User talk:Alpha Quadrant/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14

Please take the Wikipedia Ambassador Program survey

Hi Ambassador,

We are at a pivotal point in the development of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. Your feedback will help shape the program and role of Ambassadors in the future. Please take this 10 minute survey to help inform and improve the Wikipedia Ambassadors.

WMF will de-identify results and make them available to you. According to KwikSurveys' privacy policy: "Data and email addresses will not be sold, rented, leased or disclosed to 3rd parties." This link takes you to the online survey: http://kwiksurveys.com?u=WPAmbassador_talk

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments, Thank You!

Amy Roth (Research Analyst, Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Palladium

Hi, you removed a reference from the article palladium. This leaves this fact without credible source. This will be a problem in the GAN process. If there is no credible source except a blacklisted source (I can not see if it is not credible or only used as spam in wikipedia) than this fact has to be removed. --Stone (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry more clearly: Removing incredible sources without deleting or hiding the material in question does nothing good to wikipedia. Sorry.--Stone (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I could not save the page without first removing the source. The spam filter said the reference was blacklisted and refused to let me save the page until I removed the reference. As for the reference itself, it is dead, as it redirects to the root url. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

OK! I had the same problem making the spam filter a very unpleasant experience. Removing the whole sentence or put it into hiding would be the best alternative. Palladium is a article with a lot of chemists watching it with the special point that during GAN process even more watch.--Stone (talk) 06:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

That Springs article

Might be a copyvio...or not...not sure, but take a look at this website, looks awfully similar to the WP article. What a mess, I've been doing some research, lots of hard feelings on both sides.Shearonink (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review; Early close and Interpretation of arguments in debate

Hi. You may have already understood my prior post as an invitation to take a second look at your close in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stary Olsa. But I couldn't tell for certain from your edit summary in your deletion of my post whether I had expressed my concerns clearly enough. My concern about your close was in part that it was an early close, which is what you refer to. But it was also a concern as to the proper application of our guidelines and proper interpretation of the arguments made in the debate. I would urge a re-opening of the AfD debate by you, and closure by an uninvolved admin. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The keep votes were poorly written, however policy is cited.

• The first keep !vote argues the band meets WP:MUSIC Criterion 5.
• The second keep !vote argues the band meets WP:MUSIC Criterion 4 and 7.
• The third keep !vote argues the band meets WP:MUSIC Criterion 4, 5, and 7.
• The fourth keep !vote argues the band meets WP:MUSIC Criterion 1, but also argues WP:GHITS, with is a poor arguement.

Though the policies are not directly linked in the debate, they are referenced. Their arguments would be stronger had they provided links, however, because it is a Belarusian band English, or possibly even online sources would be hard to find. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• I think you either misread the keep !votes, or misread WP:MUSIC. Because your close was not only early, but based on the below mis-readings, I would urge you to re-list it and allow a previously uninvolved admin to close it.

1. The first keep !vote did not argue that the band meets WP:MUSIC Criterion 5. That Criterion requires that the band have released at least two albums "on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of whom are notable)." The comment did not aver that such was the case. Nor is there any support in the article for such a view. In fact, the commentator suggests that we ignore all rules -- a tacit admission that the article would not be kept under our notability rules.
2. The second keep !vote does not provide any RS support for an argument that the band meets WP:MUSIC Criterion 4 and 7; Nor is there any such RS support in the article itself. Criterion 4 requires a demonstration through RSs that the band has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. Criterion 7 requires a demonstration through RSs that the band "has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability". The only thing that the second keep !vote did was offer a completely unsourced personal belief that the band "is probably one of the most successful modern Belarusian bands", and that they tour in a number of countries.
3. The third keep !vote does not provide any RS support for an argument that the band meets WP:MUSIC Criterion 4 and 7 (discussed above); Nor is there any such RS support in the article itself. Nor 5 -- for the same reasons that the first !vote does not invoke #5. All it says is that the band "is well-known, frequently tours, released many albums,and is the most successful band playing Belarusian Ethnic/Folk music" -- all without supplying any RS support, or pointing to any RS support in the article.
4. The fourth keep !vote does not provide any RS support for an argument that the band meets WP:MUSIC Criterion 1, or point to it in the article. Rather, it points to non-RS "support", which is not sufficient, such as videos on Youtube (and, as you point out, makes a deprecated "ghits" argument). Criterion 1 requires that the band have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.

In short, none of the !voters gave any arguments that were supported by multiple verifiable non-trivial RS coverage, independent of the band. The "arguments" consisted of: a) "let's ignore the wp notability rule that is used to determine notability"; and b) "let me just make a blanket statement, unsupported by RSs, and see if the closer accepts it as a verifiable RS-supported argument".

I'm sure that your close was made completely in good faith. But for the above reasons, would urge a relisting and a close by a previously uninvolved admin. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

check it out

check out my talk page!--A.a.p.cool (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Categories creation

Will the articles or subcategories suggested be edited automatically by a bot.., to add them to the new category? 218.250.143.16 (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My editor review

Thanks very much Alpha Quadrant, I intend to brush up my knowledge of CSD before undertaking further New page patrolling. My work at RM has been mainly to evaluate consensus, this I have done and a lot of them were quite controversial or attracted lots of scrutiny. I'd be honoured to accept a nomination sometime in the future :) Again my thanks, —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 6:02pm • 08:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem, it was my pleasure performing the review. Best, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 13:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Alpha Quadrant, I contribute in the english wikipedia and in the spanish edition, where I've seen you had started contributing, I left you a welcome message, and hope you have good times in there too. If you have any doubt respecting the spanish wikipedia don't doubt leaving me a message in my talk, in there or in this proyect. Welcome again to Spanish Wikipedia--Lcsrns (Talk) 04:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Lcsrns, thanks for the welcome on the Spanish Wikipedia and for the offer to answer any questions I might have regarding it. Currently I just have one question, I couldn't find where the user waning/welcome templates are located, as they are not in interwiki link. I have seen them used, but I don't know what they are. Thanks for your help. Best, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 04:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

For welcome, we only have {{Subst:Bienvenida}} or {{Subst:Bienvenida a ip}} for welcoming ip. In the case of warnings we have millions I recomend you to install Fast Buttons (go to "Preferencias), It has some warnings templates, you also have twinkle that has some other warnings, you can choose the one you want, I have both of them but usually use "Fast Buttons". Hope to have help you--Lcsrns (Talk) 04:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Other thing: In the spanish, we also have {{Talkback}}(I see you use it), but it is not commonly used. Cheers--Lcsrns (Talk) 04:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that answers my question. Thanks for the help. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 04:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

And another...thing, I went to the simple (where I also are) and saw you are also there!!!. --Lcsrns (Talk) 04:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Heh, yes, I am semi-active on Simple, though I have less than 200 edits there. The English Wikipedia is where I do most of my editing, but I am trying to get more active on more projects. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 04:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I've seen you have follow my recomendetion and started using Fast Buttons. Cheers--Lcsrns (Talk) 19:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Article Submission

Hi Alpha,

My article has been again rejected for the same "references" reason. I've provided 8 "references" as some from the Wiki itsleft, or radio media organisation. If it is not enough, please let me know what is missing in order to be published.

My friends didn't face problems as i do to raise their page, without any references.....

Thanks a lot. Regards

Stephane — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephHibou (talk • contribs) 06:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello StephHibou, the Articles for Creation good quality articles. Although it is not the only way to create articles, articles created through Articles for Creation are much less likely to be nominated for deletion because they have already been evaluated, and any potential issues are addressed before creation. There are just a few issues with your article before it can be accepted.

1. There are several incomplete sentences throughout the article. Many of the paragraphs begin with an incomplete sentence.
2. External links should not be in the body of the article, unless they are used in citations
3. The main reason the article was declined was because the references are not reliable. References need to be published by a reputable publishing organization such as a newspaper, magazine, or book publisher (i.e. The New York Times). It is important to note that blogs and official websites are not considered reliable sources. Identifying reliable sources outlines specifically what is, and is not reliable. If you have any other questions, or need any help I would be happy to assist. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 14:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alpha, Thanks a lot for your tips, i have done the following:

1. Rebuild some incomplete sentences
2. External links are not showing up in the references group
3. I've digged the links to find Radio, Newpapers or official organisations to validate the sources.

If it is still not enough, please let me know another way to publish an article. I'll be extremly glad to hear a positive answer! Thank you. Stephane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephHibou (talk • contribs) 12:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello there, can you please update me about the status of the article? Thank you. StephHibou

Ok, the article is better, but there are two things that need to be fixed.

1. Facebook, myspace, and official websites are primary sources, articles should use reliable third party sources.
2. The French Wikipedia cannot be used as a source because that would be circular reasoning.
3. You fixed the incomplete sentences, but the body of the article appears to be mainly composed of lists. Could you please expand them using prose?

After these issues are fixed, the article will be accepted. Best, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alpha, couple of words to share my hapiness, so glad to hear about my article, has been accepted and published. Many thanks for all, and have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephHibou (talk • contribs) 07:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Anti-vandal help and AfC adoptee request

Interested in adoption, I am keen to offer anti-vandalism help, but need more experience right now. Geoffjw1978 (talk) 07:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I would be happy to adopt you and teach you about Articles for Creation. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 14:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks v much, I have a draft article ready for AfC, but I do not want to bother promoting it to main space just yet. I'd like it reviewed first by several people so it does not become unreadably covered in the "citation needed", "merge proposal" or, heaven forbid, "deletion candidate" type tags. If there are any sentences which require work, please edit them directly / put in comments or paste the sentence into this "Discussion" tab. If you could give it the once over, I'd appreciate that. >> Here << is the article draft. Geoffjw1978 (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the main issue with the article is that it is fairly essaylike. There is a clear introduction and a thesis statement, as well as supporting paragraphs, and a conclusion. The article also contains personal opinions. When writing a paper this style is appropriate, but when writing an encyclopedia entry it is a bit different. Usually Wikipedia entries have a lead section that summarizes the entire article in 2 - 5 paragraphs. The body of the encyclopedia entry you are writing is organized correctly, but there I noticed there are quite a few opinion. For example "It is safe to say that these relationship skills have a literary history since writing began." is a personal view, not a fact. It is possible for others to disagree with it. Wikipedia articles should not contain personal opinions unless the source is specifically mentioned to hold that opinion. For example, if you have a reliable source stating an opinion about an actor, you could write as "According to _____ so and so performed well in some movie". The last thing I noticed was that some sections are comprised entirely of quotations. Quotations are good for supporting a section, but should not be used exclusively. I hope this feedback helps you. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive and considered feedback, I agree with your analysis. As my first article I am aware that most sentences need to be honed towards wikipedia standards individually. You are saying that the lead section should actually summarise all elements of the whole article. Geoffjw1978 (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

As requested, the lead section now summarises the whole article, the personal opinion identified has been corrected. I'd really appreciate a re-review, See a guide to the personal opinions in the article here Geoffjw1978 ^{T L C} 22:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It is better, however you need to make it clear that the opinions in the article are opinions and explain who holds these opinions. The article also contains original research. For example,

“ All relationships have difficulties; but the difference between those who succeed and those who don't is how they cope with those difficulties. ”

this sentence is contains opinions and does not cite a source or explain who holds this opinion. I hope this helps you, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for having another look. For that particular sentence it is one of the tenets of the Relate organisation. I can deal with it by having several direct cite-book refs after the sentence, but - for your information - my usual way of citing these in the article is to provide a ⁽ⁿⁿ⁾ round brace link at the END of the paragraph, this links to both the quote from the source passage and also a complete page-ref citation. The (round-brace) links are primarily to assist reviewers and could be removed when the article is moved to main-space, if that is the consensus. It is important to me that these things are caught before prime-time. I want to avoid a deluge of "citation required" graffiti in main-space. Look out for the (round-brace) links, as they are a bit "special"; part of a village-pump proposal I am working on. Thanks again for your help Geoffjw1978 ^{T L C} 22:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Your help has been most instructive and I am extremely grateful for the time you have spent picking over my musings. I have weighed up the dichotomies of policies between opinion against contrary forces precluding nomination of sources. I have balanced all, brought all to mind, and while the sum of human knowledge drove to this tumult in the Wiki-sphere, this lonely impulse won't be submitted to AfC. All that remains of this waste of breath are sincere apologies to Yeats. I foresee a final farewell to this article. Geoffjw1978 ^{T L C} 22:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

_{Thread closed. Comments ready for archive Geoffjw1978 ^{T L C} 22:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)}

Eric Matheny - references

Hi - I was just looking at this for a possible DYK, and noticed a few problems with the refs. I've dropped a note on the article's talk page; a bit too busy to try and find alternative refs myself for this. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. The references were fine when I accepted it. Perhaps the submitter added to it. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 14:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Article for Creation - "Cynthia Holz"

Hi Alpha,

I was wondering if you could help me with the article that I'm trying to create, "Cynthia Holz." It has been twice rejected owing to reference issues. Her biographical information is most easily found on her publisher's page (http://www.randomhouse.ca) and her page at the Writer's Union of Canada (http://www.writersunion.ca). I believe both of these to be reputable sources. She has had her novels reviewed in several major Canadian publications, including both national newspapers (The Globe and Mail, e.g. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/books/benevolence-by-cynthia-holz/article2030120/ and The National Post, e.g. http://arts.nationalpost.com/2011/04/01/book-review-benevolence-by-cynthia-holz/). The issue is that these reviews do not contain her biographical info, so I can't use them as references for the main part of the Wikipedia entry. Any help getting this article fixed up would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you! Pgrouchy (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, one more thing. The first rejection, I'm assuming, was owing to the reference to the subject's personal webpage (http://www.cynthiaholz.com). However, looking through Wikipedia's criteria for biographies of living persons, this should have been acceptable. Can you please clarify this? Could you maybe clarify where exactly the issues are?

Thanks again. Pgrouchy (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the article is that with the current sourcing, is that it needs to have sources independent of the subject. Because she works for (http://www.randomhouse.ca) this source is not independent of the subject and is therefore a primary source. Because this is a biography of a living person, primary or self published sources (such as an official website and the Writer's Union of Canada sources) cannot be used for biographical information. (See WP:BLPPRIMARY) However, this source is reliable, and independent of the subject, but it does not cover all of the information in the biography. I did a Google search on her, and it appears her books have received quite a bit of coverage. This may help you find some sources for the biography section. Sources do not have to be online, you can use offline newspaper articles or magazines. Template:Cite news is a good way to cite offline news sources. I hope that answers your question. If you have any other questions please don't hesitate to ask. I would be happy to help. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Great, this does indeed answer my questions. I will re-work the page and re-submit. Thank you for your help! Pgrouchy (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to stop by and thank you again. The article is definitely better after the extra work. Pgrouchy (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Article review

Hi Alhpa Quadrant I am trying to publish my first article. Still waiting for review. As soon as it is reviewed I will enter much more detail and will send to review again. I am still confused that should I invite people to review it, or there is a group of people who reviews intially created documents. Could you tell me the best way to proceed quickly. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhsin ba (talk • contribs) 09:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Muhsin ba, the best way to get a review for your article is to submit your article to articles for creation using the article wizard. If you need any help I would be more than happy to assist. Best, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for your review of DataRush Technology page

Alpha Quadrant, I would apppreciate your review of the DataRush Technology page I'm editing. An earlier request from Wikipedia requested it be re-edited to be more neutral and to remove the appearance of advertising. If you agree I've met requirements, can the "Advertising" label be removed at the top of the page. If not, please help me understand what I need to do to reach neutral presentation. Thank you for your assistance. User: Glennmad1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glennmad1 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is rather well written. However, it is rather technical, average readers wouldn't understand some of the terms used. For example, the average reader might have difficulty understanding this sentence: "The architecture implements a program that executes as a graph of computation nodes interconnected by dataflow queues." You might consider rewording some of the sentences, or linking words to relevant Wikipedia articles. The other thing you might consider doing is adding more Inline citations to make sourcing more clear. The last thing I would suggest would be to fill out and add a Infobox to the top of the article. As this is a company I would suggest using Template:Infobox company (see the template documentation for usage instructions). Overall though, the article is well written. Best wishes, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Editor review

Hi. You might find this helpful. You can also leave a note on its talk page if you think it can be improved. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding article Gary Cox

Hi Alpha Quadrant,

Surely, Gary Cox is notable. He has published six books in five years with an internationally respected publisher. One or two of them are bestsellers (by philosophy standards), his "Sartre Dictionary" is an important contribution to Sartre studies and his ideas are inceasingly influential. He has been widely featured and reviewed. There are lots of references to him on Google etc. Surely he is at least as notable as some persons who are featured on Wiki - such as Gary Cox the Galic footballer or other contemporary 'pop philosophers'. Will you reconsider your decision or provide more specific feedback? Is your decision final? Thanks very much, jacklondon2030 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacklondon2030 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Contents of the Voyager Golden Record

Hello Alpha Quadrant,

I'm not sure why you reverted this edit. It is not vandalism. Regards, Korg (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

hmm, you're right. At a glance it looked like gibberish, but it it actually Welsh. I have reverted my edit. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

AutoEd and removal of bare URLs

Error This edit did not remove bare URLs from sources, so I re-added {{Barelinks}}. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No, that was not an error. I removed {{barelinks}} because the only bare url is reference #78, and it is a dead link. The {{barelinks}} template is for references that are not dead, whereas the {{dead link}} template is for dead links. Best, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Samuel J. Meisels

Greetings! I saw that you reviewed the above-referenced AFC submission and declined based on a lack of reliable, third-party sources. While I certainly agree that the article has an enormous amount of first-party sourcing, the first source supplied (the Encyclopedia of Applied Developmental Science) appeared to me to represent very substantial, biographical coverage of the article's subject in a reliable, third-party source. The Kirp book also covers the subject's research in detail. I'm only posting this here because I had previously tried to work with the individual attempting to craft this article and had expressed optimism that these sources would suffice at least insofar as getting the article approved. Although I suspect some of the article sections on his work are overly sourced directly to his work and might flirt with WP:NPOV violations, there do appear to me to be at least two examples of third-party, reliable sourcing included in the article, one of which is extensively biographical in nature. What are your thoughts? Is there a reason that I am missing that the EADS and the Kirp book do not constitute reliable sources? Best, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 03:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean, sources 1, 2, 26, and 27 are not written by the topic. The problem is, almost all of them are first party. Like you said, the article has a bit of WP:NPOV issues, but it also has external links in the body of the article. I am concerned that if it is accepted, that it will go to AfD because of the majority of the sources being primary, and the neutral point of view issues. AfC is meant to address these kinds of issues so that accepted articles are not deleted. If you feel the article is ready for mainspace, please feel free to overturn my decline. Best wishes, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 03:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

No intention to overturn, just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something about those sources. I'll work with the article's author to address the concerns you raise above, all of which are entirely valid. I'm actually quite new to AfC, so I'm learning as I go along, and your points above are very well-taken. Thanks for the helpful response! Best, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 03:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Thanks for pointing out that the article did in fact have four independent sources. Also, welcome to Articles for Creation, we could always use more reviewers and I am glad you joined. Best wishes, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 04:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Retirement notice

A user that you might know, Crazymonkey1123, has opened a discussion on his talk page regarding his possibility of retiring from Wikipedia. You are welcome to go and participate in the discussion. Crazymonkey1123 public (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Alpha Quadrant. You have new messages at Crazymonkey1123's talk page.
Message added 23:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Crazymonkey1123 public (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Your Message

• I received your instructions. Thank you for your guidance. Jccort (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

New consensus emerging at this thread

Talk:Electromagnetic radiation and health/Archive 1#Further proposals for renaming the article

Looks like we are settling towards something...maybe it is premature for me to put resolved to it even though it ays as far as i am concerned so line it out if you want otherwise i am 100% happy to go along with what they are proposing. If you would like, please talkback on my talk page if you don't mind and BTW i really appreciate a nice calming peaceful edit message which is even better than mine own...much better than some of the edit messages which are quite put offish...keep it up. Oh - I am not sweating about this side issue thread, one bit. A shame I had to take such personal negative remarks over such a minor issue, but that comes with the turf.Bard गीता 06:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear that there is consensus for the move. Would you like me to perform the move, or would you rather submit the request to Requested moves? Also, thank you, I am glad you like my edit notice. Best wishes, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes I was already thinking about using a graphic and something from nature, peaceful and contemplative. I wonder who the photographer and the location your photo selection is most admirable. I have had the privilege of interacting with one of the real workhorse disambiguation old hand admins and with that inspiration am pretty revved up to do some more disambiguation work so if you care to perform the move it would be my privilege to work up some appropriate disambiguation content for the old spot...strike while the iron is hot because what we have enthusiasm for one day will a short while thereafter seem like a chore and a burden...Here is some work recently completed, maybe there are some errors but overall probably pretty helpful...Bard गीता 01:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Afc decline @ Saboteur 2

Can you please look at Afc Saboteur 2 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Saboteur_2 which you declined. There are five references, including the publisher and independent review or trader websites. There is also a photograph of the game on the article. It is better referenced than the article for the game's prequel which has existed unmolested. I don't know what more is expected in terms of references, when comparable articles are less well-referenced. For examples, see

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THE_aMAZEing_LABYRINTH
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screwball_Scramble
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dingbats

Yes, those articles do not have reliable third party sources, but they should. It occasionally takes years before other editors notice that an article only has primary sources. The articles for creation process is designed to help new editors create good quality articles that are properly sourced and formatted. This decreases the chance of the article being deleted. Can you please add at least one reliable third party source. Thank you, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

But I do not know what is considered a reliable source. The examples on that page do not cover games. I would have thought the BoardGameGeek website was considered reliable (its Wikipedia article states "BoardGameGeek was the recipient of the 2010 Diana Jones Award for Excellence in Gaming, which recognized it as 'a resource without peer for board and card gamers, the recognized authority of this online community.'"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alun009 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean. The BoardGamegeek source appears to be reputable, as well as winning multiple awards. I will accept the submission. Best, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 17:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Mooney Safety Foundation

Thank you for your feedback. This is my first attempt at submitting an article, so I need all the help I can get. I think I now understand what you mean about neutral point of view. As such, I reviewed the entire article again and made the following changes:

The Mooney (MAPA) Safety Foundation Removed: “The Mooney Safety Foundation is comprised of a group of instructors with a deep passion for Mooney aircraft and dedicated to improving aviation safety.”

Pilot Proficiency Program (PPP) Removed: “The Safety Foundation's PPPs focus on the skills that allow pilots to fly safely and with confidence.”

Flight Instruction: Changed: “The PPP flight instruction is conducted by Mooney-specific flight instructors. The instructors are CFII and are highly skilled in the operations of the Mooney Aircraft” to: “The PPP flight instruction is conducted by Mooney-specific instructors who have CFII or Master CFII ratings and who own or have owned Mooney aircraft.”

Changed: “The flight instruction enrichens the pilot’s understandings of the aircraft’s abilities and takes him or her through all the phases of flight including simulated emergencies. The pilots will fly the entire flight envelope to enhance his or her proficiency. The instrument proficiency is done either in simulated conditions or in actual Instrument Meteorological Conditions (weather dependent).”

to: “The intent of the flight instruction is to enrich the pilot’s understanding of the aircraft’s abilities through all phases of flight including simulated emergencies.  The pilots will fly the entire flight envelope to enhance his or her proficiency.  Instrument proficiency is conducted either in simulated conditions or in actual instrument meteorological conditions (weather dependent)."

The closest article I've found to this is the Wikipedia article "Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association"; so I've been using this as a model. If you have other suggestions to make the Mooney Safety Foundation article better, I'd really appreciate your input!

201pilot (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Your article looks fine now, I reworded a few sentences, removed the goals section and two other lists. I believe the article is ready to be moved (accepted) now. I will move it to mainspace. Keep up the good work, I hope you enjoyed writing the article. Best wishes, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 03:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Alpha Quadrant! I appreciate the help! I still have lots to learn! 201pilot (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

About Category:Films about virginity...

I posted Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects#Category request: Category:Films about virginity using the category creation wizard on 6/8/11 and on 6/11/11 the request was declined. I was wondering if the request could be reconsidered (I'll explain why in a sec), or if it would be inappropriate for me to create it myself (via my seldom-used account).

Now of course any request posted on the page may be declined, and no one posts a request on that page without at least some hope of redirect or category creation in the first place. I made the request hoping it would come about, but also wanted the convenience of the page with its accompanying wizard, and the blessing of more experienced wikipedians by creating the category via official channels and whatever bot assistance, rather than the haphazard "toss it out there and see what happens" approach. But, while a declination was a possibility, the stated reason that "It seems unlikely that there are enough pages to support this category" would appear to contradict a great many established and accepted categories, namely the fact that they often have fewer articles (Only a handful of articles is often adequate justification for a category.) Unless almost all of the twenty-one quick examples I cited somehow don't qualify (Meatballs III, Kids (film), and Good Luck, Miss Wyckoff are a few more, and with some web surfing I'm sure I can come up with at least a dozen extra.), then I'd say there are plenty of articles/pages to qualify. The category as I see it would exist for classifying films in which virginity or loss of virginity were central to the plot in what could be construed as fundamental to it. The suggestion "I believe this category would be a bit redundant to Category:Films about sexuality." is also disagreeable since placing nearly all of the articles I listed in that category would be at best a poor fit, if not outright miscategorization.

So, given my disagreement (or at least misunderstanding?) of the stated reasons for why the category was declined, could you Please reiterate or elaborate on the reasons? Should I come to the decision to try to create (and in time expand) it on my own in coming days, would it be considered inappropriate and soon flagged as a category for deletion? The contents of Category:Films by topic suggest otherwise, but I'd like your input all the same. 4.254.84.107 (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I declined the request because I believed that there weren't enough articles where the main story was on virginity, and appeared to be redundant to Category:Films about sexuality. I have reviewed my decline, and there does indeed appear there is enough articles to create this category. Therefore I have created the category for you. You can add a page to the category by adding [[Category:Films about virginity]]. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 23:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank You so much! I was concerned that I was belaboring the point if not nagging (What part of "no" did I not understand?), but it was my disagreement (or misunderstanding) of the stated reasons for the above and I'm glad my reposting on the topic was not in vain. I've just now added a few of the more important articles and will be adding (many) more and likely providing some sort of definition or rules to the article page as well. I've noted that categories can grow slowly if one only creates for a few and then walks away, so the bulk of the titles will likely be added by me, and I'll get cracking soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.84.107 (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Article for Creation Proximity Worldwide

Hello, this is regarding the article for creation for Proximity Worldwide. I just was wondering if you could give some more specific feedback on how I could improve this article? I tried to edit the language to make it decidedly neutral, but beyond this what other changes would you recommend? I also tried to cite a lot of external journalistic sources but please let me know what else you would like to see.

Thanks for your feedback in advance!

JW44 (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is neutral, and well written. Due to a backlog in the Articles for Creation process, it hasn't been reviewed yet. I remember receiving an email from you on the 7th and I made a few minor changes to the style then, but I didn't give it a full review. I believe I could safely accept the article now, but there are two things I would recommend fixing. The first thing I would suggest is renaming the "Proximity Worldwide Facts" section to "History" and adding a bit of information on the beginning of the company and major events in the company's history.(Google News archives may be helpful finding news sources) The Awards and locations sections are in list format, I would suggest writing these sections using prose. The other thing I would suggest is removing some of the links in the External links section. Generally articles have between 1 - 7 external links, currently this article has 17 external links. I hope this feedback helps. Best wishes, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 14:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for editing Justin Bieber's page. 166.249.132.182 (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Alpha Quadrant. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Message added 22:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 22:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Carmelite Hermits

Hello! I cannot understand why you decline my article "Hermits of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel". It is based in the official source of the Carmelite Order (their official website and affiliates) and, also, it is an article about a relevant subject of the Carmelites: its the unique branch that dont have any information on WP. Can you revise again your decision? I believe many users can after improve the article. Thanks. 84.90.88.119 (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the sources provided are affiliated with the organization. Articles need to have reliable sources that are independent of the organization. Reliable sources include newspapers, magazines, books, other (non-Wikipedia) encyclopedias, and any organization with a strong reputation for fact checking. The current sources are published by organizations that are affiliated with the organizations and are primary sources. I hope this helps, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If I provide more sources you accept the article? 84.90.88.119 (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is well written. The article just needs to have reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Best, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Alpha Quadrant. You have new messages at Reaper Eternal's talk page.
Message added 15:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Invititation to Motto of the day

Hi there, Alpha Quadrant! Thought you might be interested in Motto of the Day, a collaborative (and totally voluntary) effort by a group of Wikipedians to create original, inspirational mottoes. Have a good motto idea? Share it here, comment on some of the mottoes there or just pass this message onto your friends.

MOTD Needs Your Help!

Delivered By --The Σ ^talk_contribs 02:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Delphi Glass

Please help me- somehow I took my article live instead of editing it in my sandbox. But now the article title reads "User:Artglassgal/Sandbox". Please tell me how to change it to "Delphi Glass". It's showing up wrong on other wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artglassgal (talk • contribs) 13:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the draft to the title you requested. If you are interested in learning how to perform moves, this will explain how to do it. I hope this helps. Best wishes, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

AfC review the reviewer request

I'm trying my hand in helping out with AfC and would greatly appreciate your guidence. Would you mind reviewing Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Office Products International and my comments there? I look forward to your comments/suggestions. Thanks, Chris W4chris (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello W4chris, welcome to AfC and thanks for joining. Your comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Office Products International looks good, but you might consider giving an example of a sentence that is written like a advertisement. You might also want to provide a link to the relevant policy on why article can't be written like ads. (WP:NOTADVERTISING) I hope you enjoy your time working in AfC. If you have any other questions I would be happy to help. Best wishes, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 01:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Good points! This is not as easy as it looks but I'm gonna stick with it. I appreciate your help, Thanks, Chris W4chris (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

meucci cues

i tried to start a page about Meucci Originals, Inc. a cue maker: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Meucci_Originals,_Inc.

i have a good start, however wiki says it is incomplete, how can i get a complete start to this site so it can be added to by users? thanks, 71.42.85.141 (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and anyone can edit articles. You do have a good start on your article, but in order for it to be accepted the article needs reliable third party sources verifying the information. I would also suggest dividing the article into sections. I apologize for the late reply and I hope this helps you. Best, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 01:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Singer-Songwriter Matthew Griswold

Hello, This is the contributor of the article in reference to Matthew Griswold (Singer-Songwriter and Veteran Activist). I can understand why some of the sources you mentioned would not be credible, and the only reason any non credible sources were used were only to display the example more or less. However, the majority of the references were from this regions most credible sources, ie: Minneapolis Star Tribune, Saint Paul Pioneer Press, KARE 11(NBC), and so on. These are the sources most cited and still the article is somehow not being excepted. This is were I, who is the contributor get confused. I've seen many musician pages for musicians far less credible, and here is one of the bigger of a nationally recognized music scene and you were the 2nd person to not accept. So maybe you can better guide me on how to do this so it will be accepted.

I do not know Matthew very well and I would imagine he is probably much to busy to try and add anything on his own, but I along with a number of people I work with have decided to set this right and have this not only talented but inpirationally active person added to the network for online information. There is no bigger news paper in Minnesota than the Minneapolis star tribune and no bigger local network than Kare 11 which is the NBC affiliate here in this state. How can these not be credible enough to at least have the page accepted. If you read any of the articles or web references, you will see that yes he is an established singer and songwriter and also someone who is a HUGE voice for veterans in Minnesota. I will personally remove all citations that may be not credible, but I still don't see why it hurts to have those as well. I could give you a long list of pages we saw of musicians who only have 1 reference and somehow those pages have been approved only because of the fact that when any media for speaks of a musician it makes him/her/them legite. Not only is Matthew that, he is far more than just that and he is an important voice in this state and soon to be beyond. If the newpapers, tv networks, magazines and websites that seem to be able to work for so many other pages wont work for this person, I would love to know how I/we can add the needed references to finally get this pulice interest information listed on Wikipedia. Thank you for you time and I look forward hearing more.... Kate S.

(Also, I must say I really do appritiate your efforts and offer to help as I have never been a major contributor to Wikipedia and it is easy to get lost in the chaos of creating an article. I'm more than certain that when this article FINALLY gets approved that there will be many who would love to take the time to add small details that would be more familiar with those and how to. Just like in any case, it takes someone to get it going and that is what we are trying to do so again THANK YOU!!! As it looks that you are well versed in how to explain things to those of us who are not)

Hello Kate S., since your post here, it appears your Articles for Creation submission was accepted.When I declined it was because several of the sources were not considered reliable. Many articles on Wikipedia do not have reliable sources, and it is possible to create an article without using Articles for Creation. These articles are often not thoroughly checked for compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines. However, at Articles for Creation we try to help the author get the article submission to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines before we accept it. The article you wrote is very good and written in a neutral point of view. However, I do see that there are still several sources in the article that are not considered reliable, (i.e. youtube, matthewgriswold.net), however, they would considered relevant and useful. You might consider removing them from the reference section and creating a "External links" section at the end of the article, and placing the links there. I apologize for the late reply and I hope this helps you. If you have any other questions I would be happy to help. Best wishes, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ambassador Program: assessment drive

Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.

In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.

Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Adoption of a classroom

Hi Alpha Quadrant, I am a high school science teacher (former engineer). I found your user info on the adoption page. I really want my students to use Wikipedia as a learning and exploration tool this year. In adopting me, you will be indirectly adopting many high school students.

I have only ever edited anonymously to Wikipedia, so I was hoping you could give me some pointers on how to orchestrate this whole project.

These students come from an underprivileged community, so many of them will have very little background in this kind of community. How would you recommend starting this project? What skills and knowledge of the Wikipedia culture would you recommend?

Thanks,

MrHardyIdea be inspired. be inspiring. (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Taken care of via e-mail; awaiting reply --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 00:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Addihockey10. MrHardyIdea, I think the best way for you and your students to learn to use Wikipedia is just by editing existing articles. Most Wikipedia editors learn as they work on articles. Just by making minor corrections to articles (i.e. spelling, grammar, article arrangement) you will begin to learn how Wikipedia works. A good page to read before starting is the welcome page. I believe that the most usefull information about Wikipedia is that articles need to cite reliable third party sources and articles also need to be written in a neutral point of view. A good place to organize your project would be creating a project page at Wikipedia:School and university projects. If you would like any help I would be happy to assist you. I apologize for the delay in this reply and I hope this helps you. Best, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 02:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Template

I reverted your edit to Template:Cleanup-link rot. Your edit not only made the template more concise, but also left out part of its functionality. Please be more careful in the future. Debresser (talk) 10:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The link provided in the template explains in detail what needs to be done. It is fairly redundant have it in the template. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 13 August 2011 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)