Jump to content

User talk:Johanna: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Linuxste (talk | contribs)
14 edits
Line 415: Line 415:
[[User:Linuxste|Linuxste]] ([[User talk:Linuxste|talk]]) 10:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
[[User:Linuxste|Linuxste]] ([[User talk:Linuxste|talk]]) 10:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
:The main problem isn't the list of firms, actually. It's the tone in everything else, as well as the benefits section. Both make it seem like the article is trying to promote supply-chain consulting. In particular, a section listing the benefits of something usually amounts to promotional material, as is the case in this article. [[User:BenLinus1214|<font color="green">BenLinus</font>]][[Special:Contributions/BenLinus1214|<font color="red">1214</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:BenLinus1214|talk]]</sup> 14:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
:The main problem isn't the list of firms, actually. It's the tone in everything else, as well as the benefits section. Both make it seem like the article is trying to promote supply-chain consulting. In particular, a section listing the benefits of something usually amounts to promotional material, as is the case in this article. [[User:BenLinus1214|<font color="green">BenLinus</font>]][[Special:Contributions/BenLinus1214|<font color="red">1214</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:BenLinus1214|talk]]</sup> 14:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


Ok, I'll try to do it differently than, thanks for the explanation


== [[Softech College]] ==
== [[Softech College]] ==

Revision as of 08:56, 18 March 2015

BenLinus1214, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo

Hi BenLinus1214! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pilot (My So-Called Life), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ABC and Tom Irwin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to The Black Parade, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry. Thank you for notifying me. I was just wondering why the My Chemical Romance articles do not have any genre listings. Could you possibly clear that up for me? Thanks. BenLinus1214 (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, BenLinus1214! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Avono (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Reference Errors on 8 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, should be fixed now. BenLinus1214 (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harry Hamlin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rush (TV series). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Château-Thierry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of the Marne. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Graceffa redirect

Right, I don't understand it either. Yes, please do get an admin to help. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beats me. I thought that when I posted this to the redirect board that an admin would respond. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interview for The Signpost

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Discrimination

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Discrimination for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (jive) @ 20:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism warnings

Hi. I noticed your edits at User talk:Da13rlene An3dre2ws1. When issuing warnings, if the user had already been warned recently you need not start your warnings at level 1. In this case the user (a prolific vandal already) had received a level 2 warning. You certainly could have issued level 3 and 4 warnings. You're not the only editor that has made this mistake but they should've known better. It took far too long for our other editors to bring admin attention to the problem. Thanks for what you're doing. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'm pretty sure that it was a Twinkle error on my part. I previously added vandalism warnings manually, and I thought that Twinkle automatically went to the right level of warnings. Sorry again and I'm glad the person is blocked now! :) BenLinus1214talk 01:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:23:37, 26 January 2015 review of submission by Rcampbell24


BenLinus1214,

I am the art history professor that oversaw this student project by rcampbell24. When her article was first reviewed in December (as an article on "Diego Rivera"), it was understandably rejected because the student did not follow directions. Among other things, the article was not on Diego Rivera (there was another article for the artist), but about a specific mural. She and I made significant edits and resubmitted under a new (and more accurate) title "The History of Mexico (mural)."

You declined this article because "This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Diego Rivera, which is also waiting to be reviewed." It is not really a duplicate. The title is different, which may be why it seems like two similar articles. The first article (the one titles "Diego Rivera") should not exist (and it is not waiting to be reviewed because it was already rejected). This article is replacing it. So, I would appreciate it if you would actually review THIS article (The History of Mexico (mural)).

I'm sorry for the confusion. I've never had a student title their article incorrectly, so this is a new issue for me. I appreciate your help.

Thanks, Meredith Shimizu

Rcampbell24 (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Thanks for clearing that up. I've reviewed the actual article and it looks pretty good! I just have a few comments (which are also posted on the AFC page): the first section (on "The Artist: Diego Rivera") should probably be deleted—that part DOES duplicate the artist article. In addition, on the "Interpretation" section, make sure that all of the claims are sourced or verifiable (to not do so would be considered original research). In addition, if you and your student would like (this would not be required to pass a review), the article could use an infobox at the top of the page (see Template:Infobox artwork for more information). If either of you has access to the original work, you could snap a high-quality picture of the artwork, upload it to Wikimedia Commons, and put it in the infobox as well. Good luck! (Also, please post a message on my talk page when it's ready to be reviewed again--that way it won't take months to get reviewed). I look forward to reading it again! :) BenLinus1214talk 21:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Young and Wild (album)

Your comment was - Please remove phrases like "rip the twins off". In addition, your use of first-person phrases indicates a close connection to the subject or you being the subject. In that case, this article is strongly discouraged.

If your so intelligent why don't you tell me what to use instead of "rip the twins off". I am not using first person phrases, and I do not have a close connection to the subject. I'm not the subject either. I'm just a fan. I've been editing wiki because Cherie Currie is going to release a new album soon, so I thought it would be nice to have a page for one of here most recent music releases. I don't know why you are being so rude. I do not agree with your comments. If don't like the phrase "rip the twins off", then change it. I am open to help with editing. I hope you can forgive me for attacking you on your talk page. I can see we started off on the wrong foot, but I hope we can get through this and give Young & Wild a great wiki page.

It's okay. The bold was uncalled for, and I actually made a mistake. Sorry about the first-person phrases thing--during a quick pass-through, I didn't see the quotes around the fraud point. :) I would replace "rip the twins off" with "Kim Fowley tried to engage in intellectual property infringement by releasing the album without Cherie or Marie's approval." It's more formal and encyclopedic. I didn't change it because Articles for Creation reviewers are not supposed to contribute to the article before reviewing so as to be unbiased. Looking at the article some more, I have just one other comment--you should not have that many external links. External links should be limited to two or three at most. AllMusic, Discogs, and Raven Records are the ones I would keep. When you've resubmitted it, send me a message on my talk page so it doesn't take several weeks to be reviewed. Good luck, BenLinus1214talk 02:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful advice. I fixed everything you asked me to and resubmitted it.

It's done. It's now published. Good luck in the future. Have you considered creating an account? That way, you can create pages yourself without going through the tedious Articles for Creation process. BenLinus1214talk 23:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1 I did not create that page 2 I live in Suffolk and this person is very popular where I am from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritualhobo (talk • contribs) 02:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you didn't create the page. However, please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles. It is very important for admins to assess whether the article meets the criteria, so please don't remove them. However, you can voice your opinions on the talk page. BenLinus1214talk 02:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:41:57, 9 February 2015 review of submission by Kelvege


Hello, i removed what you advised me. Kelvege (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:16:18, 11 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Johnpalisano


Hi, Ben! Thank you so much for taking the time to look over my first article. Obviously I missed something along the way. I have an interest in music and literature, especially popular fiction, and look forward to adding in those subjects. I would love any pointers on how to make this article pass the grade. I was not able to find much more than the Billboard listings of his singles as a more tangible reference. Many of the articles were on websites and such, and I did not include them as they seemed local or may fall into 'self-published'. However, he's had some major accomplishments, like co-authoring a Billboard #1 single, so I thought he should be noteworthy. I imagine it's just assembling enough neutral proof? Thank you again! John


Johnpalisano (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there,
Thanks for contacting me. Websites are perfectly fine sources, as long as they're not Wikipedia or anything unreliable. Billboard listings are fine, and the subject seems perfectly notable, but maybe a shorter article is a better idea if you can't find sources to support everything that's stated. A stub would work for this person, and I think it would be more manageable to write. Feel free to ask any more questions! BenLinus1214talk 17:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I spent some time researching and re-writing and simplifying the article. I've just re-submitted it. Thank you so much!

File:M.A.D. Veronica Mars.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:M.A.D. Veronica Mars.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 08:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you, Ben! Johnpalisano (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presentation proposal for Wikimania 2015

How to pick up more women...
Hello to the members of WikiProject Women writers! Victuallers and I have developed a proposal for a talk to be presented at Wikimania 2015. It's titled, How to pick up more women -- as in more women editors and more women's biographies. The proposal review process has begun and there's no guarantee that this proposal will be accepted. That's where you come in. Please review our proposal and give us feedback. Ultimately, we hope you add your name to the signup at the bottom of the proposal which signifies you're interested in the talk (it does not signify you'll be attending the event). Thank you! Rosiestep (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

08:46:08, 26 February 2015 review of submission by LShields33


Hello, I'm not requesting a re-review yet; I wanted some help on citing the rest of the article. For the 'early life' section, the information there came directly from the person the article is about. It is not published anywhere on the web, she directly sent me information about herself on it, as per my request. Is it not usable if it can't be backed up on the web? For the 'citation needed' put on the 'Personal Life' tagline - why is that there? What is needed, proof that she lives in Sarasota? I don't understand. For the very first 'citation needed' on the first paragraph of the article - what needs a citation, specifically? Thanks, LShields33 (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC) LShields33 (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The information doesn't have to be verifiable on the web per se--it could be any medium. Unfortunately, the person just telling you the information doesn't really translate well in an encyclopedia article. If none of this information can be found anywhere, I would honestly just remove most of it--it's still a good article without going into all that detail. :) Biographies, and biographies of living people (BLPs) especially, need many citations. Anything that could possibly be challenged or presents facts about the person needs a citation. I know it doesn't seem fair that BLPs need such rigorous citation practices, but this is to ensure that false information is not presented. I don't see anything about Sarasota in the personal life section, but it does need another citation, as the facts that she has no children and moves around must be Verifiable. For the very first paragraph, what needs a citation are the facts that she won or was nominated for these awards. That one shouldn't be that hard to cite, as I presume the awards all have lists of nominees on their websites. Good luck, BenLinus1214talk 14:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

01:42:58, 3 March 2015 review of submission by Chrissy.nesbitt


Hi! Thanks for taking the time to review. I've added a handful of citations, including the specific subsections you suggested. I don't have a good feel for what is overdoing it and what is reasonable. I can add more if more are necessary. Chrissy.nesbitt (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! No problem. Honestly, the citations you've added have helped a lot. It's very hard to overdo citations--however, do see WP:OVERCITE for examples of actual citation overkill. :) A couple more sources wouldn't hurt, but only a few more are really necessary. Thanks for taking the time to talk to me here--it always helps me when someone voices their concerns directly. Let me know if you have any more questions, and when you've resubmitted it, let me know on this page and I'll review it quickly. Best of luck, BenLinus1214talk 02:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. To clarify -- the article could use more citations, or more distinct sources? Chrissy.nesbitt (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to distinct sources, but both could work. Once again, neither are badly needed, and you could resubmit soon. :) BenLinus1214talk 17:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmitted! Chrissy.nesbitt (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for reviewing. I copy-pasted my page over the stub. Should I delete my draft page, or just leave it alone? Chrissy.nesbitt (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

04:03:43, 7 March 2015 review of submission by Bobtinin


Well I think that this article would help the purpose of this encyclopedia. I am trying to add to it with this article, but of course I want to get it right. So I want to ask you, how exactly I could improve on this. I mean, on my first review I was told that I should have more references from reliable sources. I added references from reliable sources... and I'm talking big name gaming reviewers (For example: Rock, Paper, Shotgun) but you say I don't have enough reliable sources. Well I'd say around 40% of the references are from gaming reviewers/writers. How could I improve my article to fit the standard?

Bobtinin (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there is a ref error in the majority of your sources. This is because you have not included cite web templates, so your links look broken. Check out the parameters at the link on the previous sentence to fix that. Also, at this point, too many of your references are from the game company itself, kickstarted, or YouTube. These are not reliable sources. Other thank a few refs to the game's website, there shouldn't be any of those refs in there. Once you fix the technical problems in the ref section, I can better judge whether the game is notable or not. Let me know if you have any questions on the technical stuff. :) BenLinus1214talk 17:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We Players Should be ready for article space

This article certainly meets the criteria of NPOV, notability and non-promotional language and is, at least, a start class article. I recommend moving it to mainspace.

  Bfpage |leave a message  07:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further explanation needed about 'reliable sources'.

Hello there, Ben(jamin) Linus (nice lost reference!), my name is Arjan van Geel from the Netherlands.

Thank you for reviewing an article (my first one) that I've been writing about a Belgium band which has gained a lot of popularity in the punk rock scene: F.O.D. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:F.O.D._%28band%29

I've been working on this article for half a year, trying to improve it on each review. For the last couple of months, I tried to edit the article it in such a way to show/prove how this band is very notable in the punk rock scene (much more notable than a lot of bands with Wikipedia pages); I tried to include many references from magazines and music zines from all over the world, discussing this band. Citing reviews in the Wikipedia article I wrote. My article contains a lot of references.

My question to you is: can you please, please give me some concrete pointers as to how to improve my article? I've been putting so much effort in it, and I can't see how I could improve on the article. One one hand, I've been trying to prove the notability, but now the comment is that the links/references (all verifiable) aren't reliable? Please note that this particular topic (punk rock bands), by nature is something that has references that aren't mainstream.

Any help and some examples on what I'm doing wrong and what I need to change would be greatly appreciated. I'm dreading to have to wait for -months- again, to get a tiny bit of feedback (a general comment) about the article. I'm open to any criticism, but would really appreciate some extra advice. Thanks again for your time.

Kind regards, Arjan van Geel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjanvangeel (talk • contribs) 19:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thanks about the Lost reference. Anyways, the thing that I would say about the references is that some of them are reliable and some of them are not. I would remove or replace any references to stand-alone blogs and YouTube, as they are not considered reliable sources. Also, I would reorganize your article. Most notably, the first paragraph should go before any sections (see WP:LEAD). Also, I would not put "known for its catchy melodies" in the first sentence--it's not encyclopedic. Furthermore, I would reorganize and move around the sections of the article in order to better fit in with the traditional order and organization of things for bands. I would split them into three--"Career", "Musical style and influences", and "Reception" (reception being sales and critics' responses). Let me know if you have any questions. :) BenLinus1214talk 19:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:35:50, 9 March 2015 review of submission by William Goossen


This point has been raised over an over in the past two years. However, as a scientific writer of over 200 papers, this kind of wiki review is still confusing. It is perfectly possible and in many instances necessary to proof that something exists via referring to earlier scientific papers. In fact science as building up on earlier work, both of others and oneself is common practice.

I find it confusing that wiki pedia does not adhere to this practice.

Could you please indicate very precise where you think the referring to public available scientific work or work of well established organizations as ISO and HL7 can be seen by you as advertisement?

dr. William Goossen

William Goossen (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not with the references, it's with the prose. I actually picked the wrong decline reason--I should have picked that it was written in the style of an essay. It only seemed like an advertisement to me because it proposes that Detail Clinical Models are the solutions. I can tell that you are an avid article and essay writer because the format is very similar to that of an article. For example, the introductory paragraph is basically an essay introduction which does not belong in an encyclopedia article. I would recommend rewriting the article to make sure that all your content is written from a neutral point of view which does not comment on what you think Detailed Clinical Models should be used for. The point of an encyclopedia article is to give an overview of the subject and not put in the author's own opinions. :) Let me know if you have any questions. BenLinus1214talk 19:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:00:03, 9 March 2015 review of submission by Twb1934


Twb1934 (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BenLinus1214, I received word that my article was declined and read your comments on the reason why. Do you have any other advice on how I can improve it and specifically, what sections are the most problematic? Thanks for your help, TWB 1934

Actually, I think that the review was a mistake on my part. Sorry! I was originally thinking of the "work" section's comments about her style and subject matters, but looking over it more, I realized that it is not original research and has been confirmed by published sources. The only substantial comments that I really have at this point are that the "external links" and "additional references" sections should be merged and that you have too many external links (should be three or four at the most). However, those external link problems aren't justification for declining, so my declining was a mistake. You can go ahead and resubmit it anytime and I would be happy to accept it! :) I'll clean up the external links in mainspace if you don't know what to cut. Good work on this article! :) BenLinus1214talk 19:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:29:10, 9 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Telemate1986



Telemate1986 (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:33:56, 9 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Telemate1986



Resubmission of my submission of Articles for creation: TeleMate Unified Call Management software (February

Sorry if this is a dumb question but this is my first article. My article was rejected for lack of references. I added them and update some of the content two weeks ago but I can not tell if anyone was reviewed since. HOw can I think if the re-submission has been accepted? Do I need to re-create a submission from the group up? Please advise.

Telemate1986 (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't need to create a new submission. Now that I've added the declines back, there should be a resubmit button. If the submission is accepted, you will be notified on your talk page and you would be able to view the article in mainspace, where everyone can see it. It doesn't look like it's been reviewed since--have you officially resubmitted it yet? BenLinus1214talk 19:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for the reply. I have been editing the page but there never has been a resubmit. Just a 'save page'. Is there a way to force a resubmit? Telemate1986 (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! The resubmit appeared. Again sorry to bother you. Telemate1986 (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay! That's one of the reasons AfC reviewers are here. :) BenLinus1214talk 00:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:50:07, 10 March 2015 review of submission by 148.88.161.0


Hello, you declined the article below a couple of days ago, I have made a few changes to it but just want to get another opinion off you before I resubmit it. Is this ok now or does it still sound too promotional? I spoke to people on live chat and incorporated their suggestions. If this still isn't ok could you give me a few specifics about what I need to do to change this to get it published? Thanks for your help. Nikki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wave_2_Growth_Hub_Program


148.88.161.0 (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's less promotional now, but I think I would pay attention to the sources. Particularly in the latter half of the article, I think that there need to be additional citations for verification. Thanks, BenLinus1214talk 14:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:58:41, 10 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by NalaHenkel


Hi Ben. Could I ask you which specific references you couldn't verify in my article on Bellwether Credit Union? Thanks so much. Nala

NalaHenkel (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout, you need more references. You also can't cite Wikipedia, and the directory refs don't show the subject's notability. In addition, I would also clean up the tone--it sounds fairly promotional right now. BenLinus1214talk 22:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, Ben. I'll work on those and resubmit. NalaHenkel (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:53:07, 11 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Cameroncowan


Could I get some guidance on the A. R. Heaver article you rejected? I could use some help. Its been through many drafts and revisions.

Cameroncowan (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The tone just doesn't seem quite right for an encyclopedia article. Think of your article as having to be very formal. Also, you need more sources. BenLinus1214talk 18:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

08:08:00, 12 March 2015 review of submission by Rkosloff


I do not understand you comment on unreliable sources. I used only pear review papers using Chicago style The first section has inline links to other wikipedia sources and serves as an introduction. I refereed to a paper of Scoville who was the first to point out the connection. can you please help me to improve the paper. Rkosloff (talk) 08:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources thing wasn't exactly what I meant. This looks like a good article, but there are several sections of the it which do not have enough sources for it to be verifiable. If this info is in some of your existing sources, you can use those by doing ref names. Other than that, it looks good. BenLinus1214talk 17:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:25:43, 12 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by TheOnionLord


Look I know you denied my article, but please, this is for my girlfriend. She is depressed right now due to personal issues and the Pattonian Reign of Terror is a running joke among her and her friends and she's always found hilarious. Im just doing this to cheer her up, to see her smile. So please just let this one go. I swear that I won't post anything else this is the only thing I will post. So I ask again, please just allow this.

Thank you for your time.

TheOnionLord (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry, but a joke which is not factual or even a real thing is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I hope that you can find somewhere else to post this, but unfortunately, it is not suitable for Wikipedia. BenLinus1214talk 17:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:53:24, 12 March 2015 review of submission by Prediger8i


I read all the information posted. I also read most of Wikipedia entries of major NGO's I tried to comply. But it is still rejected. Our fist entry in Wikipdeia was flagged outdated, which is true. Should I just update it? Thanks! Prediger8i (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the main problem that I had with the article was the tone. It sounded very promotional to me. Please be sure to read and thoroughly digest WP:NPOV before resubmitting. Good luck. BenLinus1214talk 14:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United States federal judges are inherently notable.

Please note that United States federal judges, including U.S. Court of Claims judges are inherently notable for the reasons set forth at Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability. bd2412 T 00:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for letting me know! :) BenLinus1214talk 02:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Hi, just editing the Jim Ricks artist page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jim_Ricks and have eliminated unnecessary links. However, if you read through he has been the subject of a number of significant articles in the Irish Times, and Guardian, and been discussed in important journals like Art Monthly. His collaborative project In Search of the Truth may need its own page, but has been very widely acknowledged (for instance being part of the official public sculpture section at Art Basel Miami). Again with direct media coverage.

This fulfils the guidelines 3 and 4 here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.170.154 (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My main problem is that many of your sources are not primarily about the subject. They only include a passing mention. Passing mentions in sources are not enough to establish notability. BenLinus1214talk 14:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:22:38, 16 March 2015 review of submission by Johnsonsinclare

This user requested on IRC that you re-review the draft, posting this on behalf of the user :) --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 17:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. BenLinus1214talk 23:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:46:39, 17 March 2015 review of submission by Linuxste


Hi BenLinus, the article purpose is merely to have a small overview of the supply-chain consulting role in the business. Removing the list of the the firms would help to get accepted? I tried to be as neutral as possible without any hint about on any particular consultancy firm,

Thanks linuxste

Linuxste (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem isn't the list of firms, actually. It's the tone in everything else, as well as the benefits section. Both make it seem like the article is trying to promote supply-chain consulting. In particular, a section listing the benefits of something usually amounts to promotional material, as is the case in this article. BenLinus1214talk 14:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, I'll try to do it differently than, thanks for the explanation

Softech College

Sorry, but A7 doesn't apply to educational establishments. Everything at CSD can be put on if appropriate, but not that one. I'd suggest prod if nothing seems to be happening. Peridon (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And at KateCookie - A11 isn't for people. It's for things like new words ('used by everyone' but apparently only in one class at one school), new drinking games (Beer Pong for cider, or Liebfraumilch, or tequila...), new non-drinking games (which look like a cross between baseball and cricket and usually are played by a National League containing two sides). If it's a person, it's A7 if they're real, or prod if fictional or myth/legend. If they're not fictional (i.e existing in a book) or myth/legend but still are not 'real', or if the tale told about them is ridiculous, they're a hoax. 'Made-up' assumes good faith. Someone actually made it up, but only a very small number know about it and virtually no-one really cares. Hoax assumes bad faith - the intent being to spread deliberate misinformation. CSD takes a bit of getting the hang of - it's a bit like a railway timetable crossed with a theological manual. Peridon (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for letting me know. BenLinus1214talk 02:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johanna&oldid=651901517"