User talk:Aggie80

Serial Concatenated Convolutional Codes

Thank you for your feedback. I have uploaded and linked to Figures.

Mrcodeguy (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Shuttleworth & Ingersoll Article Assistance

From EpiphanyVP (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Aggie80 - thank you for reviewing my article I submitted in December, I have been working on the article and trying to address all comments and suggestions made. You posted if I needed assistance I could reach out on your talk page. I hope I am doing this correctly. Are you available to review my article again? I am actually not sure where it is now to link it to you. It was in my sandbox. That is how I access it, but at the top is says Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shuttleworth & Ingersoll, P.L.C.. the URL says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EpiphanyVP/sandbox I would greatly appreciate your feedback. --EpiphanyVP (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Halton Lea Gate

from Ashley Columbus

Thankyou for your assistance editing (3.3.14) my article for submission on Halton Lea Gate. After a number of contributions, this is my first article and I don't really understand the whole process of getting it accepted and 'published'. It has been several weeks since I first wrote it. Any assistance and advice you can give me would be welcome.

Da Mafia 6iX - 6iX Commandments Article Approval

Hello, On January 17, you declined my article submission for Da Mafia 6ix's mixtape 6ix Commandments because of lack of links/references. I believe I have corrected this. Can you please check again and possibly approve the article for creation at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/6iX_Commandments

Federation of Finnish Financial Services

Thanks for reviewing my article! I've now made some changes like you asked. If it's still inadequate it'd be great if you can give some tips on what parts to edit or reference more etc.

An explanation about unadequate referrences - an article denied for creation

Dear Aggie80,

You have reviewed the article I've send for creation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mikicook/sandbox and denied it. The reason was "it is not adequately supported by reliable sources" - could you please further explain? The sources I've referred to are articles of The Jerusalem Post - an accredited newspaper in Israel - why is that not adequate enough?

I'd just like to mention COI of the article's topic - NPG - an organization I'm working in. My aim in this article is informational and not promotional [NPG is a non-for-profit organization, a sub-unit in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, which aims for sharing the university's exhibitions and knowledge with the public]. I've red the COI guidelines and have been trying to follow them strictly while writing - as this COI declaration shows (hopefully).

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikicook (talk • contribs) 14:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I took a look and the first thing I realized is that the references didn't show up, the formatting for having them listed was not in the article. I added that in so they show up now. I probably missed the small numbers in my review. There is the WP:COI issue, so that needs to be disclosed on your user page per Wikipedia requirements. ( Note-> I see you have clearly done so! ) It would be better to see additional sources, not all from the same two authors in the same paper to establish "substantial coverage" for nnotability.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your comment and quick reply. I'll get more sources as you suggest. Best Mikicook 14:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikicook (talk • contribs)

Hi,

I was unsuccessful so far in finding extra sources for my article, like you've suggested, how crucial is that? There's one release note from the University's Spokes-man (the article is about a sub-unit in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mikicook/sandbox), but that would probably be considered as a self publication, right?

Besides, I'm having some trouble uploading images, could you please give some guidance about that? I've red the articles considering tagging and so on, but got totally lost on the way..There are 2-3 free-to-use images - taken in Israel, given to my by their author - I wish to upload, but I couldn't understand how should I tag them. What to do?

Thanks again, Mikicook 14:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikicook (talk • contribs)

Try the "upload file" in the left side menu for adding pictures. It will walk you through the process and will explain the rights that have to be released in order for it to be allowed on the site. This can be tricky without the actual photographer's permission. As far as additional sources go, that will probably depend on who looks at it and whether they feel it is substantial coverage. Yes, the other article you found would probably be considered a primary source. Good luck!14:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, that was indeed very helpful. The author of the pictures has emailed them to me personally, approving their free usage. As far as I understand, now this approval should be forwarded somehow to Wikipedia? How? To whom? Besides, I found an extra third-party source, so hopefully that should do. Thanks again. Mikicook 15:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikicook (talk • contribs)

IDP "stub"

Hi "Aggie": the intention to creat an article on IDP is the following: there is no Wiki with the (correct) definition of the term out there yet. Your comment is very valid that it MUST be enriched by proper references. I am absolutely sure that these will be quickly filled in once the article is accepted for creation. Many IDP researchers can quickly fill in their part of the story. Therefore, I would like to ask you to reconsider your verdict. Many thanks in advance!

CheersDavid P Minde (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, the article needs to have references before acceptance, otherwise it gets flagged for rapid deletion as having no references. We're trying to prevent that from happening by having an article that meets minimum standards from the start.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Ic, Thanks! David P Minde (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC) PS hope new version adresses your kind suggestions for critical improvements, Cheers David P Minde (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

... I am by now pretty confident that I have addressed all your comments and therefore very much looking forward to your re-evaluation of the AfC on IDP. Cheers, David P Minde (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

American Standards - Edit Suggestions

Hi Aggie80-

I recently had a comment from you regarding the new page created for the band American Standards. In the comment you reference that there are no third party citations, notable awards or label backing. I have included each, but being our first submission, am unsure if maybe they were cited in an incorrect format or otherwise wrong? The band has been featured in several notable global publications from Absolute Punk and Alternative Press here in the states to For The Love Of Punk and Thrash Magazine over seas. The band was also a distributed band of the label Victory Records with several album reviews cited. All additional factual information regarding the band and their bio was taken from the bands websites (reverbnation, facebook etc.) as cited in the wiki. I would love to make corrections as needed. Just would like to better understand the process and where to focus my efforts. Thank you!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FoundationAgency/American_Standards — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoundationAgency (talk • contribs) 14:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

First, thank you for including the link to the page in question! The next thing is references. The formatting is off and that makes it look like there are none! The 'little numbers' need to be moved up to the sentences or facts that they support. I've moved reflist to the end to pull them from the top portion, where ever the belong and list them properly in the References section. I'll concur that Victory could be considered a major label. However, there is an issue with WP:COI in that I believe you represent the band. This needs to be clearly disclosed on your user page, per the link. I've also moved the location now. [American Standards. I believe that if you move the references to the appropriate place that you have shown notability and can re-submit.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

American Standards Citations

Aggie80-

Appreciate your quick response in regards to the citations on the American Standards wiki I am working on. Your direction helped a lot. I've done my best to update accordingly. I tried to cite everywhere that seemed appropriate in order to make your life easier when reviewing it. If any additional edits are needed, please let me know and I'd be happy to do so.

One thing outside the edits that I'm unsure if you can help with- I'm having trouble getting the image to display the the artist box. I've looked at other artist wikis and done a fair amount of research on google with no luck. Any chance you can give me a little direction on that? The image is currently in the wiki coding as; http://i.picresize.com/images/2014/02/26/NfOrK.jpg It's just not displaying when I view page.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoundationAgency (talk • contribs) 14:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/American_Standards — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoundationAgency (talk • contribs) 01:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

hi

how i can improve my topic to make a wiki pedia page???its an acadmy....its really famous.page name is ISA BHAKKAR,it is Inayat Science Acadmy Bhakkar Pakistan (KIFAYAT ULLAH KHAN(KAIF KHAN) (talk) 07:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)).

RfA

I am going for the RfA because the support you have given me, maybe if you can support me in it!

Saglos

Thank you for your edits and comments. Obviously I'm a newbie. If you have specific suggestions for edits I'd welcome them. Saglos (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you did very well, I tweaked the formatting a little bit to line things up a bit better. In most cases I would have blanked the entire page, but felt that the rest of the article was good enough not to. The bio work has to be independent enough that it doesn't copy existing language in other web sites. Switching the order of sentences is not sufficient, as it can be seen as coming from that location. If you can work up the bio bit in a more independent fashion, this should go through.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated. For now, I just resubmitted a much-shortened version of the bio, thinking I should carefully rewrite the 'early years' section after re-reading my sources. I hope this will prevent the draft from being deleted in the next 24 hours? If not, I'll try again. Saglos (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You also need to use the referencing format on the Sources. They should create a footnote the way the other references do, with the quote or appropriate sentences.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

okay, I will fix this issue, too - I'll do more edits tomorrow and resubmit. Many thanks! Saglos (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

What is the copyright infringement?

I have been trying to create a web page for Radhika Nagpal; my first submission was rejected because it contained "insufficient information to attest to her being a notable person."

However, Wikipedia's own rules state that an academic in a named chair is a notable person; one of the original references documented that she holds the Kavli chair at Harvard's School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. Second, I modeled her page after her colleague Rob Wood's page (who was accepted into Wikipedia), which had precisely 3 references, which included his Harvard and Wyss affiliations and his showing up in the TR 35; her included similar references to the first two and a link to her work that made the cover of Science magazine (only 24 projects per year have that distinction, so it would seem as "notable" as the TR 35).

I then added more material that I wrote myself and was informed on March 8 that the page contained copyrighted information, but there is no indication of what that material might be. Now the page is deleted, and I have no idea what text was considered objectionable.

Margoseltzer (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no way of finding the page or the history to review it, as it was deleted for the copyright violation. I don't know who deleted the actual page, but it means that another editor reviewed my review and removed it. Basing an article on an existing one only works if the article has a good rating. Robert Wood's article has been flagged for notability, has two of the three references are from his employer, who has a vested interest in promotion of the subject.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Radhika Nagpal AfC draft. On second look, it was not obvious enough for G12 speedy deletion. Should go for copyright violations page or checked more carefully by AfC participants (don't know what their process is). I also removed some of the most susceptible copied material. Article likely fails the Professor Test, but lets at least give it a chance to be improved, as most of the article seems to be own work. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 19:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Jan Fawcett

Please help. I wanted to do something unique for my father's 80th birthday. My opinions aside, I know that he is notable enough for Wikipedia, given his contributions in the fields of pschiatry and psychopharm alone. I don't know how to prove this other than to cite the hundreds upon hundreds of studies he's published. I won't even go into how many times he's been an expert witness but how many other people do you know who testified against Jack Kevorkian or John Wayne Gacy??

So, if I am not the right person to submit the FACTS (which is what I thought Wikipedia is for) would you be willing to help me?? My only goal here is to provide a living testatment to someone who's life's work has been about helping those who are too sick to help themselves, who has contributed enormously to the understanding of psychiatric disorders and who has inspired or created treatments for those problems.

I wanted to share that with a larger audience BEFORE he dies. I won't ramble on. Help me Aggie80. You're my only hope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealMarcFawcett (talk • contribs) 22:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is for facts. Facts which can be backed up with references from sources unrelated to the subject. Studies he did and his published writings are fine for a listing of his works, but need others to cite his research. Review WP:REFB for how to put inline citations into the article, a requirement for living people. Example, there are a number of awards listed that he has won, but no reference to back them up. A link to the organization's web site listing the award winners, or a newspaper article about the award would be required. His resume or the school newsletter would not be appropriate. Saying he testified against Kevorkian is all well and good, but provide the reference. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Tatiana

Hello Aggie80,

Thank you for your suggetsions and additional links. I have followed your advice and added them which definitely has enriched teh article. Re scientific publications, I prefer to follow teh model of Steven T. Bramwell Wiki page and use the format * cite for selected publications and not teh footnotes. Otherwise the list becomes too long and confusing. HOpe that you will find my modifictaions accaeptable. Again, Thank you sincerely fo ryour help on improving the article ( the goal is to make a present for A. Bouzdine fo rhis 60th anniversary the coming Sunday).

Tatiana Chameeva

Hello. Thank you kindly for your assistance. Would you be able to inform me as to which parts are violating copywrights? Or is it just the bio part?

Thanks muchly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinrossgibbs (talk • contribs) 08:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Telephone

Dear Aggie80,

I have written another article for Wikipedia, which like this one, has been rejected, for similar reasons to those you have for my article BTOSS.

I have attached my reasons for inclusion within my other article, "Push button telephone" to the other editor and would like to submit the same to you for your reconsideration.

Dear Kbrose, I noted your deletion to my recent insert, but wish to point out the following:- The article on the push-button telephone is mainly written regarding developments in the USA and there are several references to originators which could be arguably contested. I have presented the full picture as seen within the UK and was instrumental for the design and adoption. I believe this information is worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia, as its omission would not give any future reader the full details of all the developments behind the scenes in both countries. Unfortunately, within BT, we had to work with confidential information which could not be made public, nor was I able to file or patent any of my inventions or designs for external release, of which there were many, under the the then current rules and regulations in force. Although all my colleagues were aware of my push- button design which was adopted throughout the UK, it was introduced without any fanfare or press release, which would otherwise have corroborated my inclusion within this article. Some of those people who would have been able to confirm my facts are now dead or untraceable and again, would have been associated with BT. However, records exist within BT, which I have quoted. Therefore, I hope you can appreciate my dilemma as to providing external sources of references to support my facts. In my defence, I can only offer the truth. If Alexander Bell were to be omitted from the discovery of the telephone within any encyclopaedia source, no doubt other worthy inventors, plus the telephone and all its constituent parts would still be explained, but an important part of the history would be lost and the reader would be less informed. May I direct you to another source within Wikipedia regarding Higgs boson to support my inclusion (not that I wish to take any credit for that article or place myself in that esteemed body of luminaries). I would therefore kindly ask you to reconsider my inclusion under this topic and make an exception in this case and thank you for your time and input. Yours Sincerely RTS Parr, IEng, EngTech, AMIEE, AIPOEE, ACMI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astede (talk • contribs) 11:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astede (talk • contribs)

submission of article traitvad

hello thanks for your views on my submission of article traitvad but i think you understood it completely wrong its not neologism its a philosophy based on vedas and upanishad and this type of material is never published in press its a philosophy like dvaita and advaita i wish you to rethinking on ur views, i agree article need source but the source which i will give is directly from vedas and Upanishads i think which you can't understand. --Sandeep (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Unsure what to do to get my page up

Could you please provide me with some instructions as to how to correctly cite sources to get my page up. It says the sources aren't independent, but I'm not sure what qualifies as independent if mine do not. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajp148 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd start with reading WP:REFB so that what you think are references get formatted so that they actually show up as references. Right now there is a single reference in the list, a blog which is not adequate for Wikipedia, and which is not formatted correctly. Any bio of a living person must have inline citations of the appropriate references. And those references need to show that the judge meets the notability requirements found at WP:JUDGE.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Harassment of Editor

Why didnt you post that?!?!?!? It was real information and EVERYONE needs to know. Gosh Aggie you're so STUPID!!! I dont want you're opinion!!!! Look, this is important to me and most people so just shut up and do your job!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Higuiseiloveyou (talk • contribs) 14:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Guess what?!?!? I'm back!!! Hey you suck!!!!! I dont like you aggie. Brooklyn and i r super happy together and we dont need you to involve yo-self in r luv life. Got it? SO please just screw off! K? Higuiseiloveyou (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Life supportiveness

Hello Aggie80, you declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Life supportiveness on 12 February 2014. I just wanted to let you know the submitter deleted the history of you declining their article, as well as that of another Wikipedia reviewer. I have reinstated the notice of your decline on the page. I am declining the article a third time because it still reads like an essay. If you happen to come across it in your future reviews, I just wanted to let you know. Regards. Belshay (talk) 02:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Concur and thanks! I've even added a new comment to the existing article.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Vincent de Pio sandbox potential article

I followed your suggestion and added a lot more sources to make it more reliable. Please check it out. I really need this article to be published, and I would like to thank you for the advice. Please take another look and help me have this article published. I appreciate your help.

This is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Riana-santos/sandbox

Riana-santos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riana-santos (talk • contribs) 08:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

James Hay Partnership

Hia,

I've tried to do my page again but its does not seem to let me submit again?

Could you help please?

Regards, Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by C5mea (talk • contribs) 16:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Still needs a lot of cleanup on the reference formatting, it's wonky with the links in the body instead of being in the footnotes. Harder to read that way. You should be able to click the 'resubmit' button in the boxes, let me know if that does not work.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hia,

I've managed to re-submit now, I think the links should all be working better - let me know what you think?

Many thanks, Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by C5mea (talk • contribs) 21:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Profound Anarch

Greetings.

Thank you for your review. Could you please guide me as to what references can I exactly add to my article? I'm not sure what role the references play in the article, and of what nature the references should be, etc.

Profound Anarch (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The role of references is to substantiate the existence and acceptance of this notation format. I have no idea what references you can add. Where did the idea come from? Who created it? What publications have referenced the sources and existence of this notation format? What is its history and where is it documented? Who uses this format on a regular basis? Has it been accepted by any industry or organization? If this is an original idea, Wikipedia is not the place for it, see WP:NOT.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

All right. I'll see what I can do. I'll have to add my references and re-submit, yes? Profound Anarch (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Churchill Weavers

I received notification that you had reviewed Churchill Weavers, a page created by Isaac Murphy Boone. When I clicked the link to review your comments, there was no page and no article. Any suggestions, or can you tell me what about the article made you turn it down for posting? Thanks. Isaac Murphy Boone (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

What made me turn it down? It was completely and totally blank. User:Isaac Murphy Boone/Churchill WeaversThe Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

SE

Thank you for your comments, Aggie80 - and reading the remainder of this talk page provided quite a learning experience.

The core purpose of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sami_H._Elmansoury is to highlight a prominent Huffington Post contributor who also happens to be a public trailblazer for counter-radicalization initiatives.

In writing this article about the subject, the notability guidelines were evaluated and followed closely. The subject is not "famous" in the way that a sitting federal politician or well-known actor would be. But this is not a requirement for Wikipedia inclusion, as is written in the guidelines and as is evidenced by many approved articles. Nor should this be our standard at Wikipedia - we should highlight influential trailblazers, even if they are not over-saturated in our media. Much of the work that these individuals do is not covered by the media, but their impact is no less significant.

One of the core principles of notability for Wikipedia is that the subject in question be "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Aside from other information in the article, the work produced by the subject is unmistakably "significant" - the subject's ideas and work on counter-radicalization and advancing peace are directly sought after by the State Department and other prominent institutions, working to achieve the goal of peace. The subject has done this work both domestically and internationally, as is evidenced by a quick Google search. The subject is also "interesting" and "unusual" in that there are very few within the Muslim community publicly developing critical post-9/11 counter-narratives to radicalization, and "fighting" extremists from within that community. Finding a well-received Huffington Post piece written by the subject last year on the Boston Marathon bombings was the initial catalyst for this article, as this led to further searches, and to learning much more about the subject's impact and admittedly unusual work and public influence - both as a HuffPost writer and elsewhere.

The subject, through DOS, BMW Foundation, and other initiatives, seems to have had a tremendous impact on youth, and is well-reputed in government circles based on visits to the subject's publicly viewable social media pages. Listings and prominent coverage, such as the professional organization interview independent of the subject, explain how the subject's impact is viewed at an international level, and again, why it is "interesting" and perhaps more importantly, "unusual." Search after search has turned up little by way of public figures expressing the same views on high-level platforms. Beyond the subject's work at Huffington Post, the remainder of this Wikipedia article, including merits achieved, bolster on-paper notability but are not the foundational premise, nor are they what alone make the figure "significant, interesting, or unusual." His work for The Huffington Post and his government initiatives stand on their own, the rest is supplementary, but ultimately unnecessary if you wish to see it removed.

It would be a clear violation of notability standards to include references that simply list a subject's personal blog, etc. That is understood. But neither is that the case here. If there are references that are "related to the subject" or "supporting things other than the subject" - please indicate an example, so that they can be cleaned up. Thanks so much, and thanks for reading through this whole elaboration - when your plate is notably full. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.33.100 (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I listed my reasons and had another reviewer give me feedback as well. Here are the issues with this article and the references:

   Ref 1 - Interview - Primary source
       If the source is reliable, the fact that someone to took the time to do the interview is evidence of notability, but this is marginal and not a particularly quality source.
   Ref 2 - List - One name on a 15 page list of participants.
       Not significant coverage
   Ref 3 - Profile of speaker - Marginal as related to subject
       Not an independent source
   Ref 4 - One sentence speaking at a middle school
       Middle school is not a reliable source
   Ref 5 - Speaker at a dinner
       Not reliable or independent
   Ref 6 - List - Panel discussion member
       Not reliable or independent
   Ref 7 - List - One of a number of speakers on a list
       Not reliable or independent
   Ref 8 - Huffington Post profile - Regular contributor - Primary Source
       Coverage by employer is not independent
   Ref 9 - Article by subject - Primary Source
       We need sources about the subject not by the subject
   Ref 10 - One sentence quote from subject
       A paragraph about the subject in a 4 paragraph piece is potentially useful, but not a particularly quality source.
   Ref 11 - One sentence quote from subject
       I find two quotes. The subject is being used a source for this story but the story is not at all about him.
   Ref 12 - Subject asking a question of Paul Rand - No support
       Being a member of the media doesn't automatically qualify you as notable. You must be covered by the media.
   Ref 13 - Subject moderated discussion
       Being a member of the media doesn't automatically qualify you as notable. You must be covered by the media.
   Ref 14 - One of 45 contributors to the book
   Ref 15 - One of 45 contributors to the book - One paragraph bio
   Ref 16 - One of 45 contributors to the book - not mentioned on page
   Ref 17 - One of 45 contributors to the book
       We need sources about the subject not by the subject
   Ref 18 - One of many participants in a conference - Large paragraph written by subject - Primary Source.
       Not independent
   Ref 19 - List - One of many participants - No content - List
       Not independent
   Ref 20 - List - People on this list must have gone to Rutgers University and be of some renown.
       Not reliable

The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Tom Amarque

Hello Angie 80,

thank you for reviewing the Article on Tom Amarque! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Tom_Amarque) I have a question: You rejected the article on grounds of insufficient notability of the book(s). But the article is about the author, and the notability rules for creative professionals (wp:authors) do apply. He has a collective body of work, is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique and is cited by peers or successors. Is there a chance you can, well, review your review? ;-) The corresponding article in Germany got accepted on these grounds ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nils Weber 418 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The biggest issue is that there is essentially one third party reference that supports the claims you are making above. Katalog der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek is simply a book listing and provides no support other than they exist. The third reference is an interview, which is a first level source. The fourth is a review of one book. Need to find more than a single source to establish notability.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Angie80. Ok, I understand. ... would it help to restrukture/rewirte the article a lá https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Zimmerman_%28philosopher%29#cite_note-1 or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Braudeau? Thanks for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nils Weber 418 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Angie80! I rewrote the article and added external references. Problem solved? Best wishes!

American Standards

Hi Aggie80-

In regards to; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/American_Standards

I've updated/corrected the citations for the American Standards page to the best of my ability. I'm unsure how to bring them down into the citations box or if this is even needed but each now appears with the number that you referenced. Please let me know if anything additional is needed and I appreciate all your help! Have a great day!

FoundationAgency (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)FoundationAgency

I need to have that page to make it on the other page about the disappeared

I need that page because when I added to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_disappeared_mysteriously it was deleted because there was no article I created the article and it was deleted before I could link to the page. All of the others on that page have articles, so why can't mine have an article or be allowed to remain without an article? Apriv40dj (talk) 03:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you've been too hasty in rejecting "Big Band Bossa Nova"

If you'll notice, my article on "Big Band Bossa Nova" has more detail and documentation than the article on "Jazz Samba Encore!," the album that followed it. I firmly believe that the standing of Stan Getz as a giant of jazz is enough to include this new article in Wikipedia. While chart position may be important for commercial popular music, creative music by a major artist like Stan Getz is not judged by its popularity among the masses. The information that you ask for can always be added later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaneOlds (talk • contribs) 11:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"I firmly believe that the standing of Stan Getz as a giant of jazz is enough to include this new article in Wikipedia." The album certainly belongs on his listing of works. But is there evidence of others considering this a notable album? Quality independent references need to be shown to back it up. If it was truly notable, there are going to be other references to the album. The Verve liner notes are not adequate. As stated in WP:MUSIC "That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." The article is better than the one on "Jazz Samba Encore" which has no sources at all (and has been flagged for such). Need to have substantial and independent sources to establish the notability.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm getting many, many hits on this album at Google Books. I believe it was #1 on the Billboard's Jazz charts in 1962. If someone will provide a link to the declined article, I'll see what I can do to add some sources and promote it. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 20:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

User:JaneOlds/sandboxThe Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk)

Peter Laverty Article

Hi, The link you gave me does not exist. Please advise where I go from here. Thanks, Iantomferry

Please sign your posts with the 3~'s so that you can be found. Your link is at User:Iantomferry/Peter LavertyThe Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

On phoebli sandbox

Hi, I was wondering why a sandbox keeps getting rejected, I am writing it for myself. Phoebli (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You keep clicking on Submit for Review. That puts it in the queue for review.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Peter Laverty Article

Hi, I remembered I had bookmarked my article and have now read your comments. I will delete all unpublished and unverifiable material and resubmit soon. You raise the question of 'notability'. I don't find this a problem. If your refer to Wiki page for Art Gallery of New South Wales you will see all past Directors except two, Laverty being one of them, have a Wikipedia page. And if you look at other art museums/galleries such as MOMA in New York city you would find the same. The conclusion I draw is if someone reaches the position of Director in an internationally prominent art gallery or museum he/she has a notability that satisfies Wikipedia rules. I trust this is sufficient explanation. regards Iantomferry (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Notability may not be a problem, as long as you can provide the independent references, which are totally lacking in the original submission. References to support the awards and positions are important. But also do take some time to work on the grammar. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Junior Writers Awards

Hi Aggie80, thanks you for your suggestion. We have updated. This charity awards is the first time hold, so not much information. It will hold every year and will add more information later. Thanks (121.202.23.184 (talk) 05:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC))

Hi Aggie80, thank you for your suggestion again. Please review the page again. (60.246.245.91 (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC))

Dear Aggie80, Help?

Dear Aggie80, I am Xiuyue, nice to talk to you! First of all, I want to thank you for your efficiency and adaptability in dealing with my request for review. But I got a rejection and I'm afraid I don't get an elaboration on the reason. I have tried to get into contact with the reviewer. While I am waiting for his/her reply, I notice that you can also help me.So I come to you, thank you for your precious time.So could you please help me review my article and tell me the reason why does it failed to be published? Or could you please give me some suggestions about editing? Publishing an article, collecting audience response and then write an paper on audience study is an important assignment of my course Popular Culture and Technology at University of Massachusetts Boston. It dues at mid-April. I really appreciate if you can help me in this case of emergency! BTW, I am an exchange student from China. I do apologize if my expression is not clear enough. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me! Wish you all the best! Yours, Xiuyue link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/diaosi my user name: Mindhunter333 Mindhunter333 (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I had to look to figure it out, but when it was first submitted, there was no content, it was blank, that's why it was rejected. Since then the article has been created and now it will need to be reviewed. The issue is that there are over 1000 articles waiting to be reviewed and only a dozen or so volunteers working on the reviews. I see that a someone ran a couple of cleanup scripts on the article, so it is working through the process. We will get to it eventually! The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Aggie80, Thank you very much! I have finally get my article published though it is still an orphan and requested further polishing of language and erection of grammar.Anyway, I am so excited! I really appreciate your devotion to this volunteer work! Thank you so so much! Wish you all the best~ Yours, Xiuyue Mindhunter333 (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Aggie80, Thank you so much! I have noticed the improvement you have done to my article. Really appreciate your help! Your feedback is inspiring too. When I put "hillbilly" and "redneck" here, I do not use them as a exact equation in meaning.You may have noticed that according to the survey, 40% Chinese identified themselves as diaosi, so "diaosi" is really a huge word. Various people feel this word can represent some traits of them -- not only the high-educated geeks who are overly intellectual, but also the people who are with mediocre education background. I think what hillbilly and redneck may find diaosi reckon to their personality is diaosi's inferior status in the society. They are all poor and lack the opportunity to adjust into the higher society. Diaosi are despised by "gaofushuai" (tall, rich, handsome)while hillbilly and redneck are despised by WASPs. Maybe, I should also emphasize the diaosi who are not familiar with technology or computer in this article. But the assignment requires us to leave the article alone once being published and to observing how audience think about it, even edit it. All in all, your feedback is really precious.Please allow me to cover your contributions in my paper! Hope genuinely more participation from you in this paper. Wish you all the best, Yours, Xiuyue Mindhunter333 (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your suggestions on review of my article. 16.11.Rguru (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC).

Hello Sir, My article Victims' rights in India is only an extension of legal interpretations in Indian context only. I strongly feel that it will supplement other Wiki-article such as Victims' rights, Women's rights, etc which deal only with the laws of a particular land. The tag explains that it has no universal contents. As you have guessed , this article is not a primary(Original) research work of mine.About the word lacuna , I admit your suggestion and edited to make it fit for Wikipedia . I certainly want to enrich Wikipedia with this article and hence Awaiting your acceptance . 16.11.Rguru (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

clarification

Dear AGGIE80

Can you please clarify where copyright material was used in the submission since all this is my work or work done by the members of the veg-itrade consortium. Many thanks.

With best regards,

Benedikt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjsas (talk • contribs) 13:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Any copyright material, including that done by you or Veg-I-Trade cannot be used unless you provide authorization to Wikipedia allowing free distribution of said material. See WP:DCP for what it means to donate the rights to Wikipedia.14:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Reliance Foundation

Dear Aggie80, you denied the submission for Reliance Foundation by stating it non-notability content which don't have reliable evidence. I would like to let you that in the references I have added reliable references such news articles from Times of India, a national newspaper company and [[1]]. It is requested, please reviews the references and let me know what else I can improve in that. Thank you!.  D Mi^™ 10:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for moving my article on Lois Etherington Betteridge

Hi, Aggie80: This article is my first Wikipedia submission, so I am new to the AfC process. Took me a couple of days to figure out how my article had got moved, but thanks! Mary K McIntyre (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hellfreaks wiki unable to add

"Kitty in a basket" is added and I tried to add "the Hellfreaks" with the same type references and notability. That gets rejected and I get absolutely NO reason for as to why besides the notability is incorrect. ANYONE that knows wikipedia knows it is not reliable anyway, the University I work with FORBIDS the use of it, since your page on the "Rolling Stones" has over 25 false or potentially incorrect data just from one glance. You guys need to get it together over there. There is not ONE thing wrong with that article at all, not one since you all never name one. If the band isn't "Big" enough then Kitty in a casket isn't either, I want that reviewer to review my submission since they clearly don't mind adding a freaking page of text.

Youtube adds stuff all the time and with WAY bigger files than freaking text. Your review system is ridiculous, and your text editor is archaic.

RE-REVIEW it and allow it since it is VERIFIED and correct or write me a reason not links to your junk help articles that help no one. What a messy site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BRMJ (talk • contribs) 00:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Please be civil. You obviously want the article on the site. "Kitty in a basket" doesn't exist. "Kitty in a Casket" has been flagged for the same reason "The Hellfreaks" has been declined. It lacks any independent references and the ability to meet any of the requirements for notability for a musical group. And without signing your articles, no one knows how to get in touch with you.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shifu Damian Mohler ‎

Hello,

I have been working on the Article about Shifu Damian Mohler for months and it's still not accepted. I always got the same answers about the notability of the subjects...

Meanwhile, the sources are independant and I can find people on wikipedia which have been accepted with less reliable sources than my own article.

Please help me to complete mine. The subject is going to be the head of European Martial Arts Council and he needs to have such an article.

>Thanks for your understanding

Achampen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achampen (talk • contribs) 06:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

So (at the beginning of sentences)

Thank you for your review of this article.

I do not see in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not that Wikipedia is "not a grammar book", by which I take it you mean that it does not deal with grammar subjects.

I note the existence of English modal verbs, Syntactic ambiguity, Quirky subject, Thou, Shall and will, Like, Possessive etc., so I think grammar subjects are allowed.

However, as well as grammar, I see the article as a contribution to Applied linguistics, Sociological linguistics and Discourse analysis.

The use of "So" in such a way is a sociological phenomenon, and I think it would be of interest to the general reader.

A very similar article is: High rising terminal, along with the very similar section Like As a discourse particle, filler, hedge, or speech disfluency. Also there are Valleyspeak and Sexy baby voice.

Discourse particle and Discourse marker are also of interest - perhaps my article could be part of these, but it would rather overpower them at the moment. Myrvin (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Lrzarlino

Thank you for helping me. I am only 13 and the robots on this site never give you a change to learn without being kicked off into the abyss. I appreciate your help. My father is sick and tired of the oppression and is taking a break. There is one editor that has tagged our computer so when we try and let people know about our invention like the rest of the world does on Wikipedia he shuts us down. We have reached out to Jimmy Wales. Do you know him? Luke Lrzarlino (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Inventions must be notable and must have independent sources to back them up. Advertising is not allowed. Such things as email addresses and accounts and even phone numbers are not a part of wikipedia. You have much too much personal information on your sandbox, things that could result in being targeted by hackers. There are not many robots on the site, most of it is done by the hundreds of volunteer editors. No, I do not know Jimmy Whales.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales sorry. I was thinking of the big shots in vegas. Let's talk about personal information on and informational web site like this one. Every url has traffic based on content. The last time I checked this site is in the top ten in the US & World. When someone is dead every detail you can find is on the page but when you a living only the companies with tons of money are allowed to put the brand they own this site. Why is that? When my dad first started brending the sync system which was new technology at the time everyone was cool with it. After a while then it became advertising? I don't get it. Gmail Autopilot™ by CADIE accounts over 20% which of the traffic to this site. How do write about that fact? Luke Lrzarlino (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Help with correcting declined article

Hi there, thanks for reviewing my article. I'm a bit new to all this so any help would be greatly appreciated.

You mentioned this is an original theory. The investment theory of creativity has been recognized in the literature since 1991. The theory is widely accepted e.g. see http://www.craigkunce.com/creativity_investing.html , http://www.kent.edu/ehhs/oaa/dissertations/upload/beinejeffery.pdf , http://livingwithlivewires.com/the-investment-theory-of-creativity. Also, Wikipedia references to the investment theory multiple times within https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity . Within google scholar the investment theory is cited by 661 sources...

Does this information give any bearing to the review?

Ok cheers, any thoughts much appreciated - Thomas Friar (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

About resubmit

Hi, Aggie80. Thanks for pointing out my problems. I've already modified, and I think it looks better now. I hope it does not like an original research/essay again. ^o^ I've already resubmitted my contribution. This is the requirement of my class and what I submitted is my initial contribution. I know that my references are not enough, and I'll try to add more scholars' viewpoints in my contribution. Thank you for further helping! Yangtana Li (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Help with editing

Hi, Aggie80! Thank you for reviewing my article about the European Fashion Council. I am fairly new to making contributions to Wikipedia and any help and comments are appreciated! I noticed you commented that the article about the European Fashion Council has an issue with conflict of interest. Can you, please, let me know what I need to do or change in the article so I could solve the issue? Thank you in advance! I will be looking forward to your reply/suggestion. :) Best regards Gsefcgs (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the COI, you need to fill in your information on your user page and explain exactly what your connection with the EFC is. The full information can be found on WP:COI. Review it and decide which of the options makes the most sense for you. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Aggie80! Thank you for your reply! :) I followed your instructions and explained exactly what my connection with the EFC is on my user page. I also requested a new username, because this one is too long and am currently waiting for a bureaucrats to officially change my username. I also read the WP:COI page and now I understand what possibly happened there. If you have any other comments regarding my very first contribution to Wikipedia, please, feel free to share them with me. Cheers Gsefcgs (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Remodelers Council

Hi Aggie80,

Thank you for reviewing my article on the Remodelers Council. I cited the NAHB Remodelers Council site and they are the ones that established the Remodelers Councils in the USA. I have also cited the Building Industry Association's page that they (BIA) built for us. It states that that we are BIA on the site. I cannot figure out your objections. Those are the sponsors for the Remodelers councils and they are National organizations that both state that we are a part of their organizations. I gave you their pages so you have them on the site and they are the sources. I gave you the NAHB site that states that they formed the Remodelers Council and the ties to the NAHB on the NAHB site. So what is missing? Please advise. (Terryakiwiki (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC))

The problem is exactly as you said, they created the subject and/or created those sites for you. They are not independent sources, they have a vested interest in the organization. WP:REFB helps with the basics of what references are considered reliable and independent. What is needed to establish notability are other organizations or news sources that find the subject notable enough to talk about them.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Aggie80,

I will contact the 150 Remodelers council Across the USA about your comments so that we can fix them. I will give them your address so that you may address the concerns with ALL 150 councils. I am sure that you can figure out who is noteable then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terryakiwiki (talk • contribs) 19:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

With 150 councils, you should be able to find some sources that reference the organization other than members of the subject organization. Surely they have held conferences that have been reported on, awards that they have won and other items. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

User:JBBare/sandbox

Thanks for reviewing my submission. I'm working to address the issues before submitting again. You noted that there was "No independent, third-party references to confirm or establish it." I had included references to the assertions and publications listed, so I my understanding is that you were looking for some other kind of reference. Can you tell me more about what you're looking for here?

The key word there is Independent. Your own website just doesn't work. Your own publications are not appropriate as references either. Organizations that you are directly involved in are not really independent either. So if there are independent references in there, I didn't get that far after going through the first bunch. And WP:CHEAT and WP:REFB will give you some of the formatting to make this look like the other Wikipedia entries. And as pointed out, writing your own entry is also a violation. See WP:COI The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Rejected Content- Abu Dhabi Technology Development Committee

Dear Aggie80,

Thank you for reviewing my article, but I don't understand the reason behind your decision. you mentioned that it violates copy rights. However, the content was developed by TDC and I linked the content to their website.

Please advise how can I submit the article again so it would be published.

Best regards, Hiba — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibaconsultant (talk • contribs) 05:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

That is the issue. It was developed by TDC and they hold the copyright. Unless they are willing to release the material under the terms required by Wikipedia, it cannot be used. The articles on this site must be independent and original content fully referenced with third-party, independent sources.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

help make me a page

hi, thanks for reviewing my latest page, you marked it for deletion, i am very new to this and would love your help creating a good article, plz reply. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yesson20 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Your article wasn't marked for deletion, just that it was no where near being ready for Wikipedia. The first problem is meeting WP:NMusic notability requirements. With no awards, no chart time, no sales records and no major record label it's pretty difficult to justify an article. If notability can be shown, it has to be supported by independent sources unrelated to the subject. Sales sites like iTunes are not sufficient. And there is the problem of submitting an article on yourself, that is a Conflict of Interest WP:COI.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I have added more info, can you please review it once more? here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yesson20/sandbox

Hello can you please tell me What kind of grammar work I need for my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farshad001 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Aggie80, you declined my recent submission for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Abens605/sandbox stating This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability. What do you suggest I cite to reference the nobility? This is my first submission and I guess I am confused. I thought the reference showing it is the fourth largest in the state showed its nobility. I also researched other school districts on Wikipedia to ensure I was following protocol. Please look at the Cedar Rapids, Iowa school district article. Abens605 (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Please guide

Sir, I have added the available reference to the article Arjuna Gamang along with a stub tamplet. Please guide me to reach at further secondary reference sources in this regard. Hpsatapathy (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

What you have listed as further reading should be used as references to support the main body of the article. WP:REFB provides the basics on how to do inline citations and what references are good.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 11:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Sir, thanks for the kind guidance. Hpsatapathy (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks. Hpsatapathy (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Neoclassical Mischiefism

Hello Aggie80,

Please know that I've updated the draft of "Neoclassical Mischiefism" with an external link of an article regarding on my artwork. Please publish the article as it's important from the standpoint of art history documentation. This is not for artwork promotion but giving the name to something that will need it and and a record that does need to be documented from the timing/art history perspective. I've been told by various sources in the NYC art realm this is something I need to do to document and name the style, and as you can see, a credible source has been included in the link resubmission. Thanks for your attention in publishing it. Kind Regards, Brian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crudcharger (talk • contribs) 13:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I cannot get to the article cited (perhaps my firewall prevents it). However, one article is not the significant coverage necessary to establish a neologism. See specifically WP:NEO and that Wikipedia is not a place to try and establish such terms.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Please clarify

Sir, Thanks for the move. In fact, I am not quite clear about the fate of my article Arjuna Gamang. Whether it is pending for further review or stepping towards deletion process ? How can I participate in the process to develop the article ? Please clarify . Hpsatapathy (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Currently the article shows that it is up for review. You have added several references, now it will be re-reviewed.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the immediate clarification Sir, Hpsatapathy (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

 Mr Aggge80

I like to write my wiki and also like to good wiki bud i make some mistake pls help me to do and tell me to how i can correct way to go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SjElle (talk • contribs) 01:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Draft:All Power Labs

You commented on the page I created for All Power Labs. Thanks so much for that helpful comment. The page was reviewed and rejected by Hasteur, and since then I have significantly updated it to address yours and Hasteur's comments. His response to my resubmittal was that it was an unspoken rule that another editor should confirm his judgment that it was now appropriate, and make the approval. Are you capable of doing this? Nesdon (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thaddeus Rutkowski

Aggie - Could you please elaborate about what I would need for the Thaddeus Rutkowski article you rejected? I thought we referenced every fact. Why are the sources "unreliable?"-Randi Hoffman

Your references are not solid ones, there are so many links to Wikipedia (not an acceptable reference) that if there are other good ones in there they are totally overwhelmed. Links to sales sites and publishers carrying the books are not independent (Amazon, Red Books, Coffeehouse Press, etc.). Read WP:REFB to understand the difference between a Wikilink and a good third party reference. The best ones are going to be to the awards that were actually won. I'll try to send a TB notice, but the comment wasn't signed. And be careful! There are now two versions of the article, do not use the one in your Sandbox, use: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thaddeus Rutkowski The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This is helpful. But the one recommended for deletion is the extra one, right? I do get another chance to revise this? -Randi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randihoffman (talk • contribs) 16:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I marked the one in your Sandbox for deletion to avoid confusion. You can work on the other version. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Citations added

Hello - added citations. NBC Nebraskanative (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Page Topic Confusion

Dear Aggie80,

I am not very experienced with wikipedia yet so I figured this was the best way to contact you, I hope it is suitable. Three days ago you had reviewed my page on Inter-Crater Plains on Mercury, it was rejected. I believe there was a little bit of a misunderstanding and I was not clear with my topic of choice. It is stated my topic already exists, being called "Geology of Mercury" however that is not what my topic is on. I think this may be due to my somewhat lengthy summary of the geology of Mercury just as a quick introduction to the planet in general. Perhaps i need to focus it more on the actual inter-crater plains than the geologic history which is precisely what I thought I've done. I've looked up my topic and cannot find a page on it. If there are some adjustments I could make any suggestions from you would be fantastic.

Kind regards, Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfox8 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Peter Secord St.Catharines City Councillor.

Thank you for reviewing my article. Can you please indicate to me which parts need citation or reference.Rick Andres (talk) 04:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

All of them! As a living person, the statements need to be validated with some sort of reference. See WP:REFB for the basics regarding formatting and types of sources. There has to be some source to confirm he is a member of the council, perhaps a profile in the paper, which is the only real claim to notability he has. Without that he probably can't meet WP:NOTE. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  hi sir

please help me to do — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.109.8 (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Declined Submission: Maroma, Please help

Hello Aggie80,

I am writing to you regarding my article on the company Maroma, a unit of Aravinda Trust. As you can probably tell this is my first wiki article.

I must thank you for your review, it was clear and very timely! Thank you for your efficiency and time, it is much appreciated.

I can make some small changes, like mentioning the products, but regarding the references, i am having a minor issue obtaining the articles other than through the company website. On their website they have published scanned copies of the articles that were written about them from Local (Indian) newspapers and magazines, unfortunately the articles are difficult to trace online as they were scans of physical articles. I did a lot of research, and found that very often the websites of the newspaper/magazines did not have all their articles in their archives. Sometimes i found the link to the article but the link was broken.

I may be able to get my hands on the actual physical copies of some of the articles. I don't know if that helps?

I have received a few of the physical articles, and will be getting more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejokebro (talk • contribs) 07:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Please advise? I am eager and want to complete my article.

Thank you in advance

Thejokebro (talk) 04:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If you can provide the citation for the articles, they can be used. See WP:REFB for the formatting. If there are none available, it may be that the company cannot meet notability requirements. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Prof Irfan Shahid

Article removed for space conservation.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abusheeth (talk • contribs) 09:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

A talk page is not the place to submit an article.11:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

De-Box

Had tried to create an entry for the term De-Box its been rejected but i cant see the comments to resolve the issues Pls advice thanks Kirti Karmarkar Anand (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It's right there at User:Kirti Karmarkar Anand/sandbox with comments. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Siege (rapper) article

Hello,

I do understand your decline of this page but there are a number of artists who are on Wikipedia who do not possess nearly the level of references that his article does. In any event, most independent artists never chart or release music via traditional channels-- thus I think it is unfair that you would not consider this article worthy of submission. I will keep an eye out for any progress and update it, and hopefully by then the article could be approved. Thank you for your input.

-WallyBachman82