User talk:Primefac

Interview for The Signpost

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (soliloquize) @ 10:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikiproject template

Heya ! What's the deal with the wikiproject templates on talk pages ? The classifications are ??? over at Talk:Silver(I) fluoride - is it important datawise for this to be filled in ? I had a look over at the actual WikiProject Chemicals but not much seems to be going on. Cheers O3O ~Tatanaya — Preceding unsigned comment added by TatanyaGolding (talk • contribs) 19:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

TatanyaGolding, it's not vital that they be filled in. Every page on Wikipedia is assigned a rank, basically an indicator of how good an article it is. Most of the time one can simply look at an article to determine if it's a decent article, but when you get towards the high end rankings become more important. There are various WikiProjects (Chemistry, Physics, etc) who keep an eye on the topics they're interested in. There are some very active projects, and some not-so-active, but in general they're the ones that rank an article. Primefac (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, get it. Do you have to apply for it to be ranked by the project ? It's hard for me to tell what's good enough with these topics - I've looked for featured content in solid state chemistry but the only article I could find is Lead (II) nitrate - not really sure whether I should use it as a model as it is comprehensive but not very in depth ! ~Tatanya — Preceding unsigned comment added by TatanyaGolding (talk • contribs) 11:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

TatanyaGolding, you don't necessarily have to join a project to rank an article, though throwing around ranks willy-nilly isn't the best of ideas (i.e. you should probably have a fair amount of experience with the ranking system before ranking articles). However, if you're keen on working on chemical articles, I'd suggest joining WP Chem just so you have a place to ask questions from people who have been around for a while.

By the way, it's best to sign your comments with ~~~~, as it will add your signature at the end of the message. Primefac (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hospitals in Mexico, Colombia, Brazil

Dear Primefac:

I see you rejected the articles "Hospitals in [Colombia / Mexico / Brazil]", indicating that these could already be found under "List of Hospitals in Colombia / Mexico / Brazil". Indeed, I too came across those sources when I was creating the articles. However, I believe that the subject matters are quite different.

The existing articles seek to list all the hospitals in each of the aforementioned countries. As such, they aim to develop a listing of hospital names. Should they achieve this, they would reach approximately 6,700 in Brazil, 4,400 in Mexico and 2,300 in Colombia. There is still a lot of work to be done before reaching this goal... The articles that I propose have a much broader objective as they seek to discuss the hospital landscape in each country >> How many hospitals are there? What is the breakdown by state? What is the breakdown by reporting sphere (public, private, etc.)? The articles I propose would be useful for academics, researchers, NGOs, health ministries, medical companies, pharmaceutical businesses, and others who seek to know the size of the healthcare market in number of hospitals and how it is segmented across the country.

In light of the considerable difference between the existing articles and the ones that I propose, I ask that you please reconsider your position.

I look forward to your thoughts. Kindly, Gcorpart (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Gcorpart: I agree with Primefac that those pages wouldn't make good stand-alone articles, at least not in their current shape. They're mere tables of statistical data without interpretation or context - on their own they'd be fall under the WP:NOTSTATSBOOK part of the guideline on what Wikipedia is not. If you think the list articles wouldn't make good targets for that information, maybe articles like Healthcare in Brazil would be more appropriate? Huon (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Huon: @Primefac: OK, understood. Yes, I believe that the information would be more suited to complement articles such as Healthcare in Brazil. If there is no objection, I propose to split the content of the original articles betwee the "List" articles mentioned by Primefac and the Healthcare in Brazil article mentioned by Huon. Look forward to your thoughts. Gcorpart (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Edward E. Boccia, Artist

HI, thank you for your review and guidance, i made the suggested changes and reference formatting. is it better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJHB (talk • contribs) 20:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for patrolling my page

Do you know how to make the table centered? Thanks Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 20:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Tetra quark, just add <center>...</center>, with the table in place of the ellipses. Primefac (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I tried that but it breaks the table. I think I know how to do it now, thanks. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 20:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

"Worklist"

I have a feeling this is not what you meant by starting a Worklist subtopic, or did you mean that once we pick a direction there, we can use a Worklist to keep track of which pages to put it on? Either way, we should keep going at WP:AST talk, though.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  14:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Tom, I suppose I was thinking more of the latter, since it means that we have a specific place to keep track of the workflow; we won't have to worry about that thread being archived. Primefac (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Martin (boxer) (2nd nomination)

Hi Primefac. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Martin (boxer), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Martin (boxer) (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Primefac Hello this is Psychetube Psychetube 12:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC) and thanks for commenting - how do I remove the top template it seems outside the normal editing procedures but you suggest there is an easy way. Also I have had my page messed round by someone calling themselves Afterwriting. Vexing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychetube (talk • contribs)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Stanford

Primefac Hello this is Psychetube Psychetube 12:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC) and thanks for commenting - how do I remove the top template it seems outside the normal editing procedures but you suggest there is an easy way. Also I have had my page messed round by someone calling themselves Afterwriting. Vexing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychetube (talk • contribs)

Psychetube, first off it appears that someone already removed the template. Second, it is not "your page," and anyone is allowed (and encouraged) to edit Wikipedia articles. As long as it is not vandalism, it is acceptable. Primefac (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks again for your help with clarifying the legal mumbo jumbo :). Ries42 (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate notification

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Woodroar (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

How to put titles of reference articles in Reference section

Hello:

Greetings.

I have been working for a few months to put together a Wiki page on noted human rights activist, educator and writer Dr. Partha Banerjee, and I believe I've come to a point where the page meets all the standards and rules, and hopefully, this time it will be approved by Wiki editors.

However, the last bit of help I need is with the Reference section. I have footnoted all the references in the main body of the page, but I'm not sure how to put the reference titles in the Reference section, and then link them with the links. Right now, the links are sitting there as is in the Reference section.

I hope I have been clear with my question. Please help me out.

Thank you so much for your kind help.

Page link at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Partha_Banerjee .

KamrinK (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

KamrinK, all that's needed is the {{reflist}} template. I've added it into the draft for you. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Question about notability

Hi there, how are you?

I have a question about the decline of my article about a well known Belgian punk rock band called F.O.D., based on "notability". I've looked at the notability guidelines and am wondering why you declined it. Could you eleborate? I've checked the article against the notability guidelines, and don't see the problem. Thanks in advance for your reply.

Here's how I checked the article against the various notability guidelines:

1. F.O.D. has had major press.
2. F.O.D. has released various albums. And various official band videos.
3. Punk rock bands like F.O.D. cannot get gold status. And yet Wikipedia is filled with punk rock band pages. Why not F.O.D. ?
4. F.O.D.'s music and albums have been reviewed many times, as my many references in the article show.
5. F.O.D.'s last album has been released on various labels, internationally. Again, punk rock bands don't sign to major labels.

I would appreciate if you considered these arguments. This is the fourth time I've improved the article, only for it to be declined. Every issue has been solved, by improving it. But notability for punk rock bands is a tough criterium.

Thanks, Arjan van Geel The Netherlands

PS: the article I'm talking about = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:F.O.D._%28band%29

Arjanvangeel, looking at WP:MUSICBIO, the only criteria F.O.D. even comes close to meeting is #1, and it (currently) fails because there are not enough independent reliable sources. Blogs are not reliable, and sites such as the record label are not independent. I know that demonstrating notability for small groups (be they punk, goth, emo, etc) can be difficult, but I think you've just about done it. A few more reliable sources and your article should be accepted. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

PrimefacThank you for your quick reply! I've asked the band if they can help with some additional external/reliable sources (tv shows, radio stations, etc.). Thanks again.Arjanvangeel 21:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Primefac, hello again. I don't know if this is the way to communicate with you (sorry if it is not), but I've added various extra external srouces to the article, to increase notability. Are you the one reviewing the updated article? Let me know if this works. Thanks again for your time and cheers from the Netherlands. Arjanvangeel 11:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Please re-check

Primefac

@Primefac:

Hi, you declined one of my entries. I discussed with another reviewer and went to the live help chat, and they told me how to fix it.

Could you please look at the page again when you get a chance? I removed the lines that made the article seem promotional.

The page is at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gabriel_Campisi.

Thank you very much for taking the time to help me. I sincerely appreciate it.

AllenGentryallen (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Primefac:

Hi, again. I went ahead and got all the exact information from several sources, newspapers, magazines, and added the exact dates, times, even pages to the submission.

Please let me know if this will work, or if I need to get more information. Thank you again for all of your help. I sincerely appreciate it.

AllenGentryallen (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Kapampangan Ku Pagmaragul Ku (KKPK) International Inc.

Good day Sir;

I would like to request to review my article.so i know if i need to get more information

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kapampangan_Ku_Pagmaragul_Ku_(KKPK)_International_Inc.

thanks and best regards

Kapampangan Ku Pagmaragul Ku (KKPK) International Inc. (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Good day Sir;

I would like to request to review my article.so i know if i need to get more information

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kapampangan_Ku_Pagmaragul_Ku_(KKPK)_International_Inc.

thanks and best regards

Kapampangan Ku Pagmaragul Ku (KKPK) International Inc. (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

20:13:47, 16 January 2015 review of submission by Sgopikumar

• Sgopikumar (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sairam Sagiraju (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I have cited 3 newspaper articles for the writeup that I've submitted. Not sure which parts didn't meet your requirements. Please help.

Sgopikumar (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Sgopikumar, biographies of living persons (WP:BLP|) require a heavy amount of references in order to make sure everything is factually accurate. Much of the information in your draft (such as his college attendance, the government films he's directed, etc) is unsourced, so how can anyone check to see if it's true? Primefac (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

AWB Violation/ Capitalize the "U" in "universe" or not?

== Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. ==

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

rv

I removed someone's post because it was added after the discussion was archived. Please revert your own edit. Let's simply stop that. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 19:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Tetra quark, I would argue that the discussion was not finished, but I agree that Ariane started making it personal. However, you should not have removed their posts as they were not entirely defamatory. Primefac (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine, leave it there. But do you mind to archive it now? I've had enough of all that discussion because of one single member.

Although I'm younger than most of other editors (I'm 19) and my first language isn't english, I consider myself a mature and comprehensible person when it comes to wikipedia editing. However, just like everybody else, I have my flaws. I totally lose posture when dealing with persistent, childish users. I have this bad habit of lowering myself to their level. You gotta agree that arianewiki is being annoying and insistent, when he is pretty mych the only one against the changes. I really hate to get into fights Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 19:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Tetra quark, I honestly do not think that discussion needs to be archived. Discussion archival is for mergers and move proposals and deletion discussions, not the talk page of a WikiProject. Primefac (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine then. I just hope you understand me. One person can't try to make everyone else bow to his opinion Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 19:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Tetra quark, I completely do. I think the problem with this particular circumstance is that you didn't hold to the standard operating procedure of Wikipedia, which is to give any discussion at least three days, if not a week, so that all interested can participate. I know you're super-keen on helping out (and that makes me happy), but as they say, there is no deadline, and that enthusiasm obviously rubbed some people the wrong way. Primefac (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

WARNING: :Tetra quark This issue is under WP:DRN, and it unfair and improper to escalate disputes like this. Drumming up support like this against another user, made worse but doing it in Primefac page. If individuals have an issue, take it up with an administrator not me. As for your improper use of archievetop, it has already been referred to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Clearly you used it to provoke me, by trying it while I was actually writing my response. You made the changes mid-discussion clearly avoid proper scrutiny.

Also, please stop accusing me of "when he is pretty mych the only one against the changes.", is a deliberate falsehood. The issue is abusing AWB and not allowing for consensus.

Please let the procedures follow its natural machinations, else your words will send up end up being used against you.

(Apologies to Primefac to have to state this here.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, this is absolute deliberate falsehood saying Tetra quark: "One person can't try to make everyone else bow to his opinion." Withdraw it or this will escalate even further. Arianewiki1 (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Arianewiki1, you seem to be taking this a little far. Reporting to DRN/ANI is fine, but making a report at RfD for an issue that is entirely outside of their jurisdiction just makes you look bad. Take a minute, calm down, and then let's all deal with this like mature individuals.

Additionally, Tetra and I were simply discussing what had transpired, and until you entered the conversation I felt things were calm and rational. Primefac (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually the truth is this. He claims, "One person can't try to make everyone else bow to his opinion.", but the truth is, he didn't allow my (or others) opinion, because he changed it anyway with out allowing time too even give an opinion. As for the procedures, I have followed it perfectly, and have stated in a balanced case.

As for the RfD , it was he had closed the discussion to avoid scrutiny, likely to trap me in a edit war. Also treating people like they are not in the room is plainly rude. Really, if you were "simply discussing what had transpired", then talk truthfully, and not full of rhetoric and false statement! Arianewiki1 (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Arianewiki1, RfD is for deleted pages, not content disputes on Talk pages. It specifically says that at the top of the RfD page. As for the remainder of your comment, I have read over my statements from earlier and I do not mention you vaguely (rather, I do so directly by name). Everything after that was simply a discussion about policy. Primefac (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Primefac. This guy needs to chill out a little and stop writing those long angry messages Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 20:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Tetra quark, you need to stop poking the bear ;) Primefac (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Haha correct. That's a really bad habit I have and I'm trying to get rid of it

Regarding your reply above, I agree that yes: Maaybe I should have waited a little longer. The thing is that it seemed to be a pretty simple change to me. I'm a fairly new member afterall, so sooner or later I'll get the gist of this place Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 20:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Tetra quark, I know, and that might be why it seems like we're being overly hard on you. But everyone makes mistakes (including me), but if you're learning from them that's more important in the long run. Primefac (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

One thing I've learned here is you can get consensus in under 16 hours, and everyone thinks that's perfectly AOK. It was also a brilliant trick to get me to try and edit the difficult Metallicity page, distracting me from the true game. (I'll make my severe changes on this page now, because on the Talk:Metallicity about "Any disagreement in doing this?" at 09:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC) (3 days ago). No disagreement, so I'm free to change it as I want!. Thanks, guys!

But what cheese me off is this statement by Tetra quark in reply to Primefac, saying "And no, I'm not changing anything inside quotes, file links, templates, refs, link targets, and so on. I really may have capitalized the word "sun" inside a quote accidentally." at 04:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC). Yet this was after the whole change was done and dusted. My reply, the next one, was thinking this was still open to debate. Oh silly me.

Yet to finish, Primefac, says; "Second, @Tetra quark:, you waited a grand total of 20 hours before deciding that consensus was raised; we're one of the more active WikiProjects, but seriously, give us some time to discuss!" But that is now all AOK, breaking the guiding rules, but that principle does apply to some. So, deception is OK, now? Pity. Arianewiki1 (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Arianewiki1, you've lost the high ground. The sarcasm isn't warranted (or necessary, since you know what you're saying is false), so unless you have something constructive to add to this particular discussion kindly refrain from posting further. Primefac (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Raphael RJ2

Thank you for reviewing the page "Draft:Raphael RJ2" I need help in the creation of that page and since you declined it maybe you can help me fix mistakes. You wrote "After deleting a dozen references that had absolutely nothing to do with RJ2, the only sources left refer to Lil Wayne's record. Thus, there is no notability established for RJ2 himself." The sources you erased you said had nothing to do with Raphael RJ2, yet they mentioned Raphael RJ2's works and are reliable sources I see wikipedia use all the time and they had his name mentioned in there and has his Credited Works mentioned also. You erased the sources that you thought were irrelevant yet left the sources that were relevant. With that being said, That means you see he is who he is so why not Approve the page and just erase all the mistakes you see because me and the other contributes need help because we don't understand what you need when we've gotten reliable sources that have the same info already approved on wikipedia saying the same thing about Raphael RJ2 . All the sources I had were Raphael RJ2's work that he did. Also His Facebook is Verifde, most the links I got were from Raphael RJ2 directing us himself to them. Me & a couple of other contributors just thought Raphael RJ2 needed his own wikipedia page. ( I see other Artist and music producers with the same type of sources that Raphael RJ2 has yet they were approved and the artistcals didn't mention their names only their works, so I'm confused as to why Raphael RJ2's page is not approved.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.4.218 (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

While I normally wouldn't do a point-by-point reasoning for my edits, this time I'll make an exception since it was a rather large volume of removals.

1. http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/raphaelrj24 & the iTunes pages - sites where you can buy things are not allowed as references, as they are promotional.
2. Sites where RJ2 is not even mentioned (these are the "he worked with X" references)
   1. http://www.hotnewhiphop.com/fiend-on-my-job-feat-juvenile-snoop-dogg-new-song.1951808.html
   2. http://www.hotnewhiphop.com/fiend-wonderful-song.963040.html
   3. http://www.ea.com/news/reknown-artists-partner-with-ea-on-the-sims
   4. http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.23473/title.meek-mill-signed-lil-snupe-moments-after-hearing-demo
   5. http://www.mtv.com/news/1709386/lil-snupe-dead-shooting-details/ (Snupe's death has nothing to do with RJ2, and shouldn't be included)
   6. http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/teen-rapper-lil-snupe-killed-north-la-19450867#.UcPF_vlQH54 (dead link)
3. A generic link to a website (http://www.cmonsontv.com/)
4. Facebook photos. The only semi-valid one is the news article, but that should be sourced as news, not linked as a photograph.

To be completely honest, I should have removed the Lil Wayne references (half are dead links anyway) but they deal directly with Beats How U Want Em section so I left them in. At the end of the day, RJ2 needs to be referenced by independent reliable sources that talk about him in order to demonstrate notability. References that only mention him (called "name-drops") are perfectly acceptable sources for verifying facts (such as "RJ2 produced XYZ album for ABC artist") but do nothing towards the notability criteria. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

AfD

Small point of order, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Dr. Wooday P Krishna should have been closed as speedy keep under criterion 1 instead of regular keep. No biggie but if you're going to do NACs you should close them properly. Deadbeef 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Deadbeef, thank you, when I closed it I selected the Speedy option but for some reason it did not save properly. Not sure, but it might have had something to do with the mid-AfD move of the original page. Primefac (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Huh, that's weird. I've never had the speedy box unchecked for me, but I've also never closed a moved AfD target. Nevermind then! Deadbeef 23:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

AFD

[Redacted sock comments]

TheSawTooth, your comments have been re-added and Occult has been warned not to remove them again. Primefac (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments]

Draft:Stochastic Empirical Loading and Dilution Model

Greetings Primefac:

I am writing because you did reject my draft "Stochastic Empirical Loading and Dilution Model" (SELDM) Your reason for rejection "Copyright violation" is in error.

I am the author of the SELDM model (please see http://webdmamrl.er.usgs.gov/g1/fhwa/SELDM.htm), which I wrote as a USGS Government Scientist. According to United States Copyright law (http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml):

"A United States government work is prepared by an officer or employee of the United States government as part of that person's official duties. It is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work.

Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws:

reproduce the work in print or digital form; create derivative works; perform the work publicly; display the work; distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending." So, as author of the original works, I am not plagiarizing myself and as a US Government Scientist I am following US Copyright law.

I was asked to create a Wikipedia page to be similar to the US EPA stormwater model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Water_Management_Model

I started editing a few articles last year and I hope to contribute to many hydrology & stormwater Wikipedia pages, so my intentions are good.

The subject page is completely factual and has many references to published scientific reports and journal articles, which are the source of the information. I also cross-linked to other wikipedia pages to help potential readers find information. I hope to add graphics and more information as time allows.

Thank you for (hopefully) reconsidering your rejection in light of this information GEGranato (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)GEGranato (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

GEGranato, thanks for the heads up, I forgot about the acceptability to copy from the US gov't. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article; I know there are many in queue and the editors are busyGEGranato (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

PROD/CSD

It doesn't take admin to decline a WP:CSD. If it has been declined, that means you cannot use the tag again. What you are doing is, you are already using an incorrect tag. Try AfD is you actually want to discuss its deletion. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone, I misinterpreted the CSD removal rules. My mistake. Primefac (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Transformer Utilization factor AfC

I recently accepted an AfC submission that you had previously declined. While the article is just a stub with just a definition at the present time, it still constitutes a topic that is larger than a simple definition. If you feel that I'm mistaken I would not object if you take it to AfD or propose a merge to Rectifier. Happy editing! Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The Brass Action

Hi there, I am trying to put together an article on The Brass Action, a musical act featured in the film HORNS. It was approved yesterday, but taken down today due to issues with the citations.

I have added a number of citations including IMDB Cast listing, IMDB Sountrack listing and ITUNES soundtrack listings.

Please let me know if the article is now up to standard, and what I need to do to get the page back online.

Thank you so much for your help!

RichieeihciR (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

RichieeihciR, IMDb and iTunes are not valid sources. Please see the page on WP:reliable sources. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Primefac, Thanks again for the input. I have included an additional publication discussing their role in the film (the georgia straight; prominent independent news paper in the Vancouver area), a soundtrack news site entitled: "Film Music Daily" and linked directly to the record company's website (link goes right to the album tracklist on their site). I believe these references should be up to par with the requirements. Do you mind taking another look? Thanks! RichieeihciR (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

17:57:21, 22 January 2015 review of submission by RJHB

• RJHB (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Edward E. Boccia, Artist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Genevieve Porter 17:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, can you give me an update on this? I am little confused about whether this has been declined again or it the page just shows the first decline. I did try to edit according to your comments. Thank you in advance for any help or assistance you can provide. RJHB.