User talk:Bellerophon

User page

Go to my user page

Talk

Click here to goto my talk page, where you can leave a message for me.

Email

Please do not email me for routine matters! Only email me for matters you do not wish to discuss on-Wiki.

Adoption

Check out my adoption school

Awards

My awards and recognitions

Contribs

Click here to see my contributions to Wikipedia

Sandbox

Take a look at my work in progress

Tools

Tools

Edit count

Take a look at my edit count

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Messages on this talk page are archived after 1 month by a bot.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

This user has a zero tolerance policy on vandalism.

Lewis H Michaux

Your review of my article suggestion, Lewis H Michaux, stated that it was not possible to make sense of the references. I had initially misunderstood the coding system and the article was declined. I tried again. I hope it works this time. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.163.10.129 (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'll take another look when I have time. Another reviewer might get to it before I do. Welcome to Wikipedia Pol430 talk to me 14:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the references, I worken on a few more formulations, as adviced, to get a neutral tone ('haven' and 'key reading room' is taken out) - have you had a chance to look at it? Or should other reviewer take over? 195.178.232.246 (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Article created Pol430 talk to me 12:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Offshore Mechanics

Dear Pol430, I am the person who wrote "Offshore Mechanics" as ASME Technical Editor. This article is not copyrighted, though the issue is copyrighted. Thus it does not violate copyright law. Truly, Jin S. Chung70.237.157.22 (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jin, I declined the submission because the text of the submission appeared to be a direct reproduction of a published work. Wikipedia takes copyright violation very seriously, it is a matter of policy to presume that copyright exists unless it is explicitly disclaimed. It is possible for authors of copyrighted work to 'donate' the work to Wikipedia but there is a formal process to follow. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on that. Notwithstanding this, there are several other reasons the article will not be approved in its current form; for example, there are insufficient reliable references to establish the notability of the subject. There is also insufficient context to make it clear to a reader, who is not knowledgeable on the subject, precisely what the submission is about. Wikipedia is on online encyclopedia and not just a random collection of information. Article submissions need to be presented in the required formats and meet Wikipedia policy and guidance. I have sent a welcome message to your talk page which may assist you in improving your submission. Thanks Pol430 talk to me 18:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will draft Encyclopedia format. "Offshore Mechanics" has been used widely since 1982 in engineering and conference and symposium. For example, click on www.isope.org Jin S Chung

70.237.157.22 (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Jin, Just to point you in the right direction: In order to establish the notability of this subject you are probably going to need to find coverage in books or the national media. Coverage in scientific journals or niche publications is not likely to meet the standards unless the are very widely published and read. Pol430 talk to me 18:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe D.

Hi there,

Thank you for your message regarding my article submission (Giuseppe D.). I noticed that the article has been graded in the 'B class' and I am keen to hear any feedback as to how I might improve it.

Thanks in advance,

Fbell74 (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)FBell74[reply]

Hi, ignore the message in the template about it being 'B class' that was an error. There are a number of issues with the submission at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Giuseppe D.; the first and most important one being the references. Wikipedia requires reliable sources for its articles (see WP:VRS for a quick guide to reliable sources--the full policy on reliable sources can be found at WP:RS). The most basic criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia is notability, it is impossible to establish the notability of the subject without reliable sources. Most of the sources listed for this submission are blogs, Discogs.com or other community driven content sites. In order to establish notability you need to include some better sources, such as: a review in a national newspaper; a significant mention in one or more books; a review or article in a prominent magazine (online or print); those sorts of things. I did a google search for him and the best source I could find was this one--That on its own is not enough and the other sources already listed on the submission do not meet the standards for reliable sources. Unless you can find some better sources I'm afraid the submission is not likely to be published. Pol430 talk to me 18:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I appreciate the feedback. I will search for better source material and see if I can revise accordingly. Fbell74 (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - Since my post, I have added in references from a music station and one from Billboard magazine for a music release that the profile subject was involved with. I have also included the reference that you mentioned. Some of the track listings were from blog music sites and I can try to find alternative sources for these, if this would help to make the profile acceptable for publishing. Also, if there are any other changes which should be made, please let me know - Thank you in advance. Fbell74 (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry for the late response. I have had another look at the submission and the references look better now. The only real problem with the submission now it the layout. I have made some general fixes to the layout of the submission but there is more to be done. One point in particular is that the external links should be removed from the body text and re-fromated as inline citations or moved the the 'external links' section. Pol430 talk to me 20:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - thanks for having a look at this. I've removed the External Links section now. I noticed that the picture link seems to have been deleted. To be honest, I wasn't sure if I had inserted the link code properly. Were there issues with this? Also, perhaps you can advise whether there is anything else that needs to be changed? - Thank you. Fbell74 (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re the external links: That was not quite what I meant. There was nothing wrong with the external links section, it should be there. What you need to get rid of are the external links in the body text and reformat them as inline citations or Wikilinks. As for the image, I removed the link because that file name does not appear to exist and I can find no record of it the deletion log. Are you sure you uploaded it? You seem to be struggling with Wiki-markup. You may want to check out the WP:Cheatsheet for the rundown on how to format things in Wikipedia. Pol430 talk to me 01:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I probably need to go back to the help sheet for guidance on uploading the image. Separately, I have gone back and amended the reference list, using the inline citation format. I'm hoping that this is correct now. Thanks Fbell74 (talk) 07:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the references are fine, but it's the external links in the body text that are the problem. I have made an example edit to the submission to show you what I mean. In the 'music companies' section the first line: 'Giuseppe D. founded Hothead Recordings in 1994' contained an external link to 'Hothead Recordings mysapce page'. I have removed this and replaced it with a Wikilink. It appears in red because Wikipedia does not have an article on Hothead Recordings. Generally speaking external links should appear in the body text of the article, that is why there is the separate external links section. Although I have 'Wikilinked' Hothead Recordings you should avoid having too many red links (non-existant articles) so you may need to convert some of the existing external links into plain text. Hope that makes sense? Once the external links are cleared up, we will be close to creating the article. Pol430 talk to me 11:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand - thanks for explaining. I've gone back and removed the external links from within the body, so hopefully that should be ok. Thanks for your patience in working through it - it's much appreciated. Fbell74 (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done You're welcome, article created Pol430 talk to me 11:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's great - thank you for your help Fbell74 (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Komotar's Homepage

Pol430,

I'm glad you contacted me. I was trying to figure out how to request that a wikipedia entry be deleted. Dr. Komotar's entry is a a personal website, constructed by him for personal promotion. It was my understanding that these entries are not allowed on Wikipedia. Please let me know if this is not the case.

Thanks 204.62.116.47 (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of this article, the only way is nominate it for deletion at articles for deletion. The Wikipedia community will discuss if it should be deleted or not. The process takes 7 days. The article is not eligible for speedy deletion and does not appear to be a copyright violation. You seem to have a keen interest in discrediting this person. Pol430 talk to me 21:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's an old friend. I am more curious about what warrants personal notability in wikipedia. 204.62.116.47 (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The full notability guidelines for living persons who are academics can be viewed at WP:PROF. If, having read the guidelines, you don't feel he (the subject of the article) meets the guidelines then feel free to nominate the article at articles for deletion. Pol430 talk to me 21:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New DELES article clarification

POL430,

You wrote, "This submission relies on too much technical language and needs to be rewritten in a more concise manner--to make the subject clearer for all to understand."

Could you please expand on which parts you find too technical?

Also, would it help to link internally to other Wikipedia articles for technical terms? For instance, the term "psychosocial" may be technical to you and others, but I can hyperlink it to the article explaining what is meant by "psychosocial." Also, the term "scale" has an article. Would that sort of thing help so people don't think it's a bathroom scale I'm talking about?

This is my first article and I'm trying to understand the "tone." I'm an academic writer and I'm well aware that I have difficulty stepping back from my discipline's jargon. More specific input will help. Besides, I find the Wikijargon difficult to interpret as it is.

Thanks. Walkstx (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, In a nutshell, I read the first paragraph of the submission and felt bamboozled by niche terminology. Yes, it would be very helpful if you could 'Wikilink' to terms such as "psychosocial" provided there are articles to link to. In terms of tone, try to pitch it at the level of someone who can read and write in English, but my not have any formal academic background beyond secondary school education. You can 'Wikilink' by placing double square brackets ([[) at the beginning of the word or phrase and then closing the word or phrase with double square brackets. You can find a condensed 'cheatsheet' of wikimarkup at Wikipedia:Cheatsheet. Hope that has helped. Pol430 talk to me 17:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Blinded Bird

Thanks for cleaning up that link on The Blinded Bird - I tried to format it that way when I wrote the article, but it kept returning an error message. Seems to work fine now. Thanks again. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – 28 December 2024, 13:49 (UTC)

No problem :) Pol430 talk to me 19:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afc John Tarrant

Greetings Pol, and thanks for reviewing my Afc at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/John_Tarrant. Like the previous reviewer, you have stated you feel that John Tarrant is not 'notable' as per the criteria at WP:ATHLETE; yet WP:ATHLETE lists, among its criteria, "7. Has at any time held a world or continental record (including world junior records, world youth bests and masters age-group world records) ratified or noted by the appropriate official body", and as the Afc states, he set world records for 40-mile and 100-mile distances.

I pointed this out to the previous reviewer and his response was "Yeah, I thought he might be notable when I was reading over that, but I cannot believe that I missed that part. I am so sorry about that, and I will approve it as soon as possible... If you could please cite his record stuff, that would be great." (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ktr101#Afc_John_Tarrant). So I added the citation as requested, only to be met with your new review. It does feel like I'm going round in circles......

Looking forward to your reply! Drjamesaustin (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addit: wow - you're quick! Drjamesaustin (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very kind - thank you! Drjamesaustin (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, I know :) Sorry for missing that all important world record point, we are occasionally fallible ;-). The article is now live but it needs some categories adding to it and it needs de-orphaning. Pol430 talk to me 21:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also for cleaning up the formatting. No offense meant in changing the references - simply that in your edits, the citation no longer matched the statement. And yes, I should have (and did) know that citations go after the punctuation - so thanks again! Drjamesaustin (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and no offense taken :) Pol430 talk to me 01:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

about my creation page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Shin_Soo_Hyun

Dear pol430, i created a page about musician. i just edited it and there`s a comment "Why is he anymore notable than the band, what already has an article?" may i answer it? it because every members of the band has their own wiki page and each members has their own position in band. he`s the leader and that`s why he`s notable for the band. I just added about his musical activity and album promo. is that enough or i should add more info? please give me some advice. thank you in advance. sincerely, Aini. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aini jj (talk • contribs) 16:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi there

I saw that you cleaned up some typos on a page I created about 'What next for Labour? (2011 book) I was wondering if you could help me in improving the article as I am a novice to wikipedia.

Like a lot of articles about books, there is a box on the right hand side of the page with a photo and details of the book below it such as publisher, release date, pages ISBN etc.. how can one be inserted?

Also the article does not appear in search results when the book title is typed into a search box. do you have any idea why that is and how it can be fixed?

and Finally because it does not appear in search results, I am unable to link this page with other pages in order to remove its 'orphan' status.

You insight would be most helpful!

Kind Regards

Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonlees82 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have added an info box, de-orphaned it and made some other improvements. Currently the article lacks incline citations; you could improve the article by turning the list of references into inline citaions. See WP:CITE for instructions on citing sources. Hope that helps Pol430 talk to me 19:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

HI Pol430,

Thank you for reviewing my article. I'm not clear on why this article does not meet the criteria. It is stated in the article that three of Erin Bowman's songs appear in 3 different Pokemon episodes on the cartoon network among with her current single that was broadcast on the Oxygen network. In addition, her current single is being played on sirius XM, a national radio station. This meets criteria 10 and 11 of "Criteria for musicians and ensembles". Please explain so I know how to move forward with the article. Thank you for your help. Jweston007 (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have created that page, as it appears that the subject passes the criteria noted above. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 20:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for letting me know. Pol430 talk to me 20:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your AfC appeal

You might want to sign it so that the source is clear and the auto-archival bots know to archive it at a specific time. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 20:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, hadn't thought of the auto-archive issue. Pol430 talk to me 20:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Ian Marchant(author)

Thank you for helping my article progress; I'd be really interested to know what I can do to bring it to the next level. I've included lots of references to recognised, reputable sources (well-regarded mainstream newspapers, the BBC, established publishing companies, etc) so I'm not sure what else to do to increase the "notability" level of my subject. Other travel writers (eg Rory Maclean) don't seem to have any more references, yet are included as main articles. Any help you could give me would be very much appreciated. I've also found out that the subject of my article is a university lecturer - would it help to include details of the university he works at, or would that not be relevant? Thanks in advance, Esther Estherstephens (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure what you are asking me in terms of notability? He meets our notability guidelines, I created the submission as a main article at 01:38hrs on 12 January 2012. If you are just asking for ways to improve it: I would suggest expanding the article with more information about his career and life. Remember that all information you add needs to be supported by a reliable reference. Don't go add trivial details of his life or career, but a good encyclopedic overview would help the article and may bring it up to B class. You could also add an info-box and a picture of him. Pol430 talk to me 23:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; sorry for the crossed wires, I wrote to you just before I realised that the article had in fact been created. Thanks too for the hints on improving it, will see what more I can do. Esther Estherstephens (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to iPad. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. This is a test so I can figure out the parser functions and I can't give it to myself. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear the above is a test. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, no problem thanks for the assist :) Pol430 talk to me 23:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFC question

For AFC, is "It would be deleted extremely quickly at AfD per WP:SNOW despite not explicitly breaking any guidelines" a valid reason for declining? By the way, do I have to do anything about the message you left on my talk page? A412 (Talk * C) 02:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, the message on your talk page went out to everyone listed as an AFC participant. I sent it to several hundred editors using auto-wiki browser. As you are already active at AfC you can ignore it and keep up the good work :). As for the decline reason, could you point me to the article in question? WP:SNOW is rarely used as a valid deletion rationale at AfD—if an article is that bad generally other criteria would apply. If you can point me to the submission that would be great. Pol430 talk to me 17:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HELP!

Hi Pol430 can you please help me understand what is going on regarding the page I try to contribute to. The page is regarding KW Music a record label.

It seems the sources are denied over and over but I don't understand why... The bureau export published a book with this book in the top 50 electronic music french labels, sacem ( or french ascap ) has all music records, discogs lists the label and productions per year.

What else is expected here? This does not make sense / where is the error?

Please HELP! Can you sure this with the other reviewers. I don't understand wikipedia very well (coding or talking) yet but I am doing my best to comply the best i can.

Thank you, John — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.107.159 (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe the sources give sufficient coverage of this record label to establish its notability. However, I have asked the editors at WikiProject Music to take a look at the submission and give a second opinion. Pol430 talk to me 22:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, many thanks for your reply. The sources are the best I could find and include paper and official records that can be verified (sacem records and or bureau export inclusion in best of French music 2003). As far as any additional source I have sincerelly no clue what else I could bring to the table. Thank you very much for your help. Have a nice SOPA shut down day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.107.159 (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have been in contact with an editor at Wikiproject Music who informed me that he thought the sources were ok. Based on that, I have created the article but it could do with a spot of re-wording to comply with WP:NPOV Pol430 talk to me 20:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photo from article deletion

Hello,

I was wondering if you could help me? I created an article and uploaded a photo which was the front cover of the book which I obtained from the official site of the book - I don't think that I correctly named a source in the first instance which has lead to the photo being deleted altogether from Wikimedia Commons. How can this be rectified? There is grounds for using the image under the fair use definition as its merely being used as a means to illustrate the front cover of the book?

Can you help to sort this?

Best

Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonlees82 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't upload images or files to Wikimedia Commons under a fair use rationale (see Commons:Fair use). Any such files are quickly deleted. You can upload images under a fair use rationale directly to Wikipedia—use the 'upload file' link on the left of the screen, in the 'toolbox' section. Full details for how to license the image properly can be found at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. Hope that helps. Pol430 talk to me 19:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

22:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Your Definition of "disruptive editing"

Your definition of "disruptive editing" is apparently "any edit which does not agree with my extreme rightwing political opinion on the matter." In point of fact, I am considerd one of the top 3 or 4 experts in the WORLD on the Afghan National Army; I wrote the first US government paper on the ANA in October 2001, I helped stand up the ANA, and I worked on and with the ANA for almost seven years. I have published more than a dozen articles in peer-reviewed journals which include information of the Afghan National Army. You decided to censor my edit strictly on the basis of not liking the truth it contained. So I have added it back, citing the recent United States Government Accounting Office (GAO) official report from which the information was obtained. If you have difficulty with the truth, perhaps you should start a "Right Wing Wikipedia" in which the truth is not included.

Will you tone it down, please? These edits are simply not OK: they use POV language ("hid under their beds" in an "epic" battle--come on now) and use improper sourcing (this is not reliable). Why you want to accuse another editor of right-wing bias when all they're doing is following Wikipedia's standards is unclear to me. Verifiability, not truth: fortunately this is more neutral in tone and seems properly referenced. I urge you to refrain from personal attacks, and to make sure that my message comes across I am going to leave a warning on your talk page. Please refrain. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to Drmies, for the response in my absence. Pol430 talk to me 17:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katkui

I closed this as "no consensus with leave to speedy renominate". You can turn right around and renominate this again if you wish but since the creator seems to be so keen on keeping it, I would recommend waiting a month or so. If he doesn't source it then renominate or boldly redirect it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ron, I'll take your advice Pol430 talk to me 21:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AVANCE / Articles for Creation

Hi there,

Thanks for your edits and for the comments you left - the additional information was really useful. I have amended the wording of the profile and hopefully it reads as more neutral now. I have resubmitted for review. Fbell74 (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Article created by another reviewer Pol430 talk to me 16:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quintiq : Rewrite

Hi,

Thanks for your comments on the entry on Quintiq. I've resubmitted the page - I understand that it may require some more work. Please let me know.

p.s. I'm not sure I've resubmitted it correctly. This is the URL : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Quintiq#Quintiq — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMMelvin (talk • contribs) 10:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Article created by another reviewer Pol430 talk to me 16:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Catalogue of political and personal satires preserved in the Department of Prints and Drawings in the British Museum

Why on earth move this to remove capitals? It's a book title for heaven's sake, and it is not for us to rewrite book titles to MOS style! Please move it back. Johnbod (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I must have had a senior moment. Page moved back over the redirect Pol430 talk to me 21:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! No worries. Johnbod (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verismic Software

Hi Pol430, Not sure if this is something you can do, but an article that you had approved through the Articles for Creation process (Verismic Software) has been deleted. I've left a message for the deleting editor (user:fastily), but they are not going to be on Wikipedia until Feb. 8th. It is pretty demoralizing to abide by all the rules, have an article approved and then deleted on what seems to be a whim. Would you take a look and possibly reinstate the article? HeidiSmith (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm away from the computer for a few days and there is not much I can do on an iPhone. I honestly can't remember what the article looked like, but It's very unlickley I would have approved a submission that met G11. As Fastily is offline for a while I suggest you seek a Wikipedia:Deletion review. I would do it on your behalf but it's tricky on an iPhone... Pol430 talk to me 21:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Pol430! I did as you suggested and hopefully I've done it correctly! HeidiSmith (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have done it correctly, just have to wait for the outcome now, can take 7 days. Keep an eye on the deletion discussion for a result Pol430 talk to me 23:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"essay"?

Hello.

I'm wondering specifically why you included the "essay-like" tag in this edit? Michael Hardy (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because, in my opinion it seemed quite essay-like. Specifically because: It relies on a single source, and by extension of that, does not represent other view points in a verifiable manner. Feel free to remove the tag if you disagree. Pol430 talk to me 16:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Isa Vandi

Dear Pol430 I have two references and three external links; what else shall I add? I've checked many pages in wikipedia where there's only one single external link or one single reference and yet they have been published; what makes the difference then? Best M.Kafi--M.Kafi (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In order for the subject to be notable they must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The souces and EL's listed do not meet that threshold. There may well be other articles in Wikipedia that have poorer sourcing, but the fact that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument for inclusion. Pol430 talk to me 23:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dave McGillivray, Race Director

Hi Pol430 - nothing in the submission about Dave McGillivray is copyright infringement or paraphrasing, because I am a professional writer and wrote all of the content myself. I cite his website, www.dmsesports.com, which was written by Dave and his former marketing person. His book, The Last Pick, he wrote with Linda Fechter, however, we didn't use anything from that, just used his book as a factual citations to support his running and professional background. I own Wolfe Public Relations and Wolfe News Wire, www.wolfenews.com, and all of that content on those sites - if that is the issue - was written by me or my husband Jason Wolfe. The bio article I entered into Wikipedia, however, I wrote a month ago for his website that we are revamping - using my own previous writing and his previous bios he put together on his site or ours. And all of the news releases that go out to the media, I write. The citations are all accurate, as we have an extensive clipping service. Given that, not sure where there would be any copyright infringement. the only thing I can think of is if there are any similiarities with the news coverage cited, that's probably because the news media uses my news releases that I write about Mr. McGillivray, adding their own local angle. So again, not sure where there would be anything close to copyright infringement if we wrote the information first and provided it to the media - which is the only thing I can think of that you may have come across, as I have never used or copied a phrase the media wrote on their own - and if I did, of course I would credit the media as that would give him more credibility. But no writing in the current bio I put on Wikipedia is taken from news articles anyway. Also, the article was ok yesterday except for the citations - I had the citations in the wrong place and format - so this is a brand new concern you are rasiing. Please let me know exactly where you think there is a problem and I will either clarify that with you or delete that part of the bio so we can move forward. Thanks so much. Barwolfe (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)barwolfe[reply]

The submission appeared to be a copyvio of http://www.tomkingclassic.com/DaveMcGillivrayBio.pdf, on closer inspection the paraphrasing is not as bad as first thought, so I have restored the text of the submission. One quick note about copyright: Even if you are the author of a published work you cannot publish it on wikipedia without formally donating it, by following the process at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. It is a matter of Wikipedia policy to presume that copyright exists unless it is explicitly disclaimed on the original work. Notwithstanding the copyright issues, this submission is written in an egregiously promotional manner and needs to be fundamentally rewritten from a neutral point of view and structured in the format of a Wikipedia article. See the guide to writing better articles for help with the article structure and referencing for beginners for help with adding references. Pol430 talk to me 09:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Pol - thanks for the clarifications. Actually the tom king classic link is the bio Mr. McGillivray's office wrote several years ago, not the tom king classic, so again, not really copyrighted or a problem since they provided that to them. The other concern about being too promotional is interesting as we are former news reporters here at www.wolfenews.com and write everything in a factual, AP-style format - with facts and figures vs. promotional language. We don't use superlatives or compliments or non-journalistic phrases - just the facts - since we work with the media on a daily basis and know that promotional language doesn't fly. Sometimes those facts, however, are in and of themselves accolades, since Mr. McGillivray has earned so many awards and recognitions and accomplished so much. That said, I can take a crack at a rewrite if you are suggesting that but is there a particular section or phrase you think was promotional - would love to know what to avoid repeating. I read the guidelines and not surew where I was violating them. In summary, since Mr. McGillivray has run across the U.S., twice, written a book, served as race director of the Boston Marathon for more than 25 years and is known throughout the running world as one of the US's top race directors (a google search and my media footnotes show this) assume mentioning these accomplishments in a non-promotional manner is not a problem, so any specific advice you have when I am doing the rewrite would be helpful. In the meantime, I will begin a rewrite - PS - You also mention the inline references, but I followed the format given in the pop ups - was that done incorrectly? Thanks so much. Barwolfe (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)barwolfe, Beryl Wolfe[reply]

Concerning the prose: "McGillivray’s many endurance events for charity are legendary"—peacok term; "to promote physical fitness in children and help solve the epidemic of childhood obesity"—puffery, Epidemic?; "Each year he runs his birthday age in miles, starting when he was 12, and has not missed one yet."—not promotional, but also not encyclopedic, recentism; "He was born on Aug. 22, 1954 – you can do the math."—again not an appropriate neutral tone; "motivating readers to never underestimate their own ability to set and achieve goals"—POV; "The book is available from Amazon"—promotion, serves no encyclopedic purpose; "A skilled motivational speaker, McGillivray has displayed his signature ability to engage and inspire listeners to more than 1,600 audiences from corporate executives to high school students."—POV and promotional; "and in 2009 the prestigious "Jimmy Award" by the Jimmy Fund"—POV, peacock term; "In addition to running one of the top race management firms in the U.S"—uncited claim, top firm according to whom? Need I go on?

Concerning inline references: Inline refs should go at the end of the sentence they support, after punctuation. You have formatted some of them correctly but there is also a number at them sitting at the top of the submission that don't seem to be doing anything. Also, in the first paragraph there is an external link acting an inline reference, this should be re-formatted. Additionally, the submission currently displays as a wall of text and should be broken into section in the format of a Wikipedia article—see WP:MOS. The 'bull points' (•) should be removed. If you are struggling with editing in Wikimarkup, check out the cheatsheet for help. The article on Usain Bolt is an example of a good article that covers a runner with many achievements. Pol430 talk to me 13:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can u plz xplane some Suggestions on Anokhelal Mishra article?

hello Pol430, thanx for your review on it. If you help me little more then it will be great. can u tell me specifically in which sentences the formal tone is missing? plz do mention the phrases. i must then dilute those phrases for creating more healthy article. where ever i found some info about his playing abilities i added references with 'who has said it'. the whole bunch of references and notes r given with the article down there. plz do suggest me what to do now and let me know aht should i do to meet the criteria.. Thanx.. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Packmania (talk • contribs) 06:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"She detected his talent" "Anokhelal was the most famous disciple of Bhairav Prasad Mishra" "Anokhelal put in unremitting riyaaz (practice)" "He used to play these and many more syllables with clarity even at an very high speed" "He was extremely fast playing ' Na Dhin Dhin Na ' with his 1st finger." need I go on? Also, the notability of the subject is not sufficiently asserted. Furthermore, you have made no attempt to improve anything before submitting it for review again. Pol430 talk to me 09:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Globalmedic

Hello Pol430,

I am just writing to inquire about the rejection of the article that I created on GlobalMedic. I spoke with some editors yesterday on the live chat and they explained to me that the original submission did not show notability. As such I added many secondary sources to the article to support the notability. I spoke again with people on the live chat today and they said that they did not understand why you might have rejected it again and suggested that I speak with you directly. If you could help me to understand what more needs to be changed in the article, I would very much appreciate it. I have read the articles on notability and have read your page of frequently asked questions. If you can help enlighten me I am keen to learn. Thank you. Amanda Amanda0708 (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amanda, I declined the article because although there are a number of sources listed, they only make passing mention of Globalmedic as an organization (with the exception of this one). There is good coverage of Rahul Singh but he already has an article. Because notability is not inherited, the organization is not necessarily notable simply because Rahul is. The notability guidelines require 'significant coverage in reliable third-party sources' and so sources connected with the subject (such as the global medic website) do not help in establishing notability. If you would like to re-submit the suggestion, I will leave it alone and wait for another reviewer to give it a second opinion. Pol430 talk to me 15:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of District Officers of Lubok Antu, Sarawak

Please let me know what is needed so I can get them, or correct them. Thanks. Riu Baring — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riubaring (talk • contribs) 17:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the article, on closer inspection the sources seem OK. Pol430 talk to me 17:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism (Shinkō Bukkyō Seinen Dōmei)

Dear Pol430,

I've just read your FAQs but I still do not understand why my article (see Subject) lacks the following:

"This submission doesn't sufficiently show the importance or significance of the subject—see the guidelines on organizations and companies. Please provide more information about why the company or organization is notable."

...because I included the following sentence in the article: "The significance of the group stems from the fact that it was the only organized buddhist group that publicy protested against the martial ambitions of the japanese government of that period making it well known and respected among present Zen buddhists not only in Japan but throughout the world [2]."

Thank you for your help.

Yours, Benjamin Stahl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wenndannzen (talk • contribs) 17:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benjamin, I appreciate the submission claims they are notable for the reason you have given, but this does not, in its self, establish their notability. In order for the group to be considered notable they must receive significant coverage in independent, reliable, published sources. You need to find more independent, reliable, published sources that discuss in detail the martial ambitions of the japanese government of that period, and the groups involvement in the same, to demonstrate the groups notability. Pol430 talk to me 17:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Advanced Virtuality Lab

Hi, I'm trying to make a better article. I read all the manuals of style and tried to write my article accordingly. May you plz provide me with more specific information regarding my failure to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Regards, Annyv Annyv (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Hi you need to remove all the redirects and structure the submission like an article. That involves splitting it into sections and writing in paragraphs and continuous prose. You can find help with referencing at referencing for beginners and help with article layout and structure at Wikipedia:Writing better articles. If you are struggling with Wikimarkup then the WP:Cheatsheet might help you. Pol430 talk to me 18:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an example: Sita Air is an example of what a basic article should look like. Pol430 talk to me 18:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Integrated Science Program

How much coverage would be considered "sufficient coverage"?

Kerem taskin (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least a good paragraph that discusses the subject in some detail, in more than one reliable, published source, that is independent of the subject. See WP:VRS Pol430 talk to me 21:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improving my entry

Thanks for accepting my first Wikipedia entry, "The Alpins method of astigmatism analysis." I've looked into the grading system, but wonder specifically if you can recommend changes that would bring the entry from a C to a B or A. Again, many thanks. Kcroes (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could start by removing the 'introduction' section that I removed once already because it should not be there. The first bank of article text is known as the lead section (See WP:LEAD) it should contain a summary of the rest of the article but should not be more than about 2 paragraphs in length. You could add more Wikilinks into the article to make the subject more accessible and remove the copyright and trademark logos from the ASSORT section—text on Wikipedia is released under a creative commons license. I have re-graded the article as B class under AfC criteria because AfC has a lower threshold than other Wikiprojects. I have also added the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Ophthalmology task force talk-header onto the articles talk page where it rates as C class. You could ask an editor at that Wikiproject how best to improve the article, I'm afraid it's not my subject area. Pol430 talk to me 22:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wing Commander Peter Stanley James DFC, AE

Dear Pol430,

Many thanks for your speedy review and for taking the time to read my article. As you probably know, I am fairly new to Wikipedia and this is my first submission.

Before I attempt to amend my article, I am interested to know as to whether there are any specific third party references which have been identified as outstanding or if in actuality the article subject itself is under question for notability - in which case I will cease editing.

If you might be in a position to provide further guidance this would be very much appreciated.

Kind regards,

James

James Wilford 01:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)