User talk:France3470/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Re:Tom McEwen (sports writer)

Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tom McEwen (sports writer)

I made some major changes to writing as article was rejected, added references, some I just left at the bottom because I omitted so much from my writing, I didn't know where to put them all.. I think it might be getting closer. Let me know what you think because I don't have all the tools in my toolbag, and frankly, I'm not that smart!Elissa McEwen (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I made major changes to this article on Saturday addressing each of the initial problems and resubmitted. It still has the same comments to change what I have changed already and it says there are 638 articles waiting ahead of it... same as it did when I first submitted it. The rejection notice said I could make changes and resubmit, but I've gotten no notice that it's been re-reviewed. Please let me know what's wrong this time Elissa McEwen (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Elissa. Sorry I haven't had a chance to address your previous comment from last week yet. It's been a rather busy couple of days. I'll go and have another look at the submission right now and get back to you. France3470 (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.. Anything that isn't right, let me know! Elissa McEwen (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I've made some changes and accepted the article. Good work! It could still use some improvements but it's definitely markedly better since I last saw it and you've clearly put a lot of work into it. If you do want to spend more time working on the article, I would suggest focusing on converting the quotations into prose, working on the WP:LEAD and addressing the issues with WP:Citation overkill in the last sentence of the first paragraph. All the best, France3470 (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your hard work! I will make improvements as I can and appreciate all of your helpful advice and adding the other category. I did notice that the article does not come up in the general search unless you type in specifically Tom McEwen (sportswriter). Typing in just Tom McEwen gets you the drag racer and a choice or two but not Tom McEwen (sportswriter) It's not one of the choices that comes up to click on. Is there any way to fix that? Thanks again for working on this. Elissa McEwen (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've added him to the disambiguation page so the page should now be easier to locate. :) France3470 (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Franc4370 Think my dad's profile should be up there an deservedly so, so others can have their say over whether he did his job the right way. 173.65.2.238 (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

New Article on Attunement

I submitted an article on Attunement almost a week ago for review and it hasn't been reviewed. It may just be because there is a backlog. But can you let me know if there is anything I should be doing to move the process along? Here is the reference: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Attunement. -- David

Dkarchere (talk) 04:01, 01 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkarchere (talk • contribs)

Looks like your article was reviewed and accepted. Excellent work. Sorry it took so long. All the best, France3470 (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Orca basin

I just noticed that you accepted the page Orca basin through AFD. The page already existed at Orca Basin. I am performing the merge now, but I thought I'd let you know. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me and carrying out a merge. Not sure how I missed that. Thank you, France3470 (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think it is half a problem of the media wiki software. It seems like sometimes capitalization is irrelevant and sometimes it is important. Some type of warning message should appear when an article is created that is only different from another in capitalization. Luckily, the editor took some of the content from the earlier article so the merge wasn't difficult, I just added the subsequent paragraphs. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes it took me by surprise because I normally search for copyvios and I would have thought the existing article would come up when I was doing that. I know I did some checking on the editor's other article so perhaps I wasn't careful enough with this one. Thanks again. Have a nice evening. France3470 (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Ales for Creation

Hi. I see you have been recruiting for help on the severely backlogged Articles for Creation. This Wikipedia department has been backlogged for a long time - are you not aware of the reasons why this is, and why the number of AfCs continues to increase? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review Query

I submitted an article for peer review on The Lokpal Bill, 2011 almost four days back but it hasn't been reviewed yet. It may just be because there is a backlog. But can you let me know if there is anything I should be doing to move the process along? Here is the reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lokpal_Bill,_2011. Vaibhavgupta1989 (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You're doing everything exactly right. Peer reviews do tend to have quite a backlog, although its not as bad at the moment then I have seen on other occasions. Editors tend to review articles which they are interested in or that they are knowledgeable about so some article do inevitably get reviewed faster than others. At the moment there are still a couple of outstanding requests from May, so it might take a while before someone takes up your request. I just had a quick look at the article and have left a few suggestions for things you could work on at the talk page. All the best, France3470 (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Erica Hunt Refused

Dear France3470, Thank you for reviewing my submission. You denied it because some of the sources seem unreliable, and I'm hoping that you will point out where the sources seem unreliable. With specifics, I hope to be able to edit the page properly. Thank you for your time. Gjenkins01 (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Article James Moran

Dear France3470

a short message to inquire about an article I tried to get published about Ambassador James Moran of the EU Delegation to Egypt. I work in his team, and we wanted in those times of great political change in the country to give the European Union Delegation some visibility, as it is a newly instated institution. I would like to know how it would be possible for our team to get the article published. I've added sources to document the text, but it doesn't seem sufficient.

Your indications would be of a great help, I therefore hope to hear from you soon,

Best,

Europa2012

Europa2012 (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth Cheney (disambiguation) and Nancy Paterson (disambiguation)

Hello, France, and thanks for your hard work on these pages. I agree that they should be deleted, but just wanted to remind you to inform the creators when you nominate pages for deletion. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for getting in touch and reminding me. I'll gone and left talkpage notes. It has always puzzled me that Twinkle doesn't automatically drop messages to the creator for G6 candidates. And while this is fine for most aspects of G6, I have never found it ideal for db-disambig noms. Despite classified as "uncontroversial maintenance", these pages (as you are well aware) can often present some tricky challenges and are hardly cut-and-dry cases despite the lengthy guidelines governing them. Creators generally have little to no understanding as to why the page is not valid, and should be informed to educate as much as for courtesy. I wonder if it might be worthwhile creating a templated talk page notice for db-disambig candidates and getting it added to Twinkle. What are your thoughts? France3470 (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that would explain why this happens so often with db-disambig. Yours were correctly applied, but in my experience, they are often applied to pages which are valid dabs, because people get confused about the criteria. I don't know much about Twinkle, but anything which involves a page being deleted should mean that the creator is informed, I think. If you can help solve this problem with Twinkle, that would be great. Thanks for your response, Boleyn (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

grichinko article

You have rejected the Grichinko article because the person is not notable enough. You are wrong. This person was the brainchild of the Cuban intelligence organization. Anyone interested in intelligence matters will find this very useful and interesting information. Do you know about this area? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eroche (talk • contribs) 14:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Eroche. Thanks for getting in touch about your AFC submission. Although I declined the article on grounds of notability this is not because I believe that the person is not important or worthy of an article. Although I am not familiar with the subject, Grichinko does seem like potentially a very influential figure. If you have a look at WP:Notability, you'll see that one of the first sentences is "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity." Notability is generally considered to be about having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". As it stands now, your article only provides one reference, which appears to cite just some of the information in the article. Do you have any additional sources which you might be able to add to the article which discuss the subject in detail? The book Not Working: Latina Immigrants, Low-wage Jobs, And the Failure of Welfare Reform appears to discuss the subject, perhaps something could be added from there. All the best, France3470 (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Farmer's daughter (character)

Hallo. I saw your double revert, and I thank you for taking the route of patience!

The large merge was partially of an experimental nature (to fix the problems with that navtemplate), and partially because I'm a mergist at heart (primarily to avoid the future AFDs of permastubs, but also for ease of information access).

I won't object if you revert or improve any of my changes, but I'd be happy to read your thoughts either here, or at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_18#Template:Stock_characters, or at Talk:Farmer's daughter (character). Thanks again, -- Quiddity (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I only had a brief moment to glance at my watchlist this morning so I wasn't able to really investigate the situation properly. Apologizes for completely missing on first glance that you did merge in the content. I did want to leave you a message but didn't quite get there. While I personally don't think there is anything wrong with stub articles, if the topic is notable, I don't have objections to merges if they are properly carried out. In this case I think there is still work to be done, as you've pointed out in your most recent comment to the Tfd. That being said, I'm not sure Tfd is the best place to have the relevant conversation about the fate of this collection of articles. If you hadn't edited Farmer's daughter (character) this morning I wouldn't have even been aware that a discussion was taking place (Tfd is not an area I regularly follow). I don't know if and RFC would be too extreme, but considering the number of article we are talking about, it is quite likely there are lots of editors involved with the subjects who might wish to weigh in. All the best, France3470 (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Page Triage newsletter

Hey all. Some quick but important updates on what we've been up to and what's coming up next :).

The curation toolbar, our Wikimedia-supported twinkle replacement. We're going to be deploying it, along with a pile of bugfixes, to wikipedia on 9 August. After a few days to check it doesn't make anything explode or die, we'll be sticking up a big notice and sending out an additional newsletter inviting people to test it out and give us feedback :). This will be followed by two office hours sessions - one on Tuesday the 14th of August at 19:00 UTC for all us Europeans, and one on Wednesday the 15th at 23:00 UTC for the East Coasters out there :). As always, these will be held in #wikimedia-office; drop me a note if you want to know how to easily get on IRC, or if you aren't able to attend but would like the logs.

I hope to see a lot of you there; it's going to be a big day for everyone involved, I think :). I'll have more notes after the deployment! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

New Pages newsletter

Hey all :)

A couple of new things.

First, you'll note that all the project titles have now changed to the Page Curation prefix, rather than having the New Pages Feed prefix. This is because the overarching project name has changed to Page Curation; the feed is still known as New Pages Feed, and the Curation Toolbar is still the Curation Toolbar. Hopefully this will be the last namechange ;p.

On the subject of the Curation Toolbar (nice segue, Oliver!) - it's now deployed on Wikipedia. Just open up any article in the New Pages Feed and it should appear on the right. It's still a beta version - bugs are expected - and we've got a lot more work to do. But if you see something going wrong, or a feature missing, drop me a note or post on the project talkpage and I'll be happy to help :). We'll be holding two office hours sessions to discuss the tool and improvements to it; the first is at 19:00 UTC on 14 August, and the second at 23:00 on the 15th. Both will be in #wikimedia-office as always. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

AFC Backlog

Articles for Creation urgently needs YOUR help! Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1272 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you autoconfirmed? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. PS: we have a great AFC helper script at User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js which helps in reviewing in just few edits easily! We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 2 or 3 reviews, it would be extremely beneficial. On behalf of the Articles for Creation project, TheSpecialUser TSU

Tim Cahill

You can revert the redirect and pages. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photonique (talk • contribs) 03:40, August 22, 2012‎

It has now been reverted. All the best, France3470 (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Arthur Drews

Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Origins of the Christ Myth - From Bruno Bauer to Arthur Drews

Rejection by France3470 rests on a big misunderstanding.

I am the writer who wrote the article ARTHUR DREWS.

I proposed the text of my section on ORIGINS OF THE CHRIST MYTH - FROM BAUER, FEUERBACH, MARX, ENGELS TO DREWS, in order to create a SUB-ARTICLE FOR ARTHUR DREWS, so as to lighten the volume of the ARTHUR DREWS article.

I am resubmitting the same text to CREATE A SUB-ARTICLE for the article ARTHUR DREWS.

Probably this misunderstanding derives from my failure to use the word SUB-ARTICLE instead of article.

If the procedure for creating a SUB-ARTICLE is different (and it should be) please inform me of the right procedure Thanks.

I really prefer a reviewer who is knowlegeable with GERMAN and GERMAN HISTORY, like me.

Thanks for your help.

ROO BOOKAROO --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 06:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Please help on creating a sub-article from a section of an existing article, such as my article Arthur Drews

If I want to create a sub-article from the section Arthur Drews#Origins of the Christ Myth Thesis: From Hegel, Feuerbach, Bauer, and Marx to Drews, do I have to go through the new article submission process? Or is there a more direct procedure?

I tried to do that with you, but you rejected my "new article" because I did not specify it was meant as a sub-article for that section in my Arthur Drews article. You could not realize my intent, and pointed to the existing section to reject my "new articl" submission. So, please inform me on how to go about creating a sub-article from the section mentioned above. This sub-article will lighten the mass of text in the main Arthur Drews article. I can only thank you in advance for your help. --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry I'm only replying now, I didn't see your earlier comments as they were posted on my userpage as opposed to here on my talk page (I've now moved the discussion here). The talk page is generally where all user to user conversation occurs; it also means that when someone posts on their talk page they get a big orange banner message alerting them that they have a new message. To answer your questions, the Articles For Creation process is only used for the submitting of new articles, often this is because the articles were submitted by IPs (who cannot create articles) or by new users who are unfamiliar with how to go about creating a new article. In this case it sounds like what you want to carry out is a WP:SPLIT of the article Arthur Drews. You'll want to have a look at Wikipedia:Article size and specifically the section WP:SUBARTICLE to figure out how to go about doing this. Before you do split the content you will want to make sure you think very carefully about what content will be split out, ideally these articles will still function on there own without the main article (for example History of England). You might also want to look for ways of condensing the current article, it uses for example a lot of quotations which is generally discouraged, see WP:QUOTEFARM for more information. Hope this helps. All the best, France3470 (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you get my message?

Did you get my message about my proposal for "new article" on Origins of the ''Christ Myth'' thesis: From Bruno Bauer to.... (thesis is on reflection a better word than "theory") to be in fact the creation of a sub-article for the section of my article on Arthur Drews, that you mistakenly interpreted as a different article. The sub-article will remove the section, once the sub-article is created.--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

See my comments in the section above. France3470 (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)