkeld.alt (Talk) 10:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Monyaka

Thank you very much indeed for your input. I have removed three of the four useless references, but I've left everyhit.com in; there's little I can do about it because in order to access the information "Monyaka" needs to be put into the "Artist" field (which I've added to the article). I have also added one more which I believe to be reliable. Could it be looked at again, please?--90.204.123.40 (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

For much better assistance on music related articles please visit WP:WPMU, the related wikiproject. They may be able to help with more and better chart references. I did find this book which mentions the band. Jarkeld (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I've left a message.--90.204.123.40 (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

ITGUY2011

Thank you for the input. Your comment is "subject appears to be non-notable" I don't understand. What do you mean? I have searched Wikipedia and there are several pages on MVPs (Microsoft Valued Professionals). Computers are used everyday for work, business etc. And Windows runs on many of the computers. Problems appear, and forums are often the first source used to get answers. MCCs (Microsoft Community Contributors) are recognized by Microsoft for notable contributions to forums. Without MCCs, the time needed to find answers is longer, and that in turn means that productivity is delayed or lessened. Take special note of the third reference on the page. How can this comment be addressed?ITGUY2011 (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is: how significant is this award. Your sources indicate that it got a bit of coverage but to be notable it should have significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Most of your sources are not reliable as far as notability is concerned. Most of them are links to Microsoft pages (some of them forums). Please read WP:GNG. Another problem with the Afc page is that it does not contain inline citations, making the content hard to verify. Jarkeld (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

Jamesthecat (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC) overlong sarah palin is overlong and full of trivia. (the article that is, not the person.)

Positive criminology

Thank you for your comments about the positive criminology article. However, I can`t understand why it has been rejected. You wrote: "This request reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in encyclopedic style"

Well, there are reliable sources mentioned in the article and it was written from a neutral point of view. You also wrote that it reads more like an essay, but after reading a lot of articles in Wikipedia, I don`t understand this argument, because the article is no different from many others. I would be happy to get your response, Positive criminology — Preceding unsigned comment added by Positive criminology (talk • contribs) 07:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You do have sources, but the whole structuring makes it look like an essay. The sources aren't used in-line so it's not clear what part of the text is supported by it and the structuring is still not wiki-standard, more like it was published somewhere in a book. It's better than the previous version at wikipedia talk:articles for creation/Positive criminology but it has some way to go before being ready. Btw: had I known that you had a previous version (declined as an essay) I would have declined it as "already exists" (edit: 3 version in total!). You should keep the different versions in one place to preserve the history.

Lastly your name suggests a coi towards the subject and using the term "we" in "The last editor thought that we copied it from a different web site, but we didn`t, we wrote it... Please review it again, thank you!" suggest that the account is used by a group, which is in violation of WP:NOSHARE. Jarkeld (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:Simon Pegg/Nick Frost image

Hi there Jarkeld! If you haven't noticed, those images were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, not to Wikipedia itself. Besides, the images come from Flickr, licensed under CC-BY-SA-2.0. I hope that helps. Electroguv (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I know that they were uploaded to commons. I must have misread the license info on the original flickr image as that seems to be one of the few that have that CC-BY-SA-2.0 license info. That's why i reverted the notice to your talkpage. Jarkeld (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Dayewalker

Dear Jarkeld, Thank you for reaching out to me regarding this matter. Please take the time to view my messages inviting Dayewalker to engage in discussion, The first which was sent several days (no pun intended)prior to my edit. That informed him of my concerns regarding his edit and the nature of it. In that message I reached out to Dayewalker to initiate discussion and to inform him that without any further imput from him to make his position a bit less subjective I would be returning the review. Dayewalker choose to remove my message, and made no attempt to discuss the issue of my concerns, making it clear that it was not a matter that warranted further exchange.

I waited until the timeframe expired then returned the review.

Then Dayewalker performed a heavy handed and poorly noted revedit again with out reaching out for any kind of imput or consensus.

So I returned the review, and sent another friendly and constructive message to dayewalker's talk page regarding the exchanges, or should I say in this case "lack" of exchanges over the subject and consensus.

Please, be aware that although I am sure you did not mean it to, your message to me had a brusk and somewhat threatening air about it.

Lets work together on this and try to keep on the high road! BespokeFM (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy Gibson

Just letting you know — you rejected the Articles for Creation page for Andy Gibson, but I created a better-sourced article at Andy Gibson (singer). He has a chart single and he's signed to a notable label, so there's a bit more "meat" to his article now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?

STOPzilla is almost certainly a rogue antivirus, built for the sole purpose of tricking unsuspecting people into purchasing it's software to detect false threats. My edit was absolutely NOT vandalism. Please don't make edits if you're not an expert of the field, thanks. 174.95.55.133 (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

No sources to back up the claims, combined with the fact that in the past the same info was disruptively added again and again: defamatory vandalism. Take it to the article's talk page and back up the claims with sources. If you can't stop vandalizing the article. Jarkeld (talk) 07:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

What's your problem, really? Are you following/stalking me on everything I edit? That is a good source.. Where is the evidence that STOPzilla is actually an-antimalware program? It shows many rogue like behaviours and I am being neutral. If you look back a year or two this page was written by someone who is closely related with this so called "product". Why do you go around willy-nilly and altering any edits I make when you know nothing of it? My source was legitimate. 174.95.55.133 (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not a good source. The website contains user posted opinions without editorial oversight. Please read the policy pages I posted on your talkpage. Jarkeld (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Also why did you undo my edit on Gordon Graydon memorial secondary school? I did source that properly, and placed in information from that news article.174.95.55.133 (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Not a news article, just 1 persons opinion. Jarkeld (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are you specifically tracking my edits anyways, it's so hard to convey the TRUTH on this encyclopedia without being struck-down or insta-undoed by stuck-up admins or mini-mods. Also, if you have no knowledge on the subject, then why should you have the right to undo good-faith edits which are sourced?174.95.55.133 (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, please read the article, Wikipedia: Assume good faith. Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were false, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (vandalism)174.95.55.133 (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

^There is no evidence of me doing blatant vandalism or posting incorrect information. There is no obvious evidence of vandalism. 174.95.55.133 (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Because your edits on Stopzilla attracted attention. Your talkpage even more. It made me look into your recent edits and your only aim seems to insert negative, unsourced or poorly sourced information into articles. That is considered disruptive. Jarkeld (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore: my level 2 warning is still assuming good faith. Yet you persist in posting negative, unsourced or poorly sourced information into articles, wasting any good faith you had left. Jarkeld (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Discovery

Thank you for reviewing this article and moving it into the main article space. I know I am supposed to use English on talk pages, but since we share the same "moedertaal": bedankt om mijn bijdrage op te nemen in de Engelse WikiPedia. Met vriendelijke groeten. 81.83.139.181 (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Article review

yes the sources are not reliable for this article,but so are all the other rahbani-related topics on the web,,,there are no official sites for the artists,the play itself was performed during war times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by From earth (talk • contribs) 12:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The refences do not have to be on-line. If you know of any books or newspapers that can be used to support the article you can include them. An article needs to be verifyable, on or off-line. Jarkeld.alt (Talk) 12:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

ok,i have managed to improve the article,what do u think?(it's my first article btw) — Preceding unsigned comment added by From earth (talk • contribs) 17:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately still lacking in reliable sources. WP:RS can give you an idea what kind of sources are needed. Jarkeld (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

My Template for Creation

Thanks for telling me about my template; I was wondering what would happen to it. I modified it a bit, hopefully sooner or later it will be approved. Thanks! Pinkstrawberry02™ ^talk 00:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Userboxes at AFC

Hey Jarkeld, Thanks! I didn't know about that, thanks for letting me know. That'll be particularly useful to me. :) Thanks again, and thanks for also moving my userbox! See you around the wiki! Pinkstrawberry02™ ^talk 03:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Glad to have been of assistance :) Jarkeld (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - A cupcake for you!

Thank you Jarkeld! If I ever need help with templates, I'll certainly come to you. Here's a cupcake for all your help! Pinkstrawberry02™ talk 01:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleted File Request Problem

Granted, it worked on my page, but see here (at the bottom). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You've called the wrong template: {{subst:idw|IPhone 4 box.JPG}} works on commons, not fdw. Jarkeld (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Then maybe the instructions need fixing ;-) DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The instructions at Template:fdw say "For images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, use {{subst:fdw-commons|filename.jpg}}"; Template:fdw-commons redirects to Template:idw. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The instructions at "Files for Deletion" don't. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean at Wikipedia:Files for deletion? "VI. Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead." - David Biddulph (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No, still doesn't work properly. The file is showing as a broken link. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Use File:filename and it should work. Jarkeld (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

OK file now links but "its entry" at deletions still doesn't. I wish I hadn't started this now! DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You haven't made its deletion entry at Commons. Forget all about Wikipedia:Files for deletion which is not for deletion at Commons as it says in point VI at "What not to list here". See commons:Commons:Deletion requests and the "Nominate for deletion" link in the toolbox at commons:File:IPhone 4 box.JPG. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've followed all the instructions as best I can, but there is still a message arround saying that the delete tag has not been implmented correctly. I cannot see what I've done wrong. Frankly, someone needs to simplify this process considerably because I cannot be bothered to spend needless time pissing about with this any longer. As far as I am concerned you can keep the copyrighted image and get sued. It's not going to cost me anything. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I cannot find such a message. Everything looks in order now. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

My thanks to David Biddulph who seems to have tried to tidy up what I've missed. But he does make the point that the delete request is "apparently malformed" which suggests that he has spotted that there is a problem but implies that he doesn't know why either. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been though the process at commons:Help:Nominate for deletion, so I can't guess where it might have gone wrong. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

my article for creation

Dear Jalked, thanks for drop me a correction on this article. Just quick question, which sentences did you say this article is (Declining submission: submission is written like an advertisement)? I've been edited the article three times, but same decline was always like this :) Need your advice, many thanks Thelagunabali (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It reads like the about section on a pamphlet. No indication of notability and no reliable sources are present. Jarkeld (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jalked, I look my article is similiar like this article. I will add more resource on this article if you said no source are present, please advice, thanks ;) Thelagunabali (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Whamcloud article for creation

Hi there

You have suggested that my proposed article does not contain sufficient evidence as to why an encyclopedia entry is warranted for this organization. Could you please elaborate as to what areas I need to focus on?

Do I need to demonstrate why Lustre is important (which I had thought was covered by the article on this subject, but basically ~70% of the top 100 supercomputers in the world run using this filesystem) or focus on why the Lustre 2.1 community release is important (which is probably covered by but is basically because said project is not dead despite Oracle ceasing active development) or why Whamcloud's role in this initative was significant (covered by the work breakdown charts in this presentation )?

I was advised to create an article by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raysonho after discussion about the most appropriate way to include mention of the Lustre 2.1 community release on the Lustre file system page. The advice given was to create a Whamcloud article and then to list the 2.1 release under a derivative software section on the Lustre article. I read the guidance about creating articles for organizations and it suggested that it was important not to make statements that seem promotional of the organization - so how to I strike a balance between establishing significance without straying into "marketing territory"?

Thanks

Dontbedaft (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)dontbedaft

For a separate article on Whamcloud you need to demonstrate in that article why we should have an article on it independent of the Lustre article. It doesn't do that at present. You can strive for a proper balance in the text by getting people with experience with this kind of article from a wikiproject that covers this territory to take a look and chime in. In this case most likely WP:WikiProject Software. Jarkeld (talk) 11:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Ann W. Nally

Thank you for properly requesting inline links to reputable and verifiable citations. I made the corrections as requested. Is there a formatting issue with the way I did them?

This particular person is already in the Wikipedia Article cited for receiving the Silver Buffalo Award in 1982 along with Ronald Reagan and Art Linkletter. This new article provides the details of why she was notable, particularly as one of the pioneering woman in the heretofore primarily male dominated Boy Scouts of America.

The confirming links come from Scouting Magazine among other (current paid circulation of 969,000+ per ABC and published continuously since 1913).

If something else is missing that I need to correct before publication please let me know.

Dalcrow (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The proper format is <ref>reference</ref> or the usage of {{cite web}} (for website based refs). As for the Silver Buffalo mention: please source it to the proper source from the organisation itself. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for that kind of information. (See: WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source). Jarkeld (talk) 10:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Jarkeld/archive6! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Articles for creation/Astro Empires

Thanks for your review on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Astro_Empires. But i didn't quite understand how's the article "doesn't sufficiently explain the importance or significance of the subject", specially when there is others on wiki like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion%27s_Belt_%28game%29 that seems to be less important for the wiki community. If there is something that could be done, i'm willing to. Thanx

Mi6as (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, per WP:OTHERSTUFF you shouldn't compare pages like that. That page was flagged with a "may not meet notability guidelines" tag. The main reason why I declined per non-notable is that the article does not give any reason why we should have an article on it. The references cited aren't proof of "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" as per Wikipedia:Notability (video games) and WP:WEB. Jarkeld (talk) 10:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

my mistake then. sorry. i'll try to gather good references.WP:WEB. Mi6as (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

hi again Jarkeld. would you mind help me with the Astro Empires page? I cannot edit because its in a blacklist. Still i have manage to improve the references and images. Tx WP:WEB. Mi6as (talk) 09:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

What are you trying to add? Jarkeld (talk) 10:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

i want to delete the first 2 sections of the article, because it was an old entry that i made. But recently i add new and better sections for the Astro Empires, but those old 2 sections remain there as i was unable to delete them. I'm currently putting effort on a good presentation and gathering more references. WP:WEB. Mi6as (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Previous section deleted, some corrections to spelling, uniform application of the proper name:  Done. There are still a lot of sections that employ we/you type constructions that could be rewritten to give the article a more encyclopaedic look. Jarkeld (talk) 11:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for your time and diligence in directing me to the policies of Wikipedia that I need to follow to create a new page for Fashion 5.0. Morganmyrmo (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Dino Bravo (original)

Hello Jarkeld. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Dino Bravo (original), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Sicodelico

Hello Jarkeld. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sicodelico, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article has already been PRODded and de-PRODded. If you'd like to delete it, try WP:AfD. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: John Hobbs (baseball)

Hello Jarkeld. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of John Hobbs (baseball), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Declining of a submission at AfC is not a reason for speedy deletion in the mainspace; AfD or PROD if necessary. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 20:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hathorn Davey

Will check the page number but it will take some time to request the book from the library.Peterrivington (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That is what AfC is for: all the (at least quite a bit of) time you'll need to make an article that won't be deleted on sight. Jarkeld (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

AFC reviews

Hi, you know that a lack if inline references (so only listing them at the bottom) like at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Australian Jazz Quartet/Quintet is not a valid decline reason? Please read again the reviewing manual and check the actual discussions at WT:AFC. Thanks. Regards, mabdul 01:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

In the past I would have placed it on hold. It won't happen again. Jarkeld (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Btw:

Wikipedia's Verifiability policy describes when sources should be cited, and what kind of sources are considered reliable. It requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space. However, editors are strongly advised to provide citations for all information added to Wikipedia, because otherwise any detail risks eventually being unexpectedly challenged or even removed.

was what I had in mind when declining. I thought it would be better to adhere to it now that bombard the article with maintenance tags in mainspace. Jarkeld (talk) 12:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Maintaintags - as the name already says - are mostly easy to fix. If the draft is rather short and you don't see any other problem why you "can decline" the article, then simply fix it on your own and accept the article. But again: don't decline the article because it lacks only inline references. To be honest: I make the same mistake in my beginning of my involvement in the AFC project a half a year ago. mabdul 17:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Jaap van Ginneken

Hallo Jarkeld,

The article i submitted (Jaap van Ginneken) is declined because of unreliable sources. I should view the submission to see the comments left by the reviewer and I should address the issues found in the review but i cannot find them. Or maybe i look at the wrong place? I gathered some information today and now i understand why it is declined but could you more specific to help me further?--Joost26 (talk) 14:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I declined the article as it does not cite sources for the content. The sources need to be reliable third-party sources to ascertain the claims for notability. Preference is for the citations to be inline. If you have those sources available, please add them to the article and resubmit it for review. The relevant guidelines re: notability are found here and here. Jarkeld (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Jaap v g.

i think you made me clear what to next. thank you very much.--Joost26 (talk) 08:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Pinkstrawberry02™ ^talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

May you have a very blessed Christmas and a Happy New Year! Pinkstrawberry02™ ^talk 02:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

RE: Paul Christoforo

Excuse me what? I count 18 'Contested Deletion' posts and only two that support it. Unless you've decided that IPs opinions don't count. Also since when is it okay to simply add tags without reason? Are you trying to imply that I can add a speedy delete tag to any article I please and it should be talked about for weeks? Explain. --Tarage (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Those objections were against the speedy deletion, not against the AfD. Please read WP:AfD and WP:CSD to find out about the differences. Jarkeld (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't meat the criteria. If you bothered to read any of the 'contested deletion' posts, you'd see that the consensus is NOT to delete it, and the make valid points. This is a developing story that has been on MSNBC for cripes sake. How long should I wait before actually listening to consensus and removing the tag? A day? A week? A month? Or do you insist we should waste more time on what is trivially a bad tag. --Tarage (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The criteria are different. The comments on the talkpage are not relevant to the AfD discussion. If you'd bothered to read the links properly you'd be aware of that. Removing teh template once again constitutes vandalism, as you have been notified not to remove it while the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Christoforo is still open. Jarkeld (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

CRAZY GIRL SHIN BIA

Have just found a third source, myanimelist.net, for information on the manhwa CRAZY GIRL SHIN BIA. If you wish to see the entry on it for yourself, go to myanimelist.net/manga.php?id=12837. Glammazon (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

User added content: not a reliable source. Jarkeld.alt (Talk) 16:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thererfore, I went and found a FOURTH source, www.mangatraders.com; the entry is www.mangatraders.com/manga/series/5390.Glammazon (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Same problem: user driven site. It is just not enough to establish notability. Jarkeld (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you find me a non-user-driven site that contains information on CRAZY GIRL SHIN BIA, then? I worked very hard on both this and the earlier version of this entry, which was also rejected, and I tried to make sure the readers of the entry could go directly to the sources that I myself was using, then even deleted the sites on which the manhwa could be read! When I was just learning to write in this manner as a child, all that was required was a list of references called a bibliography, and I have provided that for this entry. As for notability, I cannot understand why WIKIPEDIA would require such a thing when all that is needed are good references.Glammazon (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Then please include good references. The referenced you added are not reliable sources. Sites that uses user created content without editorial oversight is just not reliable to assess notability. Jarkeld (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Appeal

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 the are 2634 submissions waiting to be reviewed. 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? Are you autoconfirmed? 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.

added more info

Hello, I added more info to the Nayeli Rose submission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.67.234 (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, quite a bit more sources are needed to pass WP:PORNBIO. WP:PORN might be a place to find help. Jarkeld (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I really dont know what I can do to make this better?

Dear reviewers, Every time i am asked to -sufficiently explain the importance or significance of the subject. See the speedy deletion criteria A7 and/or guidelines on organizations and companies. Please provide more information on why the organization is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, i have added loads of info in and have tried to do as much as I can.... please just make it a page, everyone is asking why the sorority dosnt have a page....://

Sigma Omega is a UK sorority set up in the year of 2012, now becoming the 2nd sorority in the UK along with Sigma Gamma. This sorority was founded on January 6th by Amy Simpson and her friends. The importance of this sorority is that they help the community and help others around them to become a helpful, kind sorority. They are a well-known sorority within the school it is based at- Kings School Winchester and are trying to gain as much publicity as they can. This sorority is against hazing and is a new fresh take on the greek, exclusive clubs. This sorority strives to achieve what is best for the community and holds regular chapter meetings held by the president. This sorority is made up of five established young women who take certain roles within the sorority the roles are- philanthropy chair, entertainment chair, social chair, standards chair and the president of the sorority. Each member in Sigma Omega (ΣΩ) is dedicated and committed to the sorority. This is done by swearing an oath and saying a pledge to the sorority. The rules of Sigma Omega are valued through the sorority, an example of the rules are: 1. Do not drink excessive amounts. 2. Respect you fellow sisters. 3. Show the sorority in a positive light always. The emblem for ΣΩ (sigma omega) is wearing pearls as this shows the sorority is wise and mature. The symbols for Sigma Omega are the greek letter symbols: ΣΩ. These are worn on jewellery and items of clothing. In the near future the sorority hopes to hold rush days and create new pledges. The sorority aims to help many other people within the UK to make the sorority become helpful and worthwhile. This is a new sorority, therefore there is no previous history however this sorority has been set up properly and is true.

References

{{Reflist}}

• sorority itself
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternities_and_sororities*
• http://sigmaomega.squarespace.com/

(talk page stalker) Obviously this draft refers to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sigma Omega where Jarkeld has already replied that we need external outside sources to show how your sorotity is actually notable. And judging from the fact that they've literally been set up a few days ago I'd say there's no chance that you can have an article any time soon. We need multiple reliable reports from newspapers, magazines, text books or TV to see how an organisation is notable, preferably on a national level to begin with. A one-time article in a local newspaper is also not enough. I'm sorry but you can't have a Wikipedia page simply because your sorority exists. De728631 (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Amateur Classical Musicians Association

Hello Jarkeld --

You have rejected the submission for Amateur Classical Musicians Association because "references given are not reliable third party sources." I'm a bit confused for 2 reasons. First, two of the references are to recitals at Carnegie Hall on the Carnegie Hall website itself. Second, in looking at the entry for a somewhat comparable organization, Origami USA (comparable in the sensethat it supports and promotes a particular art form), I see no references at all except for their own website.

Can you help me to understand the distinction you are making here? I would be most appreciative.

Thanks for your help. Serena SerenaLaVine (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, firstly: Comparing your page to other pages is not that useful as a few pages in mainspace are poorly sourced and will be evaluated and fixed when we find them.

• Ref 1: their own page, not considered a reliable source as far as notability is concerned.
• Ref 2: Seems like a blog, not sure but I think it's not a reliable source.
• Ref 3-5: It shows that they have preformed there, goes towards notability, but it does not verify the rest of the article.
• Ref 6: youtube video: not a reliable source (most of the time). Haven't viewed it fully as youtube video's don't play well on PC's at my workplace.

The best type of source would be online newspaper articles or paper newspaper articles. A better comparison would be: Monmouth Civic Chorus as it too originated as a AfC submission that needed some work. Jarkeld.alt (Talk) 05:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Amateur Classical Musicians Association (ACMA)

Dear Jarkeld-- You've been very helpful. Thank you for your patience in explaining the situation to me. It appears that ACMA is not quite ready for a Wikipedia article. It's a young organization and doesn't have much press or other coverage -- yet. Thanks again. Serena SerenaLaVine (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Delphix

Hello Jarkeld,

You declined the submission for Delphix, stating that the sources were not reliable. Can you please be more specific, as 5 of the 6 are third party magazine publications and the references directly support the related statements in the submission. Can you please let me know if a specific part is not acceptable and why?

Thanks, R. CacciaRcaccia (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarkeld.alt (talk • contribs)

First and foremost: please use the ref tags as intended. The way they are used now doesn't help reading and understanding the article. Template:Cite web is a better way of including cites in line.

On to the sources themselves:

• eWeek: No link seems to exist to the article.
• zdNet: Does verify the text, but doesn't establist notability.
• undertheradarblog.com/blog/announcing-under-the-radar-winners-who-came-out-on-cloud-9/ doesn't seem to add to notability.
• Red Herring: goes towards notability, but isn't enough on its own.
• InfoWorld Delphix CEO: Why Database Virtualization Matters (http://www.infoworld.com/t/data-management/delphix-ceo-why-database-virtualization-matters-173914): Unsure. Couldn't read it for more than a few seconds on this PC.
• Public Customer List (http://www.delphix.com/customers.php): not a RS for most purposes and having notable clients does not make a company notable.

To fix the article: a few newspaper sources and fixing the cites would go a long way. Jarkeld.alt (Talk) 03:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Morrocco Method International

Hello, I added some references to the article I submitted for Morrocco Method International, but it doesn't appear it will go through another review. I am just wondering what you would like me to change to get the article approved, or at least so I can get it reviewed again.

Thanks Alexander17322 (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, if you want to resubmit, you can use the appropriate option in the decline template: "When ready to resubmit, click here and press the save page button to request a new review."

I'll take a look at the current state of the article when I have the time. Jarkeld (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Griffin

I have just found a message on my TALK page indicating that an editor wishes to cancel The Griffin, an article on a defunct retail store by that name. But I didn't write that article - my article was on the MARVEL COMICS supervillain, the Griffin! 99.246.60.108 (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ehm, your talk is empty. Not sure what I can assist you with. Jarkeld (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyeswikimedia.org.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting the trolling on my talk page! --Bmusician 15:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for being the guardian angel of my talk page. Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Glad to have been of service. Jarkeld (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

CONFUSED ON WHY I GOT DECLINED

Hello Jarkeld, I wrote an article on KENDRA DIVINE ETUFUNWA but got declined and not sure why, the proof are easily verified by the ref i put up via online from reliable sources like online papers/ movies etc.. please advice what i should do to rectify this please, i will re-submit anyway just incase. Thank you... cassidy night Cassidynight (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

For an article to get accepted you'll need reliable sources to verify that the person is notable and the sources should support the text. The sources used aren't considered reliable. Jarkeld (talk)

16:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. In the wiki aricle/help section of "Reliable sources" it quotes "However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. MNET , DSTV & DISCOVERY NETWORK are major networks and could be considered Reliable for these are the sources used Cassidynight (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

All are primary sources that do not indicate that she s notable. For that you need multiple mentions in reliable sources. Newspapers, magazines, etc. Online or offline. Jarkeld (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

New Question:

Hi Jarkeld, I'm totally fresh in submitting the articles and have two questions to you, as to the person who has surly more knowledge then I. First, is about article I've submitted Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Money_Maker$ ...you tagged it as not approved coz of notability. Could you tell me exactly why? what's wrong with it and what I have to improve to make it OK? Second thing is that I think this article should be first written in Korean and then translated into English, but as I didn't know how to do it I made it the other way round (tho I have Korean text too). I think that if it would be written first in Korean it would be approved without a fail. Could you tell me how to put an alternative text/translation in other language? p.s. I'm not even sure if I'm writing this msg in write place and manner, sorry if not...I'm just learning --Ravenxoxox (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you've got the right place for your message, I just added == before and after your heading to make it separate from the previous question.

As to the article: writing it in Korean and then translating it won't make a difference. What the article needs is multiple mentions of the band in reliable sources. That is what I am missing here: youtube is not a reliable source, some of the allkpop "articles" are not specifically about the band: they only mention them in passing. This guideline and this guideline list the criteria for general notability and notability of musical ensembles. Jarkeld (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Appeal

Articles for Creation is backlogged and needs YOUR help! Articles for Creation is desperately in need of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors and administrators alike, to help us clear a record backlog of pending submissions. There is currently a significant backlog of 2634 submissions waiting to be reviewed. These submissions are generally from new editors who have never edited Wikipedia before. A prompt, constructive review of submissions could significantly editor retention. 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? Are you (at least) autoconfirmed? 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. Click here to review to a random submissionArticle selected by erwin85's random article script on toolserver. We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 1 or 2 reviews, would be extremely beneficial. On behalf of the Articles for Creation project, AndrewN talk 23:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Shoefitr

Hello Jarkeld. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Shoefitr, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chris Webby

Hello Jarkeld. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chris Webby, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The first paragraph doesn't seem to be a copyright violation, though the rest needs to be removed. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 19:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

AFC Backlog

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 2634 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? Are you autoconfirmed? 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 User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js which helps in reviewing in just few edits easily! We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 2 or 3 reviews, it would be extremely beneficial. On behalf of the Articles for Creation project, TheSpecialUser TSU

A kitten for you!

Thank you for your help on my recently submitted article for review. Boca Raton PL

Boca Raton PL (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Doleshwar Mahadev

Hi, I did not understand what you mean by Hindi sources needed in the articleWikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Doleshwar Mahadev. Some of the references are from Nepali news paper.let me know if i need to provide any other reference. If you don't understand Mahabharat then you will not understand the History section of the article. It is related to Hindu Mythology. Rjthapa(talk) 03:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

When I try to look up source #3 and #4: the only mention on the internet is your article. Please be more specific. If they are from Nepali newspapers please mention editions and use the original Devanagari alphabet: that way it can be searched on the internet. Jarkeld (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Erin_02

Hi my name is Erin and I'm fairly new to Wikipedia editing and I was wondering if you could help clarify the page I wrote for RiverWinds Community Center. If you could tell me what parts of this article sound like an advertisement and how I could go about fixing it. Thank you. Erin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erin 02 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the article is that it reads like a brochure advertising the center. What is needed is why it is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, supported by references (WP:INCITE). Please read: WP:My first article for some tips on how to structure the article. Jarkeld (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Jarkeld. I will check this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erin 02 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 6 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 2634 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) 09:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Help on Username Comment

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

Thanks for help on username/talk/article

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

Fixed my My submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals

I cannot tell where I re-submit this article? I added references, but there is no choice to resubmit it this time? Amycaroline321 (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page & save to resubmit. Jarkeld (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

That worked, thank you! Amycaroline321 (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Glad to have been of assistance. Jarkeld (talk) 18:05, 3 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) 00:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Hi, can you please explain this revert? [2] Thanks, Kansan (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

A further revert that I thought would fix a section header problem. Didn't notice that it reinstated that incorrect assertion about him. I thought the cluebot version was the one without the incorrect assertion. Jarkeld (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Help with FIT Radio submission

Hello Jarkeld,

I'm wondering how I can make my references better, as they are the reason this page has been denied. Am I having citational (format) issues, or are my sources not viable (I have the Atlanta Journal Constitution, iTunes store, Mashable, and others. Any help is greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattgdonald (talk • contribs)

What the article lacks is that it doesn't mention why it is significant enough and notable enough to be included. Secondly you lack sources published by third parties about the subject. The sources are maily their own website and a couple of sources that only mention the subject in passing. Please read: the notability guideline and this page on sources. Jarkeld (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources for the Crocodile Prize

I honestly don't know what more reliable sources you could ask for:

1. Official website of the crocodile prize - http://www.crocodileprize.com/ 2. News post on a reputable and high traffic blog on Papua New Guinea - http://asopa.typepad.com/asopa_people/crocodile-prize-articles/ 3. Feature article from THE LARGEST AND MOST REPUTABLE NEWSPAPER IN AUSTRALIA - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/review/storytelling-in-the-blood-for-pngs-writers/story-fn9n8gph-1226503207690

Please explain in what way these do no equate to reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beejeron (talk • contribs) 00:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The newspaper reference could be a reliable source, but it's behind a paywall. A blog generally isn't a reliable source and their own site is not a reliable source and isn't independent of the subject. Jarkeld (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

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 2634 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 22:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC). If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.

Problem

Hello, all morning i am trying to explain that in here Old Church Slavonic in english and russian they have missed out to say: Old Church Slavonic is also know as Old Bulgarian. As simple as that. In all the other languages the sentense Old Bulgarian is Old Church Slavonic is present but not in English and Russian. I want to corrigate that becouse it should say it as it is and not leave out true facts. The most bad part is that if you clcik on Macedonian and Swedish(i think it was swedish) you will se that it is called Old Macedonian and not Old Bulgarian, this is full non sense and I dont know why you have allowed people who dont know anything about history to right in the enciclopedia. And know i just saw they wrote Old Bulgarian and Old Macedonian!! I cant take this any more why are you people making fun if this country?????

Please correct the mistaces and get someone that knows history couse I am trying all day to corrigate this non sense!

I want to complain to the autoroties or something couse i fed up with this making fun of my country. This is pure mocking of Bulgaria!!!! You can contact someone that nows history and check it and see thats the truth and stop making fun of me and my country with your non sense messages!!!

If you cant help me tell me to who to turn to couse this problem haves to be fixed right away!!! You cant leave out facts, change or even MAKE history!!! It is how it is!!!

I am hoping you will do something couse i dont know what to do and who to turn to!!! I feel extreamly insulted by this website neglect!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettkata (talk • contribs) 15:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

1) Other wikis are not reliable sources. If other wikis decide to jump off a bridge, EnWiki won't automatically do the same.

2) Old Macedonian as an alternative for Old Church Slavonic is sourced to a book. Do you have sources that show that the names are not connected?

3) If you have a strong nationalistic bias you shouldn't edit articles if that bias leads you to edit in a non-neutral fashion.

Please state your case on the articles talk page, so other wikipedians can join in the discussion. We can't be held responsible for hurt feelings if reliable sources claim something contrary to your personal beliefs. Jarkeld (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This are not my personal beliefs, this is not nationalistic bias..... I cant belive you people, thank for nothing! I am going to collect all the sources i can find and send them to you, and did you even know about the part that in that time Macedonia did not EXIST it was part of Bulgaria, so there isnt any Old Macedonian languiage? Did you know abput the 10 macedonian lies against Bulgaria? How thwy say the language is macedonian, the kings are macedonian and etc.... I guess you didnt!!! How did you allowed them to right this and even connect it with a book!!! I am going to fight and find everything i can and when i do i except your apolygise - you dont know anything about this countries and the history and yet again you are so determent to proove i have "personal believs", "nationalistic bias", thats this is an act of "vandalism" etc.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettkata (talk • contribs) 16:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Please read this piece on verifiability. Do you have proof for any of your statements? If so please list them. As I see it you are not able to edit with a neutral point of view and are using original research and synthesis. Jarkeld (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the articles i am reading them now, yes i can proof every word i said, but first i have to gather all the sourses, articles and books i can find in order to show you! I will write to you again here as soon as i gather more information about everything, for know i will write what i found first, thank you!

In the Old Church Slavonic in bulgarian you have this:

Допълнителна литература [редактиране]

Граматика на старобългарския език, БАН, София, 1993 Увод в изучаване на южнославянските езици, БАН, София, 1986 Иван Гълъбов, Старобългарски език с увод в славянското езикознание, София, 1980 Иван Добрев, Старобългарска граматика — теория на основите, София, 1982 Иван Дуриданов, Граматика на старобългарския език. Фонетика. Морфология. Синтаксис. (Гл. ред. и автор) - София, 1991, стр. 16, 87-97, 538-539, 549-557 Иван Дуриданов, Старобългарският език в синхрония и диахрония. В: Славянска филология: Т. 19. Езикознание. - София, 1988, стр. 5-18 Кирил Мирчев, Старобългарски език — кратък граматичен очерк, София, 1972 Стефан Младенов, История на българския език, БАН, София, 1979 Vittore Pisani. "Old Bulgarian Language".Sofia, Bukvitza, 2012. ISBN 978-954-92858, English, Bulgarian, Italian

from this article http://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%8A%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%BA

you can google translate it!

And also in the Old Church Slavonic article in italian, spanish, portuguese, french - in the bottom are all of the books that support what i said, check them out and you will see that this is Old Bulgarian a.k.a. Old Church Slavonic (nothing to do with old Macedonian) and check History of Macedonia if you like and see there was no Macedonia in this period and please dont let people make things up!

The only ones that believe that its old macedonian and not old bulgarian are people from Macedonia - read the book they have than all the others and you will see, and also in the chronicles found - Greek, Bulgarian etc there is sad Old Bulgarian, when i find more information and articles i will send them to you!!! I need to look for this chronicles! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettkata (talk • contribs) 17:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I also found this: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/426815/Old-Bulgarian-language and this: http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com.es/2011/02/history-of-bulgarian-language.html and this: http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com.es/2011/03/bulgarian-language-and-other-slavic.html this one: http://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0

When i find more i will let you know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettkata (talk • contribs) 17:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Please remember: blogs are not reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Jarkeld (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will, but also - only one book isnt a reliable source - you have only one book in witch there is ONLY ONE SENTENSE saying -you can also say Old Macedonian - thats it nothing more!!! Thats surtenly not a reliable source, and one more thing the pages I send you where not only websites some of them are books! Please check them out!!! I will send more! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettkata (talk • contribs) 19:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Here some more sources:

Cyrillo-Methodian Encyclopedia. Vol.1 (1985); Vol. 2 (1995); Vol. 3 and 4 (2003). Series “Starobulgarska Literatura” (Old Bulgarian Literature) (38 volumes published to date). Series Old Bulgarian Literature: Vol. 1. Apocrypha. Editor: D. Petkanova (1981) Vol. 2. Rhetoric. Editor: L. Grasheva (1982) Vol. 3. Historical Writings. Editor: Iv. Bozhilov (1983) Vol. 4. Vitae. Editor: Kl. Ivanova (1986) Vol. 5. Natural History. Editor: A. Miltenova (1992). Angelov, B. St. From the History of Old Bulgarian, Russian, and Serbian Literature. Vol. 1-3. (1958-1978); Struggle for the Legacy of Cyril and Methodius (1969); Cyril and Methodius - founders of Slavic Script (1969); From the History of Russian-Bulgarian Literary Relations. Vol.1- 2. (1972-1980); Russian and Southern Slavic Literary Relations (1980); Medieval Bulgarian Writers. (1981); Medieval Bulgarian Literary Legacy (1983). Dinekov, P. Pages from the history of Old Bulgarian literature. Anthology (1966, 1968); From the History of Bulgarian literature (1969); Between My Own Kind and Others (1969); At the Sources of Bulgarian Culture (1977); Between Folklore and Literature (1978); Encomium of Old Bulgarian Literature (1979, 1988) Literature and Culture (1982); Problems of Old Bulgarian Literature (1996). Ivanova, Kl. Bulgarian, Serbian, and Moldo-Wallachian Cyrillic Manuscripts in M. P. Pogodin’s collection (1981). Studies in the Field of Literature and Folklore: a volume dedicated toAcad. P. Dinekov on his 70th anniversary (1983). Kozhuharov, St. Description of the Slavonic Manuscripts in the Library of the Zograf Monastery on Mount Athos. Vol.1, with B. Raykov and Hr. Kodov (1985); Problems of the Old Bulgarian Poetry. Volume 1. (2004). Bulgarian Literature in the Thirteenth Century. Editors: St. Kojhuharov, Iv. Bojhilov (1987). Catalogue of the Slavonic Manuscripts in the Library of the Zograf Monastery on Mount Athos. Editors: B. Raykov, St. Kozhuharov, H. Miklas, Hr. Kodov (1994). Computer processing of Medieval Slavic Manuscripts. Proceedings (1996). Tapkova-Zaimova, V., Miltenova, A. Historical and Apocalyptical Literature in Byzantium and Medieval Bulgaria (1996). Medieval Studies and cultural anthropology. Collection of essays in honour of the 40 years of work of prof. Donka Petkanova (1998). Medieval Slavic Manuscripts and SGML. Problems and Perspectives (2000). Computational Approaches to the Study of Early and Modern Slavic Languages and Texts (2003). Computer Applications in Slavic Studies: Proceedings of Azbuky.NET International Conference and Workshop 24-27 October 2005, Sofia, Bulgaria (2006). Getov, Dorotej. A Catalogue of Greek Liturgical Manuscripts in the "Ivan Dujcev Center for Slavo-Byzantine Studies". Pontificio Istituto Orientale, Roma 2007 [= Orientalia Christiana Analecta 279]. Stankova, Radoslava. Serbian Literature from the 13th century (context and text) (2007). Christian Hagiology and Pagan Believes. Collection in Honour of Elena Kotseva (2008). History of Mediaeval Bulgarian Literature / Comp. A. Miltenova (2008). Slovo : Towards a digital library of South Slavic manuscripts. Procceedings of the international conference, 21-26 February, 2008.

Please start any sources you'd like me to look at with a * or :, that makes it easier to read. For books and such please provide the page where your evidence can be found.

More sources for Old Macedonian:

• Benjamin W. Fortson. Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction, pg. 374:

  Macedonian was not distinguished from Bulgarian for most of its history. Constantine and Methodius themselves came from Macedonian Thessalonika; their Old Bulgarian is therefore at the same time "Old Macedonian".

• R. E. Asher, J. M. Y. Simpson. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, pg. 429
• Dmitrij Cizevskij. Comparative History of Slavic Literatures, pg. 26:

  The brothers knew the Old Bulgarian or Old Macedonian dialect spoken around Thessalonica.

  Jarkeld (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If you must know Macedonian was not distinguished from Bulgarian becouse Macedonian language begun its exsistence in 1999 when Bulgaria and the other countries excepted it and even today its not trully excepted from Bulgaria and Greece due to the fact that Macedonian is a Bulgarian dialect! Before that in the early middle ages (around 3-5th century) there was an ancient macedonian which had nothing to do with Old Bulgarian. The hole confusement cames from the fact that Macedonia is a region!!! And it was a region way before a country with the same name appiered!!! The brothers where born in the region called Macedonia, so am I if you must know, and this region is still called this way - its in Bulgaria, Greece and Macedonia. Back then in this times when the alphabet appiered there was only one empire existing in this lands - The First Bulgarian empire and this is why its called Old Bulgarian Language, becouse Tzar Boris I ordered the brothers to make a language for the BULGARIANS in the BULGARIAN EMPIRE, no such macedonians where existing, and i told you there is even a book called the 10 macedonian lies i am sending you a link. Furthemore how can there be Old Macedonian when Macedonia is an existing country sense the end of the 20th century? Before that the lands where part of Bulgaria... The only Macedonia that was exsisting was a Greek kingdom called like this in ancient times when they spoke this so called Old Macedonian - but it was a Greek dialect and it haves nothing to do with the 9-11th history of the Old Church Slavonic also know as Old Bulgarian!!! I also told you couple of times that in ALL the other languages it is called OLD BULGARIAN and in the refences of the books you can see it but you still refuse to believe me and you continue arguing with some make believe facts from books from unknown people!!! If i send you a book that says that America is part of Afganistan you will believe it, huh, and you will change Wikipadia?

Macedonian language - a Bulgarian dialect still spoken in the Macedonian region - Bulgaria, Macedonia, Greece. The dialect formed from the Old Bulgarian, than Bulgarian language and like in Spain we have the people from Madrid - castellano and the people from Pais Basco - speaking Basco but its still Spanish her we have the same - in Bulgaria there are several dialects and macedonian is one of them. Macedonia is a region and there is also a country called Macedonia since 1991! The country Macedonia have always used the bulgarian language but the problem is that now they are saying wrong things - oh, and one more thing - the so called Ohrid School where they spread the language was part of the Bulgarian Empire, check it!!!

And one more thing you say wikipedia is not a good source but then w3hy did ypou send me the books that are described in wikipedias sources?

Here is the link to the books: http://www.promacedonia.org/pdf/mirchev_starobalgarski_ezik.pdf - you have to translate this - from page 9 to page 15.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonian_nationalism - the books are in the end you can choose

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bulgarian_Policies_on_the_Republic_of_Macedonia - same here

http://www.scribd.com/doc/107841186/Vittore-Pisani-mater-Europa11111 - you should pay attention to this book!!! the first 2-3 pages are enought!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bozhidar_Dimitrov - you can see the books in the end of the article

you have to google translate the first one - how can you trust sources written form unknown authors that are from some other country and have no actual idea about the country or its history? The person that called the language Old Macedonian did not see that the lands where part of the FIRST BULGARIAN EMPIRE and that the two brothers did the language becouse Tzar Boris I wanted to unite his people - he made the Bulgarian Church and ordered the bulgarian language so that his people can understand what is written in the Bible!!!

You dont know anything about Macedonia nor Bulgaria and you are not the correct editor with who i should speak - I need a editor that knows the history and can truly guide and help me!!!

One more thing - how much and did Macedonia "payd" so that you dont change what i wrote? And who allowed this person to wrote what he did? You all seem soo determend when someone wants to change something but you allwed this person to violent Bulgarias history!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettkata (talk • contribs) 22:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

1) Listen VERY carefully: you link to wikipedia pages. Those are not reliable. Point to the sources that verify your statements in stead.

2) If you make accusations of being "payd" (sic) by "Macedonia": please back those up with evidence otherwise please refrain from making untrue allegations. Personal attacks will be reported to the proper authorities.

3) Learn to link: here.

4) Dimitrov's book seems very non-npov and nationalistic and most likely isn't a reliable source. Going to look for a few viewpoints on his work.

5) The scribd link seems interesting, but I need a bit more time to research it.

6) Bulgarian policies: primary source and as such unusable. Very likely non-npov as are most links at Macedonian Nationalism: your viewpoint vs. their viewpoint.

7) Promacedonia link: can't read it, the translation doesn't allow me to accurately read it. Other editors need to analyse that one.

8) The two brothers article doesn't mention Boris I as ordering the creation of the language. The language already existed, they devised a way to transcribe it.

Jarkeld (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

1.) I link to wikipedia pages becouse in them in the bottom you have the references and the footnotes - i dont know how to write them here in a way that you can open them. And i do so becouse the 3 books that you send me where references from wikipedia also! 2.) I asked i didnt make an accusation. You where the ones that made several accusation to me through out the day - about me making vandalism by adding this: Old Church Slavonic also known as Old Bulgarian. Than i was accused of disputive behaviur - and this was the only thing i wrote, nothing more. Than nationalistic bias, then i dont know what else. I think you should be reported to the proper authoroties for letting someone write this stuff, and than offending with no reason (the only thing i said was that i dont think you are the proper person for this subject and that i feel like you are extreamly determend to proof something thats not reliable) and so determenetly avoiding what i am telling you - that you have only 3 books each one with one sentense saying Old Macedonian in a strange way, and no actual proof!!! In order to show you that this is not the first time there was a Macedonian - Bulgarian problem i send you the articles about the mecodonism and etc becouse this is not the first time there have been argues about re-writhen history facts - i dont think i should say who is the one making them. 4.) I am also going to search for more info about this. 5.) - 7.) Ok , i will find more articles and i hope you find someone who can translate them to you 8.) I saw where is the problem : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_I_of_Bulgaria it says their students made the Cyrilic and yes his name is there but not why he wanted this. I will search for articles in books in english so that i can show why i think so.

In the next days I will search for more books and send them to you for everything,

You did not tell me - why did Wiki believe that the Old Macedonian fact was true? You said yourself that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for information - so why did you write old macedonian in the article for Old Chrch Slavonic when it we dont have reliable sources? How come in all the other languages except English, Russian and specially Macedonian its not sad that Old Church Slavonic is Old Bulgarian? I will read their references too and see if i can find some on my own becouse its not easy finding scanned books in the internet about this - as i see from earlier i can't give you names of books, i have to give you links where you can read it - this may take a while.

I would never argue if i wasnt shure of what i know, and if I didnt felt like people are leaving or creating history infront of me!!!

Lets say this is enought for today, when i have more articles i will send them! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettkata (talk • contribs) 00:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to add this article witch is again about the macedonism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuil the last section and this is the source: http://www.macedoniainfo.com/10_Lies_Macedonism2.htm - ^ An outline of Macedonian history from ancient times to 1991. Macedonian Embassy London. Retrieved on 2007-04-28. And in there we have again the 10 lies so i guess someone in Wiki padia checked them and saw they where reable enouth for the Samuil Article, i HOPE now you see they are enought reable for fixing this problems!!! And by the way the oerson who wrote them - Bojidar Dimitrov and you can use every Footnote from this article to verify what i am saying. Also the onse from The Old Church Slavonic but in the other languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettkata (talk • contribs) 01:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Here are some other books but i guess someone should translate: Ив. Гълъбов Старобългарски език с увод в славянското езикознание, С. 1980 г., стр. 39. Ек. Дограмаджиева Нова, оригинална разработка на въпросите на старобългарския език в сп. Paleobulgarica, 4, 1980 г., стр. 117. Ек. Дограмаджиева Структура на старобългарското сложно съчинено изречение, С., 1968 г., стр. 201. Ив. Гълъбов Старобългарски език с увод в славянското езикознание, С. 1980, стр. 85-86. Ив. Гълъбов, пос. съч., стр. 89-90. Ив. Гълъбов, пос. съч., стр. 91.

I found one of the books in english i guess http://www.faber-bg.com/index.php?lng=EN&mod=books_item&show=65 We can also contact this people: http://www.ibl.bas.bg/en/departments_en3.htm

I also think this book is ok : http://www.booksbg.org/booksbg/component/remository/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%83%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0/%D0%98%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F/%D0%91%D1%8A%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8-%D1%85%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8-%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F-%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B8%D1%8F-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4-%D0%BE%D1%82-2137-%D0%BF%D1%80.-%D0%A5%D1%80.-%D0%B4%D0%BE-1453-%D1%81%D0%BB.-%D0%A5%D1%80./  you need it only arounf the 9th-11th century in order to find solutions for the problems.

I guess this needs translation: http://www.promacedonia.org/st_ja/stojanov_janakiev.pdf I will search for books here; http://www.worldlanguage.com/Languages/Bulgarian.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettkata (talk • contribs) 02:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation newsletter

Delivered 00:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC) by EdwardsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the spamlist.

Hello, it's Makes no Sansa. My article submission about Chris Webby was declined by you. I know I should have waited a bit and completed it before submitting it. I've done it now, would you kindly tell me what you think about it? I edited the duplicate submission, I mean, if you're going to delete it, don't do it, because that's the one I've edited most recently. You can delete the first one, though.

I've added information and sources, but the article lacks a photo. I'll add one once it's been moved to the Article section.

Thans for your attention! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makes no Sansa (talk • contribs) 20:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Extra Credit

Hello Jarkeld, I saw your message on my talk page before you removed it. I do agree the information you removed was not neutral and it did need better sources. From a google news search, there also doesn't appear to be any reliable third party sources on the topic, so at this point I don't think inclusion of the information is warranted. As for my wikibreak, I am away much of the time, but as of late I have been trying to check back at least once every two weeks. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I've also asked DGG for input and I'm going to see if I can do something with the section when I've got a bit more time.

But eventually it comes down to: without reliable sources it shouldn't be in the article. Jarkeld (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Articles for creation Needs You!

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 March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013.

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 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of Wikiproject Articles for Creation at 13:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello? why did you change stopzilla?

are you running servers that changes a pages content?Lees0661 (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

If you do not have reliable sources to back up your claims they WILL be reverted. Jarkeld (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

then can you tell me.... how do you change that stopzilla page so fast? why is you name on the history page so much, please show me the place where it shows the evidence that Stopzilla is a llegitimate anti-malware, why does the page say it is written like an advertisement?, also, I am only 12! also when i was 8(of course was very interested in computers) i installed stopzilla because i had no idea what is was, and it caused me lots of trouble. also when I was on the stopzilla page a few years ago, i said it was a rogue. thank you for telling why you think it is not a rogue meLees0661 (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

1) There are references present for the legitimate anti-spyware claim. Please read the references present on the page.

2) I use either the regular undo function or Twinkle to undo your whole edit in a few simple steps.

Jarkeld (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

still?-_-????

why does it say it is written like a advertisement still? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lees0661 (talk • contribs)

Because your edits are being rolled back to the version before you made them. No further edits are made. The references on the page direct you to the websites where you can read the online versions. Jarkeld (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Nostalgia Critic Season 1 page revisions

Hello, I am sorta new here and just made revisions to the page "List_of_The_Nostalgia_Critic_episodes_(season_1)" original dates for the YouTube Classics. I was just wondering why you brought the reupload dates back? Some of the original dates have been found, I am just wondering why not allowing them having the dates like "July, 2007"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bronyman87 (talk • contribs)

As you did not specify that in an edit summary and did not provide any references for the changed dates I reverted the changes. Please provide references before changing them. Jarkeld (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

WWE related edits

Hello, I Yorkerman I new here so I just making my on wwe personnel and ppvs I make sure to write it on my talk page thankYorkerman (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

wot?

have you ever used stopzilla and the tried to uninstall it, and also look at all the files it deemed "malwere" and then when you go to that file you find pictures and game files and a file that looks randomly put there? can you try it your self?122.57.106.136 (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources for the claims you make you can use them in the article. If not: please refrain from editing the article. Jarkeld (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Dogmankingsx.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Dogmankingsx.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject AFC needs your help... again

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 July 1st, 2013 – July 31st, 2013.

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!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code cleanup, and more page cleanups. If you want to see a full list of changes, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.

Delivered at 12:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC) by EdwardsBot (talk), on behalf of WikiProject AFC

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Jarkeld/sandbox

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Jarkeld/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from test. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jarkeld (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013 AFC 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 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.

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 2600 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. --Mdann52talk to me!

This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

User:162.129.251.72

Per the 3RR rule, I've notified the admin board on edit warring about the user who keeps trying to add the pov edits to Jack Andraka. You can weigh in here: [3] CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello. I wanted to let you know that I undid again your your recent contributions to Talk:Bruce Campbell because it had erased constructive edits. Marking as « addressed » issues which need no further attention is helpful and I am surprised -to say the least- you qualify my editing as not constructive. Should you still not be convinced, take the time to read the diff. carefully this time. Like I said in <>, feel free to amend my edits if you think of a better layout but reverting them and sending automated message was clearly not the good way here.--210.159.191.90 (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

pointlessly adding those templates to edits made years ago is not constructive. Have they been added by the people who actually did the edits, date & timestamped: constructive. By an IP years later: not constructive. I reverted you before and you did not provide a compelling reason to re-add the checkmarks. I have removed them again. Jarkeld (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

pointlessly ? YOU say so. I assumed the contrary twice...

reverting was most unnecessary….removing those temps without a real explanation/a closer look was stiff.

arguing that check marks should be made only by sb -I suppose that’s what you meant by Have/d? they been added etc..- who made the actual edit (!!!!) but who may obviously not even have SEEN the TP is either a lack of understanding of how a wiki works or a despaired attempt to create a new one. Anyway…You made your point.

What does IP or not IP have to do with it? Something wrong with IP users that I know not? I explained why I dit it after your first revert (my first explanation was unreadable, true). A COMPELLING REASON? IT was USEFUL. To avoid people who wish not, wasting their time. Not enough ? If wasting people’s time is your hobby and a new WP Policy : constructive; but if not : not constructive.

Your removal seems to have been honest in the FIRST place but then, no.

You ALSO could have seen (or maybe you saw?) -as I HAD explained twice- that one thread section was repeated by evident mistake….Was it not constructive to erase one of the two ? I'm wondering what you could say about this in good faith. Well, no, I’m not, actually.

As for the fact that threads are old, hellooooo, some issues are addressed only years later on WP. If you HONESTLY did not know it, well, now you do and all is for the best. You archiving of the whole TP -after a more than pointless but proud revert that leaves a doublet-section to puzzle future readers for wp-eternity- shall be the best conclusion to it all. Hope you’re happy with it. Likewise, greetings, Registered User.--210.159.191.90 (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Clearly you don't have a clue about what is and is not appropriate at a talkpage. If you had processed the various items and then checked them off and signed them off it would have been appropriate. As you didn't you should not make it appear as if you did. Period. I think you do not have a clue about the correct usage of a talkpage. Jarkeld (talk) 02:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

AFC Backlog Drive

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello, Jarkeld:

WikiProject AFC is holding a two month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from December 1st, 2013 – January 31st, 2014.

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 2600 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. EdwardsBot (talk) 09:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) at 09:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chema J. Medina

I removed the speedy tag, as the newbie appears to have lost the link or interest in finishing it immediately. Can you review it later, and if it still fails, then you can prod it. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I doubt the editor will return, as he hasn't edited it in over a year now, with the final edit made 2 days after I declined it. The refs he added at that time are insufficient to establish notability. The band seems equally non-notable.

I think a G13 should be used to re-nominate it for deletion as PROD is not allowed in project space. Or a xfd. Jarkeld (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Stream metabolism

Please check articles for Harvard style referencing before tagging with unreferenced. Many articles by newbies also add references in an entirely unformatted style which also count as references nevertheless. SpinningSpark 16:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Please check WP:HARVARD. If the works referenced in line aren't mentioned in full somewhere, they can be considered not referenced at all. It is nice to know something is attributed to Power et al. 1985, Power et al. 2008. Are these books? Articles? Titles? Who knows. -> Unreferenced. Jarkeld (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, full citations are supposed to be provided, but WP:HARVARD does not actually say that articles that don't provide them are to be considered unreferenced. There are better templates to use for such cases, such as {{full}} and {{ref expand}}. SpinningSpark 20:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that it said that. I meant that if you look at it it isn't referenced. The Harvard method page mentions that full citations are required in the references section. Only authors and a year do not a full citation make. No way to know if there actually is anything there to support the text. New template added. Jarkeld (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure there is no way to know? Ugly template on the article might work if a passing reader takes pity, but I wouldn't hold your breath. The other way is to do what I did and do a little research. SpinningSpark 21:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The best option would have been notifying the author that he needed to improve the refs before accepting the article. I will try to fix things, add refs and such, but I tend to do that before accepting. Jarkeld (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

This is one of the hundreds of thousands of articles slated for G13 deletion. I am trying to rescue some of them, but in the vast majority of cases the original author has not been on Wikipedia for years and there is no chance of them coming back to fix anything. SpinningSpark 22:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

One of the problems with G13: some can be rescued with a bit of work, but it's difficult in cases like this one. As it stands now it's ready for prime time. Jarkeld (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Marsianen

Why are you against the truth that everyone knows? You watchmen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsianen (talk • contribs) 23:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

? I nominated the article you created for deletion as it is a misplaced talk page comment. Please read my comment on your talkpage. Ps.: new comments should go at the bottom of a talkpage. Jarkeld (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Haiku-Depot Article

The user who created the article in question is in Google programme for kids to learn about open source software (GCI2013). Could you help give further guidance to the student in what he did wrong? I have already told him/her that there is plagiarism in the article and that it is not to encyclopedic standards. Dlpkbr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The biggest problem I saw with the page is that there aren't enough sources (reliable third party sources) to indicate why we should have a page on Haiku-Depot (per WP:NOTABILITY. As such I don't know if it could have been saved. The article was deleted as a G11 (Promotional) so I guess another user and an admin viewed it as such. Jarkeld (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on changes to the AfC mailing list

Hello Jarkeld! There is a discussion that your input is requested on! I look forward to your comments, thoughts, opinions, criticisms, and questions!

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

This message was composed and sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Stopzilla

have you ever used stopzilla? it causes fake viruses and it is a fake security program! you keep on trying to keep that page like it was a real anti virus program! why do you do this? me a person who annoyed 122.57.106.136 (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

As you can't provide reliable sources about your claims, they shouldn't be included. Jarkeld (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation March 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Jarkeld:

WikiProject AFC is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014.

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 2600 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.
Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 02:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

Notification of a June AfC BackLog Drive

Hello Jarkeld:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014.

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 2600 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

The AfC helper script can assist you in tallying your edits automatically. To view a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Sent on behalf of (t) Josve05a (c) by {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} using the MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Please understand

..that I am a scientific professional with the necessary doctoral level training (and, as well, a background in the ISEF arena) and so qualified to do a first major edit of the Andraka article. The edits that will shortly begin to appear have been the result of days of research and work. The article does indeed have NPOV, OR, VERIFIABLE, and other issues, and other editors that have noted these before should have been give the response AGF requires (and their raised issues thoroughly vetted and not dismissed). Please read the Herper Forbes article and Smithsonian article already cited, in anticipation of my edits. These sources, further research in the secondary literature of in vitro testing for cancer biomarkers in early disease diagnosis, and a fundamental commitment to the sourcing of science that WP demands will be the basis for the edits that appear. Expect bold edits based on my expertise and experience (and a commitment to defend the rigour and objectivity of the edits, as necessary). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

white pride edit

hello, I apologize for going back and forth on this article, but i was on a tablet and could not see your messages. I hope we can come to some agreement on the inaccuracy of this page and what needs to be edited. I am new to Wikipedia as you can see, so please be gentle, i only wish to learn and assist others in acquiring as accurate information as possible. I am no English major, just saw an injustice and set out to make it right. Now lets get to the page in question. the entire main description is grossly inaccurate and biased. there is a side to the phrase/slogan "white pride" that is connected with white separatist groups and Nazi skin head gangs, as my revision stated, this is a perversion of the phrase my power mongers and drug pushers who prey on an other wise harmless expression of ones cultural heritage, and use it to promote their own agenda. Again, i reiterate this all belongs in the controversy section. I of course thought my re working of the main definition and relocation of subsequent content was more then accurate, however i would be extremely pleased to have someone of your qualifications do it justice. Once again apologize for the back and forth as i believed it was a computer error. ALSO, i believe i inserted ample explanation in my edits about why i felt it necessary to change the extremely biased content in this page it clearly violates the second pillar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commonsenceforanuncommonage (talk • contribs) 08:35, 25 July 2014‎ (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Commonsenceforanuncommonage: "Neutral point of view" is WP:WEIGHT from WP:RELIABLESOURCES, not what we "feel" it should be. The WEIGHT clearly supports the article stance on "White Pride" and should be retained. The article should not be whitewashed as you seem to be proposing. Jim1138 (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: Undid removal of two previous comments. Jim1138 (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

"whitewashing" was not my intent nor do i believe that is the way it could be perceived, all of the "controversial" content is still intact minus this introduction (White pride is a slogan indicating pride in being white. The slogan is primarily used by white separatist, white nationalist, neo-Nazi and white supremacist organizations.[3]) which was replaced by a more accurate and broad edit. Besdides the for mentioned content being removed all other content was left intact and moved to the controversy sectoin. P.S. nice pun white washing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commonsenceforanuncommonage (talk • contribs) 08:56, 25 July 2014‎ (UTC)

I can't add anything to the reasons given by Jim1138. Gain consensus at the talk page or the status quo stays as is. Jarkeld (talk) 03:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello Jarkeld. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Jarkeld/The A Word

User:Jarkeld/The A Word, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jarkeld/The A Word and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Jarkeld/The A Word during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Dhufi

Hello,

Greetings for the day.

Thanx for review and doing the needful.

Yes you are right, there are two Dhufi (Nani and Moti, which means small and big), which has about 3 KM of distance. I am going to add more details for Dhufi, was waiting for the page creation, which is done.

Thanx again for your support.

Best Regards,

Dhuffiwala (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Life on Mars / /Ashes to Ashes

Thanks for sorting that error out - The edit that I made using my smartphone could not be undone until I got onto my computer and you beat me to it! Thanks again! Pam-javelin (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. The mobile interface really lacks the ease of use (undo etc) the regular version has. Jarkeld (talk) 10:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Jarkeld,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help

Hi Jarkeld,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jarkeld. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)