User talk:Bellerophon/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

GOCE March drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive update GOCE March 2012 Backlog Elimination progress graphs Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Here's the mid-drive newsletter. Participation: We have had 58 people sign up for this drive so far, which compares favorably with our last drive, and 27 have copy-edited at least one article. If you have signed up but have not yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: Our target of completing the 2010 articles has almost been reached, with only 56 remaining of the 194 we had at the start of the drive. The last ones are always the most difficult, so thank you if you are able to help copy-edit any of the remaining articles. We have reduced the total backlog by 163 articles so far. Special thanks: Special thanks to Stfg, who has been going through the backlog and doing some preliminary vetting of the articles—removing copyright violations, doing initial clean-up, and nominating some for deletion. This work has helped make the drive a more pleasant experience for all our volunteers. Your drive coordinators – Dianna (talk), Stfg (talk), and Dank (talk) To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Recently created article

Hi, I noticed you recently created the article Longo phenomenon through AfC.. I was wondering which notability criterion you think it satisfies? Or generally why you think it's notable enough to have its own article? Thanks, Mlm42 (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for bringing this to my attention. You are quite right that the references given are not sufficient to establish notability. I honestly don't remember accepting it, but clearly I did. I think I may have accepted it in error during some multi-tab reviewing (I use AFC script). I've moved the page back into AFC space. Apologies for wasting your time with my screw up :) Pol430 talk to me 23:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem. :-) Mlm42 (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Please review my article

Pol430,

Thanks for reviewing and publishing my article A S College.

I have further updated it and added a link to it in a related page List of institutions of higher education in Punjab.

Please review the changes and consider removing stub and orphan notice on the page.

Thanks --Rawender (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've cleaned up the image formatting and removed the orphan tag, as it is no longer an orphan. However, it is still a stub article. This is not a problem and there is no pressing need to remove the tag or expand the article, this can all happen in time. Until the article has at least three sizable sections of text (which must all be encyclopedic and verifiable) then it will still be a stub. Pol430 talk to me 10:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Koti Chennayya Tulu film (1973)

hai, please note that reference given for the films are news paper articles which are containing the news and information related to the above film because it is a very local language film and news will be published in local language in Kannada and film is produced in 1973 internet data is very limited and hence we have to relay upon news articles for the reference's hence please discus in this regards (anaamikamathu (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)).

Rener Gracie AfC

Thanks for the very quick response. I'll dig for more citations or reduce the length of the article. Will probably do both.Billodom2 (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)billodom2

Accepted Article created. Pol430 talk to me 23:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bellerophon. You have new messages at WheresTristan's talk page.
Message added 12:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WheresTristan ^{Let's talk·Contribs} 12:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Rejection response

How could you not read the documentation? How do you use it? Add it to the top of an article that has yet to have a reception section. The Web of TV3. (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm no expert in the layout of entertainment articles and I was wondering if you could point me to the guideline that says there should be one present? Pol430 talk to me 20:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Cirex

Regards Pol430: I have tried several time to include an article of a local musician Cirex. The page has banned several times, Im trying this last shot, I create a draft which I can show you the references, including to magazines, that are supposely printed but i found the online versions, and the credits of his music on the movie Taken. Hope you can help me, even if I have to rebuild it, if you neeed to see the draft please let me know. Thanks in advance, Mroxidizer1 (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It appears you have an answer at WP:AFCHD. Pol430 talk to me 16:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Help

Hi! I was wondering how to request the semi-protection of a page? Some unregistered user is constantly changing the main picture of the Turkish State Railways page with a picture where the train is barely visible. I couldn't quite understand how to request the protection. Can you help me out? Thanks in advance! (Central Data Bank (talk))

Hi, Page protection is requested at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. However, all requests must be made in accordance with the protection policy. In this case, it seems that the problem is a content dispute; accordingly, the page is not suitable for protection. You should try and resolve disputes on the article talk page, rather than reverting back and forth. Be aware of the three-revert-rule. Violations of this rule can lead to a block. Pol430 talk to me 16:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you! I was able to resolve the dispute. I was aware about the three edit rule and I posted in the talk page but the unregistered user kept on changing it, but anyway it's over (I think). Thanks again! (Central Data Bank (talk))

Honeywell COI

Responded on my Talk page. Thanks for your help. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 19:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Message at your talk page. Pol430 talk to me 19:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Pol. As an FYI, I've done the same Talk page request on Honeywell Turbo Technologies, but since I just posted it, I'd like to wait and see if anyone watchlisting the article responds. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 20:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bellerophon. You have new messages at WheresTristan's talk page.
Message added 23:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WheresTristan 23:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sir

Excuse me sir, i would first like to thank you for reviewing my article.

As an inferior human compared to you, i would like to ask for tips/a guide on how not to make my article look like a resume.

Please reply Sir.

Thank you, and a good day to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paknomex (talk • contribs) 23:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure why you think you are an inferior human... Anyway, as far as improving your submission goes: You need to write about this person from a neutral point of view and in continuous prose—see Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles for some additional help. It is not sufficient to simply list a person's achievements and education. You need to write about their broader life and career, to demonstrate why the person is notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a social networking site or directory site. You need to add inappropriate inline citations to the text, that point the reader towards reliable sources. This is imperative so that what is written in the article, meets Wikipedia's verifiability policy. N.B. The 'blue links' you can see in the above text, link to various Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Pol430 talk to me 12:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

Hi. When you recently edited Omer Pardillo Cid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Israel Lopez (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed Pol430 talk to me 14:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for The Two Hearts of Kwasi Boachi

Orlady (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Leroy and Pictet

Apparently, LeRoy and Pictet were recruiters (the term used may be translated as "directors") paid to get gentile European folks to move to Catherine the Great's colonies along the Volga: see this. They seem to be household words among those who study Volga Germans, but I think the attempted article was a mere dump of a Google translation of an article in the German-language Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Mike, I will attempt to rewrite the submission when I have some time. Pol430 talk to me 14:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

GOCE May copy edit drive

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their May 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate January, February, and March 2011 from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, and Stfg. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for action on submission Pokuase, Ghana

Hello, Thanks for your prompt action on the submission. I would just like to clarify that I only hoped to create the new page as the existing one, called 'POKOASI, GHANA', shows the misspelling of the place name. 'POKOASI' should be spelt 'POKUASE'. This means that when doing a Google search on the place 'Pokuase', the Wikipedia articles do not appear!

Please can you change the name of the existing article to POKUASE, GHANA so that it can be found by search engines, and actually be of some use to persons seeking information about the area.

Thank you very much for your time and expertise. Regards. Mr O F Gayle (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

No, as I mentioned at the help desk: according to the maps it is spelt 'Pokoasi' per this source. I have created a redirect from Pokuase as an alternate spelling. Pol430 talk to me 17:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Tej Gyan Foundation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to English, Marathi, Gujarati, Bengali, Punjabi and Telugu

Kathleen Sharp (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Bravo and A&E

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed Pol430 talk to me 11:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback re:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andrew Ostrowski

Hello, Bellerophon. You have new messages at Hghyux's talk page.
Message added 15:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Pol430, I'm sending the below (copied response) to you as I think I fall into the category of your comment about the user who reviewed my submission. I responded to him but I want this appealed, how do I submit it to a different reviewer? The page is Articles for Creation: Andrew Ostrowski. I have clearly referenced everything down to bone! I entirely do not understand his review. Thanks, I'll wait to hear from you. Sanctus7--Sanctus7 (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am entirely confused at the reason given, as there are clearly multiple references (43) supporting the subject's notability. I did as instructed in seeing the guidlelines on the notabilty of people and the golden rule, and this submission adhered to that in all aspects. There are multiple articles referenced in published newspapers, including the Staten Island Advance, from columnist Carol Benanti, The Am-Pol Eagle, which is overseen by an editor, Real Live Relic Hunter website, and the subject's own website. I have even detailed archival availablity where older articles are found! The information is most assuredly verifiable in the references. I've seen several other articles that are currently on live Wikipedia which have very little referencing. "Steve Bauer", for example, is a friend of the subject, of which I am to both, and I see virtually no references supporting his inclusion. "Alexandria Riordan" also has virtually no references yet has been accepted. Please supply me with precise pinpoint information so I can justify the information provided. This took over 2 months of hard work to complete. I am also posting this on the Teabook. Thanks very much, Sanctus7

The reviewer left the following comment about this submission: This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.

Hi, I have looked over the submission and I can see where Hghyux was coming from. I have not checked every reference in detail, but it looks like most of the references are either written by Ostrowski or link to sites connected to him. Such references are considered primary sources, regardless of the number of them, they do not contribute to establishing notability. Moreover, some of the references link to blogs, Wikipedia does not consider blogs to be reliable sources. I have no opinion on whether Ostrowski is notable or not, but the references you have provided do not sufficiently establish notability (IMO). It's not the quantity of references that's important, but the quality. What we really want to see is reliable third party publications, that discuss Ostrowski—like newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, interviews etc. But they must not be written by Ostrowski. I'm sorry this has become a frustrating experience for you. Also, please note that not all articles in Wikipedia get reviewed, some are created without any oversight whatsoever; the fact the other articles exist has no bearing on weather a submission should be accepted or not. Each submission should be reviewed on its own merits. Does that information help? Pol430 talk to me 20:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that article did not have quite enough reliable sources. I could not accept it the way it was. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 21:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bellerophon. You have new messages at Dcshank's talk page.
Message added 02:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 :- ) DCS 02:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Maddy Dychtwald Page

HI Pol430,

If you could help me, I'm trying to figure out why the Maddy Dychtwald page was declined--I think it's because the one I did needs to be merged with a previously existing version?

That seems to be what you noted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Maddy_Dychtwald

Would you suggest how I can merge the two for an acceptable submission?

I appreciate your help!

Zcochran88 (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, yes thats pretty much what I meant. Having looked at the older submission I can't really see why it was declined, looks OK to me. I thought you may wish to usurp some of the content from the old submission and and use it to expand your newer one. I see that you the references are basically the same on both submissions. I have crudely merged the two submissions but the tone of text is a little promotional (the testimonials sections needs trimming down or removing). Feel free to play around with the text and remove bits as you see fit. If you can tone down the promotion slightly, then come back to me, I will probably accept the submission. Pol430 talk to me 17:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Zcochran88 (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pol430,

Would you take another look at Maddy's page for review, here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Maddy_Dychtwald

I worked hard to find references and properly source it. The only section I think may need a wholesale deletion (NPOV reasons) is the "Reviews of Maddy's Work" section.

If this meets your standards, I would appreciate your help re-instating the revised article!

Thanks, Zcochran88 (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Accepted Pol430 talk to me 20:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a ton for your help. Couldn't have done it without you. Zcochran88 (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Articles creations

i am just unable to prove this articles please check this link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dhruv_Pandey Please tell me exactly what can i do for this articles. Dhruv Pandey CMD (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing to be done. The submission cannot, and will not, be accepted. As has already been pointed out to you, Wikipedia is not a forum for you to try and promote yourself. You are not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia; I can't put it any more plainly than that. Pol430 talk to me 21:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I saw this

All answers incorrect! ;) →Bmusician 01:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh well, I must try harder... ;-) Pol430 talk to me 00:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The LaRon Byrd submission

Thank you, I put a lot of hard work to find information that was true.71.180.203.153 (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Pol430 talk to me 00:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Article creation

what can i do so that my article is approve by wikipedia here is the articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dhruv_Pandey_CMD/Dhruv_Pandey#Request_review_at_WP:AFC Dhruv Pandey CMD (talk) 05:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I have already answered this question... 4 posts above, I wrote: ":There is nothing to be done. The submission cannot, and will not, be accepted. As has already been pointed out to you, Wikipedia is not a forum for you to try and promote yourself. You are not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia; I can't put it any more plainly than that." Pol430 talk to me 10:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

submitted article source problems

Dear Pol430,

All sources for that article is on Bulgarian language and they don't exist on the internet on english.

Thank you, BR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.204.139.182 (talk) 06:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NOTENG and WP:REFB#References_not_online →Bmusician 08:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bellerophon. You have new messages at Zach Vega's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bruce Clark (Legal Scholar)

Dear Pol430:

Thanks for your message, "You appear to need a crash course in Wikipedia markup. Please see Wikipedia:Cheatsheet for basic instructions on how to use Wikipedia markup to 'code' your submission. You currently have two different pages, of very similar text submitted for review. Because you have submitted your work for review, the page you should be working on is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bruce Clark not User:WLawpsh/sandbox. Please tell me which of these two pages is the version you are currently working on? Also, please do not remove {{reflist}} templates. That code is needed for your footnotes to display correctly. For information of how to properly format references as footnotes, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. Pol430 talk to me 19:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)"

I have been working on User:WLawpsh/sandbox. Since when I edit in it and save the net result instantly appears in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bruce Clark, I think, although I am sure of nothing. I thought I had a working system but if I understand I should be working not in sandbox but Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bruce Clark. I shall copy what I have in sandbox and paste it into talk and keep fingers crossed I do not erase everything and have to start again. In the meantime I have just read the Wikipedia:Cheatsheet, thanks. I liked sandbox because the menu bar gave an easy way to achieve code without writing it. I hope I will find talk as user friendly. Of the two (or more) editions the one I like has a fresh first sentence, "Bruce Clark (1944-present) is a whistleblower against the one institution against whose absolute power there currently is no recourse against injustice in North America: the legal profession and judiciary."

So, I will now retire to attempt functioning with talk not sandbox.

I am grateful this file is receiving your attention.

Sincerely, WLawpsh WLawpsh (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Any changes you make to User:WLawpsh/sandbox will only affect that page, they will not affect Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bruce Clark. The 'edit' box (where you see the menu bar) is the same for every page in Wikipedia, although you may need to click on 'advanced' sometimes to see all the easy access editing options. A few other top tips: When you are having a conversation with another editor, try to keep the conversation all on the same page. As a rule, wherever the conversation is started is where it should remain. It makes it easier for people to keep track of things that way. Also, you don't need to copy and paste people's messages when you reply. If you need any help moving your work from User:WLawpsh/sandbox to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bruce Clark, just let me know. Likewise if you need to any other help, you can ask me on this page. Happy editing. Pol430 talk to me 20:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Pol430, is this how a conversation is carried on, i.e., do I click on "edit" and then keep adding to this box? Or should I erase what has gone before if no longer needed and type in a new query? Or something else entirely? Then, when I save this, do you receive an email notification of the communication? In other words, what are the mechanics of conversing between the two of us? Thanks. Cheers, WLawpsh — Preceding unsigned comment added by WLawpsh (talk • contribs) 21:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, this is how a conversation is carried on. Don't erase previous messages, keep the whole conversation, so it is possible to read it from start to finish. When you reply to a message, it makes things easier to read if you 'indent' your reply by adding a colon at the beginning of the line. See how it pushes the text to right a little bit, and make the conversation 'cascade'? The very first message, does not need a colon, but the reply should have one. The reply to the reply should have two and the reply, to the reply, to the reply should have three. Does that make sense? Finally, at the end of you message, you should add 4 tildes (~~~~). What this does, is add your signature and a timestamp to you message when you save the page. When you leave a message on someone's user talk page, they get a yellow banner at the top of the screen saying 'new messages'. This only happens on user talk pages and not any other kind of talk page. When I reply to your messages here, I add a {{Talkback}} template to your user talk page, to let you know I have replied in our conversation on my user talk page. Am I still making sense? Pol430 talk to me 22:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

YES. Thanks. When you signal you have replied by adding a template to my user talk page, is an email to alert me generated at the same time? If so does this signify I do not have to keep monitoring my talk page if I am anticipating a message from you? Best, WLawpsh (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The 'new message' banner will appear at the top of the page, wherever you are on Wikipedia. As long as you are looking at a Wikipedia page and logged in to your account, then you will see the yellow banner. You can set your 'preferences' so that you get an email alert if anyone leaves you a message at your talk page. The 'preferences' link can be found in the top right corner of the screen, near to the other links like 'watchlist' and 'log out'. Pol430 talk to me 10:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

My last edit of the draft article consisted in an attempt to footnote the word "whistleblower" in the first sentence. The note text was to have been, " Georgialee Lang, DISBARRED The Series part 5: Bruce Clark, Lawdiva's Blog Legal Commentary; Bruce Clark-Google+; and Curriculum Vitae Bruce Clark, LL.B., M.A., Ph.D.>whistleblower against the one institution whose absolute power puts it above the law absolutely when it comes to accountability for its own profoundly structural injustice in abrogation of constitutional democracy under the rule of law:—the legal profession and judiciary." The square brackets around the Internet citations reflect my attempt to insert links into the footnote. Now, my problem dear Pol430, is that when I clicked to save the article that appeared in consequence of my endeavor has no word "whistleblower" but rather in the place where it used to be is a square-bracketed footnote number 1 like this: [1]. The previously recorded footnotes shifted up to accommodate their new neighbor but, as you can see, they have a different appearance. In the result I am perturbed I have made a mistake and prejudiced the article. Might you help me properly and adequately to add the note to whistleblower. Thanks, WLawpsh.WLawpsh (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

POST SCRIPT. This is still WLawpsh speaking. The text for the footnote that I pasted into the previous question does not appear. It seems to be subsumed by the entry [1]. Can you find it? Or, might I dispatch it to you by email or in some other fashion? Thanks, WLawpsh WLawpsh (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I have made an edit that I hope has achieved what you were trying to achieve? You managed to add another 5 afc tags to that submission, somehow!? Please don't touch any code that looks like: {{AFC submission|||ts=20120501083129|u=WLawpsh|ns=5}}. When you want to make changes to the submission all you need to do is goto the 'edit' tab at the very top of the Wikipedia page and click on 'Edit'. Then make your changes to the text and click the 'save page' button. You can check to see if you changes have had the desired effect by clicking 'preview' instead of save page -- it does what it says on the tin. Please don't click any links on the big pink template or add any {{subst:submmit}} code to the page. Also, please stop adding you signature to the submission (I know I've told you to sign you posts on talk pages, but the page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bruce Clark is an exception to that rule. You seem to have been confusing the formatting of 'references as footnotes' with 'classic footnotes' I have added the required templates to the submission so that both forms will work. See Help:Footnotes and read carefully for more information. Pol430 talk to me 12:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh man, thanks for bearing with me! Your solution does not achieve my intent but your replacement of my too-long first sentence with the perfect-length "Bruce Clark is a legal scholar and whistleblower." is brilliant. Now, my intent is to put reference [1] on the word whistleblower and have it consolidate the three references you tentatively have shown as [1][2] and [3]. The note you created I would like to move back up into the text as sentence number two, to read, "Dr Clark's whistleblowing is directed against the one institution whose absolute power puts it above the law absolutely when it comes to accountability for its own profoundly structural injustice in abrogation of constitutional democracy under the rule of law:—the legal profession and judiciary." Those two sentences can then comprise the fresh first paragraph. By the way, there is a conflict between what you dispatched and an overlapping second attempt I made at implementing my intent. Might I trouble you to wipe out my second attempt so as to remove the conflict, and then to consolidate footnote [1] and move your draft note up to become the second sentence (with my preface to it "Dr Clark's whistleblowing is directed against...&c.)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WLawpsh (talk • contribs) 13:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

POST SCRIPT. Please might you add to reference [1] as its first entry including its link: Ben David Mahoney, Disinformation and Smear: The use of state propaganda and military force to suppress aboriginal title at the 1995 Gustafsen Lake standoff, 2001, https://www.uleth.ca/dspace/handle/10133/189?WLawpsh (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is technically possible to group three separate sources into one citation. The 'ref group' parameter can be used to add footnotes that are separate to the referencing footnotes, but not to group several different references together. It is possible to add a footnote to a footnote... But that does not really achieve what you are trying to achieve either. I think the only solution is to leave them as three separate reference footnotes, that appear consecutively. I'm not sure where the conflict is that you are referring to? Pol430 talk to me 16:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. Wiki is different than academic or legal writing, no? I mean, in so far as having a single footnote being restricted to one source relevant to the justification of the word, phrase or sentence as the case may be. Complex multi-source footnotes are customary in academic but not Wiki writing: that idea is confusing to an academic writer. My brain must be tired. Assuming, then, that the four "sources" relevant to the word 'whistleblower" each requires a separate number in sequence may I repeat my respectful and earnest request that the first in the sequence of four numbers on "Whistleblower" be my recent attempt to add the reference to Ben Mahony's piece, OK? The rest looks great! Much Better!!! So critical that: the first sentence; it is THERE that the communication begins, or ends, as the case may be, no? WLawpsh (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is completely different to academic or legal writing; so much so, that a well written academic paper is usually completely unsuitable for publishing on Wikipedia, because the requirements are different. In academia, contributors/students are encouraged to study a subject and then synthesize a paper on that subject. On Wikipedia, we look for cold hard facts, written in an encyclopedic style (rather than an essay style). We don't want opinions, or original research or synthesis. Everything must be written from a neutral point of view -- many academics consider this bland, but it should be remembered that the function of an encyclopedia is to present facts to a wide audience, not to set the academic world on fire... Which leads me on to mention that your submission, needs to be re-written with these things in mind. (Follow the blue links -- they take you to the relevant polices).

On Wikipedia, references are commonly formatted as footnotes in order to verify the content of an article. They are not normally used to define words, as you would in legal documents -- for that we use Wikilinks or links to Wiktionary. References (as footnotes) generally appear at the end of the sentence they support -- after punctuation. References should link to reliable sources so that whatever is written in the article is verifiable. Additionally, when it comes to new articles, it is necessary to evidence that the subject of the article is notable. In short, if a subject has not been written about in multiple, reliable sources, that are independent of the subject, then it cannot be accepted into Wikipedia. Hopefully, you now have a better idea about how Wikipedia handles references. Also, the information above will assist you in improving your submission and deciding if you think it is right for Wikipedia. Good luck. Pol430 talk to me 17:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

And your opinion is?...It is not "right for Wikipedia"? I sense this is implicit in what you write but should appreciate it being made explicit, rather than take away a miss-communication, you understand? Secondly, do you enjoy a power of veto or if not quite that a measure of influence over whether or not an article ultimately is agreeable to Wikipedia? In the event a candidate can not agree with an initial negative opinion are there appeals? What is the significance of the date May 22, 2012? Forgive me, but I hope mentoring includes this helping out with my imposition for information. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WLawpsh (talk • contribs) 17:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is: The prose needs some work because the submission strikes me as more 'essay' than 'article', in so much as, it contains a few too many opinions. Plucking a few tracts of text at random: "Clark's view is not conventional wisdom; neither is it politically correct," and "Although his position politically is controversial there is no jurisprudential controversy with regard to it" and "In the light of the formidable political pressure the independence of the legal profession, that in theory is the cornerstone of the rule of law as conceived in western civilization, in practice turns to wet putty when the legal system is asked to defend the constitution against the empire." this is not an exhaustive list, but should serve to illustrate the point. To address your second point: I work as a reviewer at Article for Creation and could have declined this submission ages ago, but I'd rather discuss the problems with you on this page, so that you can improve the submission without suffering the frustrations of further/repeated 'declines'. There is also the issue that submission does not contain enough references to verify all the content or establish the subjects notability. There is no formal appeal process, Wikipedia functions as a community, the 'rules' I have mentioned above have been developed as a community over the last 10 years. You could approach another editor and ask for input on your submission, or you could sit back and wait for another reviewer to formally review it -- I suspect, in its current state, the submission will be declined again. I have no idea what the significance of May 22, 2012 is... I'm not sure why you ask? I have no problem with you importuning me for information ;-), I always try to help out new editors. Pol430 talk to me 18:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

When I open my watch list there is a dialogue box that says the article is subject to comments until 22 May 2012. As for the rest I am inclined to withdraw my submission. May this be achieved without a penalty and, if so, how? 70.26.28.64 (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see! No, that is a general notification about an outstanding request for comment on Pending Changes. It is not connected to your submission and you can ignore it. I have withdrawn your submission. There is no penalty and if you ever want to come back to it, you will be able to find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bruce Clark. Pol430 talk to me 18:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Adoption

Thank you for responding to my request for Adoption. I am eager to learn and start your course. "Selene Scott (talk)" —Preceding undated comment added 19:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC).

Oh dear, I thought you just asked me. Well, you can work with either Pol430 or myself, or we can both adopt you! Let me know what you think. Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) 19:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't realized you had already asked Rcsprinter. I don't mind a double adoption, It's your call Selene. Although, as Rcsprinter uses the 'school' method as well, it might be prudent to only complete one program. Pol430 talk to me 23:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

If I may interrupt, my impression of Selene is that she is the type of person who might benefit from having a double adoption. I suspect she is a fast learner and is up to the challenge. Viriditas (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've set double adoption in motion. Pol430 talk to me 18:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I may have missed your response and just moved on to the next victim!:) I am thrilled to be working under both of you and look forward to my first set of challenges. I won't be letting Viriditas' opinion down! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selene Scott (talk • contribs) 04:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

New revied proposal for Articles for creation/DTU Dynamo 7.0

As requested I have added a brief lead section. Please review my article for creation once more. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjarkeoveandersen (talk • contribs) 10:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Accepted. Good work Pol430 talk to me 10:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

New Pages update

Hey Bellerophon/Archive 6 :). A quick update on how things are going with the New Page Triage/New Pages Feed project. As the enwiki page notes, the project is divided into two chunks: the "list view" (essentially an updated version of Special:NewPages) and the "article view", a view you'll be presented with when you open up individual articles that contains a toolbar with lots of options to interact with the page - patrolling it, adding maintenance tags, nominating it for deletion, so on.

On the list view front, we're pretty much done! We tried deploying it to enwiki, in line with our Engagement Strategy on Wednesday, but ran into bugs and had to reschedule - the same happened on Thursday :(. We've queued a new deployment for Monday PST, and hopefully that one will go better. If it does, the software will be ready to play around with and test by the following week! :).

On the article view front, the developers are doing some fantastic work designing the toolbar, which we're calling the "curation bar"; you can see a mockup here. A stripped-down version of this should be ready to deploy fairly soon after the list view is; I'm afraid I don't have precise dates yet. When I have more info, or can unleash everyone to test the list view, I'll let you know :). As always, any questions to the talkpage for the project or mine. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

ready for review

Thank you for the info on how to use the colon for easier reading! I think I am ready for review of my answers. Not a terribly easy article to evaluate, Cool! It made you read and think. "Selene Scott (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)"

Hi Selene, Good job on you first assignment. I have graded it and you can see the results and my comments at your adoption page. If you haven't already done so, I would encourage you to enable 'editing by section' in your account preferences. The reason for this is that the 'source code' of you adoption page is going to start getting very long, as we move through the assignments. Editing by section will make it easier to edit the correct bit of the adoption page. To enable it, goto 'my preferences' (top right corner of any Wikipedia page) once in 'my preferences' click on the 'editing' tab and put a tick in the box by 'Enable section editing via [edit] links'. Then click the 'save' button (bottom left corner of the page). Once you have done this you will see an [edit] link, on each section of a Wikipedia page. Clicking on it will open the edit box for that section only, which means you won't have to click the 'edit' button at the top of the page and scroll through the entire page's Wiki markup to find the bit you want to edit. If you already see the edit links on each section of a page, ignore everything I've just said! Hope that helps. Pol430 talk to me 11:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I checked and that edit tab is enabled. Have I been doing it right so far? The 'source code' of the adoption page is getting long...? "Selene Scott (talk)" —Preceding undated comment added 21:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC).

Yep, you have been doing it right. When I said 'source code' I mean that as I keep adding assignments the overall amount of Wiki markup on you adoption page will increase. It might get confusing to find the specific bit of of the page you want to edit. But if you use the 'edit by section' facility, that will make things easier. Your second assignment has been posted. Have a read through and I will add some questions in the next 24hrs. Pol430 talk to me 22:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the Good Luck sentiment-Looks like I'm gonna need it!"Selene Scott (talk)" —Preceding undated comment added 04:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC).

Page Reedit

Hi. Thank you for reviewing my new page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Arthur_Chute_McGill. I apologize for the citation mess, and it is now fixed. I hope the article is good to go now. Thanks again. Ricfair/Richenda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricfair (talk • contribs) 16:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Accepted Good work :) Pol430 talk to me 16:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. I didn't realize I could just create an article, thank you for the link. I think I'm glad, though, to have had the review. I didn't catch the citation thing and it was a mess, so that was good to know. I don't edit Wiki enough to really know my way around. But I'll keep working on it. And now, look! a proper signature. Miracles upon miracles. :-) --Ricfair (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome. You are doing fine so far! Pol430 talk to me 22:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

comma's and spaces

Interesting little read about the comma's and double space rule. I'm a guilty double spacer after the period! "Selene Scott (talk)" —Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC).

lol, it's all down to personal preference really. Double spacing (known as French spacing) after a period makes no difference to the way a page will display on Wikipedia. When people still used typewriters, French spacing was considered more professional. In the computer age, most fonts compensate for this anyway. See above for details of your second assignment. P.S. Notice I removed the colon from your post, it's not needed in the first post, only subsequent posts :-) Pol430 talk to me 22:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Userpage barnstar

		The Excellent User Page Award
		That waterfall photo on your userpage is cool and the whole page looks very friendly. Pine(talk) 00:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Helping hand barnstar

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		For volunteering to adopt a new user and being very helpful. Pine(talk) 00:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

For all you have done and all you will do

Selene Scott (talk) has given you a Cheeseburger! Cheeseburgers promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Cheeseburger, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!

Spread the goodness of Cheeseburgers by adding {{subst:Cheeseburger}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cheeseburger on the giver's talk page with {{subst:burger-munch}}!

Thank you Selene :) Pol430 talk to me 09:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Julphar

I've blocked Julphar 2012 as a sock of User:Reema m h (per WP:DUCK - could hardly have quacked louder). Have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reema m h. There's been quite a bit of socking at Julphar, so anything in the way of promo by new accounts or IPs there could well be reported at that SPI. They may get the message in time that we do watch things. They don't seem to have yet... Peridon (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I see the results of the checkuser have not found any more socks, but I'll keep an eye on Julphar. Pol430 talk to me 18:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: Andrew Ostrowski

Thanks Pol430, I appreciate your feedback in receiving your response but need to point out where Wiki indicates otherwise. First though, you state that most of the references are primary sources, that is not true. Many of the references are written by the subject who writes for a newspaper which is under editorial control by a third party. According to Wiki's guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP Avoid self-published sources Shortcut: WP:BLPSPS Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. and Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources. These provisions do not apply to autobiographies published by reliable third-party publishing houses, because they are not self-published. Please, if you have a few minutes, open up the links in the reference section of the Article. Many of them are directly from Carol Benanti, a newspaper columnist who wrote about the subject. The ref's of the Am-Pol Eagle are columns by the subject which are under editorial control of Roger Puchalski, Editor of the newspaper. The ref's relaing to the subject's TV show (RealLiveRelicHunter) are third party sources since Ostrowski is merely the Director and the source is independent of him. The only ref's in question would therefore be the Polish American World news (I have a subscription and have kept all issues) where ISBN info is not available since it was a L.I., NY newspaper (third-party though). I would greatly appreciate it if you would revisit my article on the subject and consider the above points I make. I am quite a diligent person in regards to following instructions and feel I am in compliance wth Wiki's policies. Most of the references are indeed third-party sources (Staten Island Advance newspaper, Am-Pol Eagle newspaper, RLRH website, etc.) If you have some time, can you specifically pinpont those that do not abide by policy, and perhaps we can edit them out? However I feel very justified in the majority of my references as they meet the policy as it is stated. Aside from the above specifics, on the subject of notability, the subject is a TV personality as is mentioned in the numerous newspaper columns of Carol Benanti. That is a third-party reference and there are many of them. Does not someone who's on television qualify for the notability factor? He's known as the Indiana Jones of Staten Island, which is a borough of New York City, one of the biggest cities in the world. Clearly the subject has notability. Pol430, thanks again for your help, I do appreciate it considering the similar comments left by others for that reviewer. I'll abide by your instruction, please consider the points I make above as I realize the subject is a peculiar one given his published newspaper columns and media spotlight, which may require a closer analysis to verify. This article took quite a bit of work and I want to ensure it's accuracy and professionalism. If you can invite my first reviewer in to discuss that would be great. Thanks very much again, Sanctus7--Sanctus7 (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that I had not realized that the Silive source is a Newspaper blog. Although, the WP:NEWSBLOG clause is generally only applied to very widely circulated national newspapers like the NY Times, London Times, Guardian, IHT etc. I've cut you some slack and accepted the article, if other editors feel differently then they can follow the appropriate deletion channels. You have clearly put a lot of work in, and I think it only fair to give the article a running chance. Happy editing. Pol430 talk to me 00:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Pol430, Thank you so much. I looked at the relevant C-Class section instructions and will follow its guidelines as to making the article its best. I want to thank you again, yes, this took quite a bit of work! Which leaves me with a tremendous appreciation for the people who compose these articles and more so, the editors who oversee them. A question, how does one get to become an editor? I would like to perhaps become an editor one day as I like the combination of reviewing interesting articles and applying a standard to help others compose their best. Very rewarding I imagine. I'll try to get a few more articles under my belt before applying to be an editor I guess. Thanks so much again, will chat again. Sanctus7Sanctus7 (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)