User talk:Ktr101/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orphaned non-free image File:The Boston Globe, April 4, 2009.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Boston Globe, April 4, 2009.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Boston Globe, February 24, 2008.jpeg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Boston Globe, February 24, 2008.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you

Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ponca

Hi Kevin, I purposely added images of living Native Americans to tribes' articles to combat the pervasive and insidious stereotypes about Native — the most common being that Indian people aren't alive today. Would you insist that the German people article only depict people in liederhosen??? Brent Greenwood is a Ponca Indian; he's what Ponca people look like today. The 19th-century sepia-toned photographs of Natives are beautiful and romantic but often not accurate representations of Indian people. Edward Curtis, in particular, was notorious for making his models dress in his costumes with props to "look more Indian." If you want to substitute better contemporary images of Native peoples, by all means, but please stop moving/removing photos of living Indians. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Is there any way that we could get someone else? I actually did not look to see who took the photos, but the image that is there could be anyone. The image there is very bright and makes him look more white than Ponca. I don't really care for specifics, but if you know of a better image of someone who is Poncan, that would be amazing. Honestly, if the image of Brent was of better quality, I would have kept it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, please do not rollback my edits as they were not vandalism. An explanation would help explain why you did such a thing, whereas the rollback gives no explanation for that. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I commented at Talk:Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma. This conversation perfectly illustrates why images such as Greenwood's and other living Natives need to be included in articles. But, to reassure you of his identity and tribal affiliation, I have added a US Department of the Interior reference link. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
It does not really need a citation, and I trust you on that one. I was talking about how the lighting makes it appear as though the person is lighter skinned than he really is. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Redirect discussion occurring for the Occupy Boston article

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Ktr101/Archive 5! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File:The Boston Globe, April 4, 2009.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Boston Globe, April 4, 2009.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 02:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Rollbacks

Please examine your rollbacks of edits, this and this and this were not helpful. Also, per my closing of this TFD, the template "Lists of Russians" should have very limited use, so re-adding it to hundreds of pages wasn't helpful. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Kennedy Center Honorees

I see you have created a single template, {{Kennedy Center Honorees}}, to replace the individual by year templates. The main objection to this single template approach is that it is very large, and smaller, individual templates, are better (see Luciano Pavarotti). One possible compromise would be to have a "year = " parameter in the large template, so that only one row would show. This could be accomplished using a switch statement, but more scalable would be to just move all the year templates to subtemplates of the main template. If you don't think this is a good idea, then let me know, or just comment on the talk page. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That works in theory, I guess. I would rather have a single template because five links on a template is quite silly in my opinion and it doesn't really provide much of a context to the history of the award. I mass-reverted that IP because it was disruptive and the goal is to make things easier to read, not harder. If anything, I would support even breaking things up into subsections that could collapse. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ira Kurzban

Hi there, Can you please explain your decision to blank out entire sections of the Wiki article on Ira Kurzban? I have checked and double-checked the links you deleted and they fall well within Wiki standards. The fact that Kurzban was a registered lobbyist also should be mentioned. The way the article reads now it sounds like an advertisement written by Kurzban himself, not an objective Wiki entry. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.122.179 (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It appears that I accidentally got involved in a content dispute. I was reverting a sock (which is the standard thing to do when they are accused of being a sockpuppet. Either way, it looks like you are the one being reverted and I am no longer going to participate in issue at hand. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Yep, contributions by block evading socks get reverted on sight and the socks get blocked. :) Syrthiss (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Feedback Dashboard task force

Hi Ktr101,

I noticed you replied to some feedback from the new Feedback Dashboard feature – you might be interested in the task force Steven Walling and I just created for this purpose: Wikipedia:Feedback Dashboard. Thanks for diving in on your own and helping the newbies, and I hope you'll sign up! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Lists of Russians

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 14#Template:Lists of Russians 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 14#Template:Lists of Russians 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Kennedy Center Honorees templates

I have been talking with Plastikspork (talk · contribs) about the {{Kennedy Center Honorees}}. Basically, my problem with it is that it adds 250 links to every article. It has become commmon to use interlinking templating systems to cut down on links. E.G., the Academy Awards were one of the early adopters. Many awards followed. Now if you look at a page like Meryl Streep you will see that most of her templates are parts of interlinking template systems. I have made a bunch of these types of systems. Two examples that are by decade are {{AcademyAwardBestOriginalSong 1971–1980}} and {{Grammy Award for Album of the Year 2000s}}. If we just split out each decade into a separate template and interlink them like these each article will only get about 55 extra links. There are some articles that are approaching the upper bound on the number of links included in the article. I think this honor will be less of a problem with decade by decade templates. I am willing to create these, if this is what is wanted. We were talking it over at User_talk:Plastikspork#Kennedy_Center_Honorees. He mentioned that I should really talk with you because it was your idea. What do you think?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Aviation crashes near or on Cape Cod and the Islands

Category:Aviation crashes near or on Cape Cod and the Islands, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger One ping only 04:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

MILHIST Military Aviation Questionaire

Hi Ktr101! As your MILHIST Military Avation Task Force coordinator, I'd like to conduct a short questionaire to give me an idea of what you would the task force to achieve and the capabilities of yours that might contribute positively to the task force. The four questions of this questionaire are:

  1. What are your strengths on Wikipedia?
  2. Which four military aviation articles would you like to see be promoted to at least GA?
  3. What detailed resources (books, journals, etc) about military aviation do you have access to? Please provide the publications' authors, titles and ISSNs/ISBNs.
  4. Which three military aviation articles are you wiling to provide assistance? This can be expansion, copyediting, reference formatting, etc.

Please reply by copying and pasting the following at User talk:Sp33dyphil#MILHIST Military Aviation questionnaire and filling it out. 

; ~~~
#My strengths
#Articles I'd like to see the task force improve
#:
#:
#:
#:
#Sources which I have
#:
#:
#Articles I'm willing to provide assistance
#:

Thank you for your assistance. Regards --Sp33dyphil © • © 09:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

2011 Oklahoma earthquake

I reverted your addition of states where the earthquake was felt since I think the state or country that had the epicenter or at least some impact should be the only one noted as such...due to the moderate nature of this quake, the impact was zero outside Oklahoma. If you disagree and restore your edit, I won't fight that, but does the WikiProject earthquakes have a ruling on this matter? I screened the project page and didn't see anything that stood out.--MONGO 07:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I keep an eye on the watchlist for articles in WP Earthquakes, so I noticed the addition of 'earthquake in state' categories to earthquakes that neither had their epicentres in that state nor caused significant damage there. I've reverted your various additions and removed several other categories for some of the quakes. It seems logical to me that earthquake articles should only be in the categories of states/countries that either contained the epicenter or were affected by significant damage (at least MMI VI, should probably be VII). Mikenorton (talk) 07:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion on this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Earthquakes#Guidelines for inclusion in 'Earthquakes in country/state' Categories. Mikenorton (talk) 11:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a friendly pointer

I know it's old news now but.. In your edit summary here you stated: "removed the merge tag as no one has suggested to why they want this merged" .. however, the merge rationale was on the talk page all along ;) be diligent! -- œ™ 11:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that is old. I might have just wrote in the wrong summary as I had standardized my summaries at the time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thank you for your support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 02:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: The Postelles

Hi Ktr101. This one was well above the bar of a speedy deletion, as the subject has coverage in national magazines. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow...I cannot believe that I missed those references. My bad. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Shelly Burch

This one had multiple assertions of significance: a Drama Desk nomination, coverage in the New York Times, a long-running role on an ABC soap opera, and so on... Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Trent Evans

This one appears to have some coverage in third-party sources, found with a quick Google search. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

See, I thought he might be notable, but doing something which might be considered quite non-notable is something which tipped me past that point. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: OVOXO

Hello Ktr101, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of OVOXO, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Zircon (composer)

Hello Ktr101. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Zircon (composer) to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. Guerillero | My Talk 06:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, can I ask who do I speak to about the article I created that's up for deletion please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABaptiste (talk • contribs) 14:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey ABaptiste! Essentially, the article has no sources that would be considered neutral such as media reports. Additionally, I don't think that he himself is all that notable to begin with as he seems to just create video game songs. If he has won a notable award for his works, please place it there as it would help to establish notability, but otherwise this article does not really show why he should have an article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Abaptiste has removed the prod. If you are still concerned with Zircon's notability, you will have to take it to afd. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Piano Concerto No. 1 (Saint-Saëns)

Firstly, please remember to wait at least 10-15 minutes before tagging an article A1 or A3; it's supposed to avoid WP:BITE. Second, WP:CSD#A1 states that articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article qualify under that deletion, while this article had sufficient context. Thanks --Bryce (talk | contribs) 08:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Page patrol

Hi Kevin, I noticed that you patrol new pages at a speed that might be too high. I checked four articles you patrolled within one minute:

  1. 18th Screen Actors Guild Awards - only referenced by the web site of the award-giving organisation. That's not an independent source.
  2. Chilean corvette Constitución (1851) - ok
  3. Kristiansand Boardwalk - only referenced by a blog entry. That's not a reliable source.
  4. Affordability of housing in Canada - Issues with copyvio (which I removed, I think), paraphrasing, no incoming links. Down on the page was an entire paragraph duplicated, and a referencing error resulted in a huge red error message.

I think you are around long enough to not need wikilinks to the relevant policies. I am not often at NPP, maybe it is not possible to read the articles before patrolling, due to lack of time. But maybe you could go a bit slower, even if that means that the backlog increases further. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I accepted them trusting that they would eventually be expanded. The boardwalk one missed me, but the other ones were accepted in good faith. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Just take care, slow down :p I understand nothing would ever get done if people patrolled pages like I do (one every two or three minutes) but the whole point of NPP is not to let things get through the gaps. (And conversely, not to drive away newbies by being too brusque; both side-effects of moving very quickly.) sonia♫ 19:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The whole point of NPP is grooming new editors. Telling them how to improve their articles, either by placing article tags or by leaving friendly notices on their talk page, can potentially speed up their learning process.
Quality control is only of secondary importance; there is a lot of crap that NPP never sees. This article about a settlement of over a million people soon celebrates its seventh birthday on WP, has had 30 non-bot edits, and has survived five or six displays as "bad example" in public lectures to >100 WP newbies. No-one ever cared to go there and improve it. The editor (funny enough, a former admin) has left, that's why it is in such a sorry state. This version of my first article (admittedly not the most significant topic on WP) remained essentially unchanged for over 2 years, until someone alerted me on its inappropriate style. I had forgotten about it, but improved it after being notified.
TL;DR: Clicking "patrol" or "CSD" is not the most important result of page patrol. It is engaging the author to produce better articles. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Idaho State v. Tinno

I noticed this move just now. What exactly about the article indicated that it was ready for the article namespace? --MZMcBride (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I moved it assuming it would be expanded as one article is better than no article at all. I can move it back though if you want. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Please be more careful in the future. No article is surely better than a misleading article. I went to clean up the article and quickly realized that it was not a U.S. Supreme Court case, as the (blank) infobox might suggest. The case also seems to be named "State v. Tinno," not "Idaho State v. Tinno." The lack of references in the article should've been a fairly large cue to take caution. I've moved the page back into the user namespace (User:Kawasak.kid/Sandbox) and marked the redirects for deletion. The draft seems like it has plenty of potential, but I don't think it's ready for the article namespace at this time. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Ruth Barnes article

I wrote an article about Ruth Barnes - no relation to me at all - who is a prominent BBC presenter in the UK which you have rejected for inclusion. You may not have heard of the BBC but it is the largest newsgathering broadcaster on the planet so people who appear on it, especially on its flagship TV channel, I think are worthy for inclusion in an article on Wikipedia. I wrote the article because Ruth Barnes is mentioned in other entries on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazing_Radio HickoryJohn (talk) 07:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey HickoryJohn! A few of the sources on the article need fixing, but otherwise it checks out. I clicked the wrong button when reviewing it though, so I hope you'll forgive me for that. If you could add a few third-party sources, that would be great. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Good Shepherd Sisters: Omaha Order

I cannot understand why you declined that AFC here, as a 'non-notable organization'. It's 117 years old; the submission had lots of decent sources; it's clear that it is notable. I've accepted it now.  Chzz  ►  13:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I made a mistake, as I am still unsure of the notability of religious organizations in that realm. Thanks for correcting that though, and welcome back! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Two Gomers Podcast

Thanks for rechecking my page so fast. I couldn't believe how fast I heard back from you.

I'm hoping you can provide me with a little bit of guidance on this page. In short, this podcast group has become very important to the running community all across the country. After your first review of "This suggestion doesn't sufficiently explain the importance or significance of the subject," I went back and added more references, mostly focusing on the importance of social media as a successful training tool for marathoners, as well as the affects that slower runners have on the running community. See added text under "Inspiring a Nation to Run" and "Social Media", as well as the added note about their presence on itunes found under "Featured On...".

I'd hoped that the additional content would directly justify the article, but I see that it hasn't. As a new wikipedia user, I am completely stumped at this point what else to do. I feel like I've been working on this article forever. Do you have ANY suggestions? HELP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwoGomers (talk • contribs) 13:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't actually aware that we had podcasts on this site until now, and I have gone ahead and accepted it in light of the changes that you made. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
If you could, would you be willing to follow my lead on removing line breaks? Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks a lot for your help Kevin. I really appreciate it. TwoGomers (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Evangelical Times

Hi Kevin,

I am a total beginner so forgive me if I do this all wrong...keen to learn! :-) You rejected the above article. I know that I need to sort out the copyright email for the images but you rejected it as not sufficiently important for Wikipedia. Wikipedia already has an article stub on Evangelicals Now (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicals_Now) which has no 3rd party references and a smaller circulation than Evangelical Times. There is a link from within that Stub to Evangelical Times which redirects to Evangelical Press. If 'Evangelical Press' and 'Evangelicals Now' warrant pages then I cannot see why Evangelical Times does not.

Andrewprowell (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Andrew, I'm going to get back to you on that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, These are the current Wikipedia Articles that refer to Evangelical Times: British_Conservative_Evangelicalism Steve_Chalke Wales_Evangelical_School_of_Theology John_Stott John_Kensit Carey_Baptist_Church Fellowship_of_Independent_Evangelical_Churches Jonathan_Skinner E._J._H._Nash Fountain_Trust Martyn_Lloyd-Jones Evangelicals_Now Church_Society Michael_Haykin Prospects_%28charity%29 New_Apostolic_Church — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewprowell (talk • contribs) 00:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Andrew, it appears as if it is notable by Wikipedia standards. I'll go ahead and create it now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Apologies re: my bot

Sorry. See User_talk:ChzzBot IV#Issue. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  18:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

contributions about writer, surfer, skier ronnie lees

I may have submitted to soon, was confused about the directions but I believe I have it now. I follow this persons career and he is very famous in the Northeast Surfing and Snow, communities. He also writes and I have read both his novels. I found more sources of online information about Ronnie Lees, news papers, Television, and placed them in the references. I am still adding to this now that I figured it out. Love your site, I plan on donating to it. Should I add more to this contribution? Steve.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpkin2011 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Pumpkin. I am really unsure of this one, so I will let someone else review that article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Original contract

Hello, Ktr101. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

In checking my email received from Wickipedia advising my article has been rejected by the reviewer; I note that you are the reviewer; activating the link provided I arrived at this page.

I note also that you are an American; You are very lucky; you do have the proper provision of both Citizenship and the protection of law. My misfortune is that I have none of this. I am a mere "Subject of the British Crown"; that provides me with no protection of LAW, at all.

That, with my article, is what I was attempting to convey to the resders of Wickipedia. Particularly the British, but, nevertheless, all, need to fully understand, all there is to know about the "ORIGINAL CONTRACT".

Were the "ORIGINSAL CONTRACT" to be properly understood and enforced in my country; it would provide all our People with far greater protection of LAW, than the American's have with their 'written constitution' and, their 'Bill of Rights'. It would either force the 'Reigning Monarch' to provide their protection; or, it would end their 'subjugation' to the Crown, omce and for all. It would also reform Parliament, so that we had a true People's DEMOCRACY.

Birdsaflying (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Birdsaflying, I am happy to help you. Sorry for the response which you considered rude, as I had was busy when I was doing it and did not think to respond in more detail. Essentially, the article is very notable, the references are amazing, and you mave most of the context there. What is the issue is that it is written in a way which is not how normal Wikipedia articles are created, although it can be fixed with a lot of time placed into it. I'm going to talk to another editor now to see what we can do, but there is hope for the article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

New article - Stephen Hill

Hi Ktr101 - thanks for getting to this new page for review so quickly. I understand your concern about Wikipedia:Notability of the page's subject. I'm also doing a page on his brother, Peter Hill at the moment and I may have gone to far in playing down their notability in an attempt to maintain a neutral tone. There are three brothers, Stephen, Peter and the youngest Matt Hill (CEO) but there are fewer reliable references for the older two, but I'll have another pass at the page and resubmit. Thanks, Jbro68 (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking back at it, I fluked and declined that article. I have gone back and created it for you. Sorry for the inconvenience. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
No worries, understood, I was racking my brains on how to re-write it ;), thanks again Jbro68 (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Crowdsourced translation of the Bible into LOLcat

Thank you for your helpful comments. I have taken your suggestion of incorporating the page into LOLCat Bible Translation Project as a level-2 section, cutting material that would be repetitive there and otherwise adapting it to its location.

Will it be OK for me to delete the draft page and its discussion page, or does that get done by bots or admins?

Sure, just go right ahead and request a speedy deletion. Good job with your article, though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Bodhidharma's birthplace

Hi Ktr101. I saw you moved my draft on Bodhidharma's birtplace to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bodhidharma's birthplace, at the request of Madi Carlo da Silva. This article has already become a subpage of the Bodhidharma page: Bodhidharma/Birthplace sources. It is intended to provide an overview of all the different birthplaces which are mentioned in the discussion on Bodhidharma. Madi Carlo da Silva has first removed three possible options, before requesting review, without any discussion with me - an utterly unpolite move, to my opinion. I would like to have it restored to the original draft in my user-space, since it was meant to be kept as a back up-notebook for the Bodhidharma/Birthplace sources. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ktr101. Regarding the above request by Joshua, please read Talk:Bodhidharma/Birthplace sources as that may help put the circumstances into perspective. Regards, ClaretAsh 12:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey Joshua, I actually made that move on my own as subpages aren't allowed on Wikipedia at the mainspace level and I never saw the page move request before I moved it. I would strongly urge that you go ahead and move it back as it will probably be done anyways. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Never mind. I was really pissed by the unpolite behaviour of da Silva. I copied the contents back to my userspace. It is a tricky subject anyway, but the edits that da Silva made also show what's the issue here. Let's see if there are more objections to a subpage to the Bodhdiharma-article; if there are I'll keep it in my userspace, not as a draft but as a 'notebook'. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey Josh, let me clarify my comments. The article itself is not what is at issue, but the fact that you had a subpage that was titled XXX/XXX. "/"s are not allowed in pages in the way that you used them. I made the move to the new title to remove the forwardslash. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. But what was not correct about it then? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Basically, forward slashes are not used in article titles for the most part, and the article would be better at the title that it was moved to by me (or some other similarly-named title). Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Oaky, thanks. Sorry for eventual itchy undertones. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Kevin. Sorry to poke my nose in again but, just to check whether I may have given Joshua faulty advice, when you say "subpages aren't allowed on Wikipedia at the mainspace level", does that also apply to subpages of a mainspace talk page? Also, in the absence of subpages, where is the usual location for collating sources useful for a particular article? Thank you. ClaretAsh 12:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi both of you. This issue is getting really messy: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bodhidharma's birthplace Take notice of my line right under the review-template. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CHRIS SNELL

Hello Ktr101. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CHRIS SNELL, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 18:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Johnny Joplin

Hi there...what specifically needs to be addressed on my Johnny Jolin submission? Thanks!Aswgoblue (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

He never won any notable awards and he seems rather trivial at this point. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Helena Espvall

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article.)
  • To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
  • If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the reviewer's talk page. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! JamesDHenderson (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Ktr101--

I'm new at creating articles, so I hope this is the right place to write these comments.

The submitted article for Helena Espvall meets the notability guidelines on music-related topics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MUSIC), specifically points 5 and 6:

5. Has released two or more 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 with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable).

  • Espvall's albums Helena Espvall & Masaki Batoh and Overloaded Ark were both released on Drag City, an independent label with a 21 year history and a roster of numerous notable artists. Espvall also released three albums as part of Espers (band) on Drag City.

6. Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.

14 other articles contain red links to Helena Espvall, which demonstrates that there is already demand for the creation of this article. A WP search for Helena Espvall verifies this.

Peace,

James

To me, Helena looks like she isn't notable, but I am always welcome to be questioned, as I am bound to have made mistakes today. I'll go ahead and create it as the second look that I have given it has given me a new view of it. Thanks for your contributions! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, Kevin. --James — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesDHenderson (talk • contribs) 05:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Some golden kiwifruit for you!

Happy birthday
It's brown on the outside, yellow on the inside, and fuzzy. (Also, I really should get a better picture of them; there's no decent ones of golden kiwifruit.) Anyway, birthday, hope you had a good one, etc. sonia♫ 07:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Aww, thanks! Also, why aren't you taking a photo of them? Chop! Chop! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

About new article of creation

Hi Kevin,

Recently you posted this message for an article of creation:

"This suggestion doesn't sufficiently explain the importance or significance of the subject. See the speedy deletion criteria (A7) and/or guidelines on notability. Please provide more information on why the subject is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Thank you."

To this respect, I just want to inform you that 'The Incredible Change Bots' is the best known book done by his author, Jeffrey Brown. In fact, the release of a second edition was done in April 2011. In Wikipedia there is an article of another book from the same author, 'Bighead', but it is not understandable, because the success and importance of 'The Incredible Change Bots' was greater.

Just an example: if you see in 'Amazon' the comments and global valutations for 'The Incredible Change Bots', you will confirm this is the most valued book of this author by the readers, while 'Bighead' has not any comments neither valuations.

Thanks in advance, Regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msagarra (talk • contribs) 10:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The references work now, so I see no problems with submission. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

So, how can I do to include the article definitively in Wikipedia, Kevin ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msagarra (talk • contribs) 09:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

AFC reviews

Check Derek Brin. Please, do take some more minutes next time and either trim down the draft/article or mark some of the statements. Please read WP:BLP: every fact (esp in this case about the parents/his private life) should either be removed or cited. I marked it and I hope that the submitter is doing some work on it. mabdul 13:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I was just going through and giving the article a quick look-over, but I never saw that as I would have probably removed the more problematic material. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Gabriel deGrood Bendt Entry

Thanks for reviewing my entry, Kevin. I modeled the entry after other advertising agencies based in Minneapolis (Fallon Worldwide, Campbell Mithun, Martin Williams and Clarity Coverdale Fury) that are on Wikipedia. Is the determination of their significance based on revenue or how much they are written about in the media? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanJHauser (talk • contribs) 14:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I had no idea we had many marketing agency pages here. I have tended to be grading articles a little more toughly than usual with companies, but I would encourage you to resubmit it in order to have someone else grade it, as I am prone to mistakes when reviewing and welcome feedback. The article does appear a bit promotional though (then again it is an advertising agency), but I would also suggest that you move the references to exist more within the article, an not at the bottom, where they currently are now. Again, sorry about that and I look forward to what your next submission will be like. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/We Should Be Lovers

There is more than one reference? Can't you see it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.110.232 (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but you still need to place the reference text within the article, not at the bottom like it currently is. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
It's after the sentence. What do you mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.110.232 (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Follow the lead of the edit which I will do there, and then it will make sense. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
What edit? You're really not making any sense at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.110.232 (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't it meet all requirements right now? I don't have other information apart from most played song of the year and if that isn't notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.110.232 (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
It has one more sentence now. Will that do? Didn't know it had to be finished to be published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.110.232 (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I thought you were editting another article as there was no header for your section and I was responding to the article in the section above this. Yes, it looks better and it is ready to go. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

page not notable?

I am a newbie and confused. I am trying to post a Wiki Article about the College and Association of Nurses in Alberta, and the block seems to be that it isnt' noteworthy enough, and yet here is a very similar organization from Ontario that is live. What am I missing or supposed to do? Please help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Nurses%27_Association Dazzle14 (talk) 03:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe what is being asked is why does this article need to be posted? I would say because the general public should be able to find the organization that is responsible to accrediting 30,000 nurses in the province of alberta. This helps with public safety. Nurses can be looked up by name on line for currency because of the responsibilities of this organization. Dazzle14 (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am always open to suggestions to review it, and looking at again, and realizing that there is one for a neighboring province, I will accept it. We all have different interpretations of what fits on this site, so thanks for bringing this up to me, as I would not have thought of this otherwise. Please add the citations within the text, though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

bigmembrane

Hi Kevin,

I was looking for more guidance about the bigmembrane article. I added some usage stats of desalinated water, provided by bigmembranes. Could you please give more specifics. The 6.5 of water usage in the US seems pretty big, especially in light of municipalities from ATL to LV and Tampa to Sacramento struggling to meet their water needs.

Thanks Dan Pasulka — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danpasulka (talk • contribs) 03:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Dan! Basically, the article is in that gray area of notability. I'll go ahead and create it as it probably won't be deleted, but I would suggest re-writing it as it so that it provides more info about what it does and includes citations within the text. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Part of the article is missing after submitting

Hello, Ktr101. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Incredible Change-Bots article

Hi Kevin, if you agree with my new references for the article mentioned in headline, how can I do to include the article definitively in Wikipedia???

Thanks!

Msagarra (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The article just doesn't feel notable, although someone else might have another opinion of the article, and I would encourage you to re-submit it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ktr101. You have new messages at Nikhilchandra81's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nomination of Lethal Lady for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lethal Lady is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lethal Lady until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The Bushranger One ping only 11:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

US SIF Wiki Page

Hi, hope you're doing well. Thanks for reviewing the new wiki submission.

This organization's page links in with the Socially Responsible Investing wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socially_responsible_investing), because their biannual report is used by Wikipedia as a source and other organizations as a resource for trends in SRI. I'm afraid I'm a little new at posting/editing content on Wikipedia, so I wanted to ask a question.

If we were to find some additional third-party sources to corroborate the information posted in the article, do you think the article would be accepted?

Conversely, because it's a reliable source for Socially Responsible Investing data, do you think the article could be accepted anyways considering the high profile of the organization.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CallCbd (talk • contribs) 13:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That would probably be good so it could establish outside views of notability. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on the outside sources, however, I would like to ask that the article be reconsidered for submission. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CallCbd (talk • contribs) 16:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Article for Submission - Gendis Inc.

Hi there: I have been working on my article for submission "Gendis Inc." The last review I got suggested that my article doesn't sufficiently explain the significance of the subject (i.e. Gendis Inc.). With that in mind, I have edited the article and re-submitted it, but I remain somewhat confused as to why the company, Gendis Inc., doesn't warrant it's own Wikipedia page. If you search for "Gendis Inc." in the search engine of Wikipedia, you will note that the name comes up 6 times in already published articles, namely under (1) Albert D. Cohen (2) SAAN Stores (3) Alastair Sweeny (4) Companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (5) List of people from Winnipeg (6) Sony Canada. I feel that these "mentions" warrant Wikipedia having an article on Gendis Inc. - what the company does, it's background, etc. For instance, Gendis Inc. created Sony Canada - I think that's of importance as was their creation of SAAN Stores. In any event, could you please re-visit my "Revision" (Dec. 21st, 2011) and advise? Thanks. Winkerton (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Kathi (aka "Winkerton")

The article needs more independent citations, a removal of the Wikipedia pages as citations, internal links, and an intro. Otherwise, the article is good. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


Article for Submission - CHAMPS2

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for looking at the CHAMPS2 article earlier this week. I've since re-read the guidelines on notability and if you have time I would really appreciate clarification on which part of these the current references are failing to meet so that this can (hopefully) get sorted. I've compared the references on the draft CHAMPS2 article with those given for OBASHI but didn't find this as enlightening as I'd hoped! Any advice will be really appreciated. With thanks --Elfthryth (talk) 12:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I feel as though it has too small of a scope of notability due to the references that are being provided. The article still reads like an advertisement though, so that's another issue. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect Title

The correct title for my recently published article is "Neutral Buoyancy...", not "Eutral Buoyancy..."

Please correct the title.

Thanks for publishing my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DM18HD (talk • contribs) 19:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for catching that mistake! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Eutral Buoyancy Simulation as a training aid

A tag has been placed on Eutral Buoyancy Simulation as a training aid requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ktr101. You have new messages at OlYeller21's talk page.
Message added 03:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OlYeller21Talktome 03:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Happy new year!
We wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year! Pass a Method talk 20:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, and the same to you as well! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

File:6th Space Warning Squadron emblem.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:6th Space Warning Squadron emblem.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 22:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Main Building at Naval Group Support Activity, Winter Harbor.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Main Building at Naval Group Support Activity, Winter Harbor.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 22:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Your review on Holiday Inn Glenmarie Kuala Lumpur

Hi Kevin,

I really hope you can explain some things to me. First of all, why is this hotel/resort considered not notable? I mean, it has been covered by the newspapers and stuff here. And this article has been tagged with blatant advertisement. T_T Then why are articles like Sheraton Imperial Kuala Lumpur, JW Marriott Kuala Lumpur, Shangri-La Kuala Lumpur, etc. are not? @_@ I'm confused. Please help! Thank you.

Black91rose (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, all of the articles in Category:Hotels in Kuala Lumpur are not notable and probably should be deleted. If anything this article is what you should strive for, and remove all of the promotional stuff. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Macnification Revised

I would like to know what parts of my submission require editing, what needs to be changed? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleepy-molly (talk • contribs) 08:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Essentially, the article is not notable, a neologism, and an advertisement. One of the pains of each submission is that you do not delete the previous text, so it creates more work for the reviewer to determine what is the actual submission. Honestly, the article is probably not going to be created, but you are always welcome to move it in the main space as reviewers do not have complete control over the submission process and the movement ability of the average user allows for everyone to help out. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Declining Articles

Hi, I noticed alot articles you declined for Articles for Creation on December 20 had the {{Wrong AFC submission}} template on it. After you decline an article, please remove this template.

Cheers, JDOG555Talk 16:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Ellis Island Hospital

I have redirected the stub you created to Ellis Island#Unrenovated buildings. It is a worthy topic to write about, and be in included main article, until such time as the information can support a split, and then, of its own page. Best, Djflem (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I reverted that edit as I was planning on expanding the article. Also, creating the article will allow for attention to be drawn to it lest someone find it on the internet, has some information to add, and wants to. Honestly, the more articles that we have for notable topics that aren't redirected into another article, the better, because it allows for people to easily add material without having to deal with redirects and other stuff. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Help with the Review of my new writings (42une)

Hello

Thank you for reviewing the article I have submitted. I am fadhalina. I have gotten your review as being denied/need to be improved for my article 42une. I know currently, there is a lot of informations or credibility I have to put up or linked it with before I am being accepted. Could you give me more leads or help on how to improve from your point of view as a reviewer. I am confused at some areas also. I have insert a logo but it doesn't appear, and the other details at the info box doesn't appear also. Kindly inform what I should do to improve on my article more. Really need your kind help. This 42une, is going to be the newest social networking sites and currently we have received the support from a venture capitalist for our first round financing. So we are in the development stage on finishing the detailed programme so as to make available the site for users to use. We will launch on 1st half 2012, I hope you are able to give some detailed pointers. Thank you.

Rgds,

Fadhalina Founder of 42une.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadha (talk • contribs) 16:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Fadhalina, essentially the article is not notable an reads like an advertisement. Additionally, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we do not create pages based on perceived notability. If in the next year 42une does become notable and well-known in Singapore, then there might be hope for having an article, but until then, the article will never be passed because the subject does not meet general notability guidelines. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

reviewed article

I submitted a new article as a stub with no references (thinking they weren't needed for stubs). It was rejected because it required references. I added these, and it was rejected again for the same reason, but what is left on the Articles for creation page is the original article, not the one with the references I added. Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ben_Margolis Not sure how this could have happened, but my edited version seems to have been lost in the process.

MikeG (talk) 06:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Mike! I mean, technically stubs don't always have references (almost every established Wikipedian adds references though to prevent sudden deletion), but since it's one of a person, it needs references no matter what. It appears as though the reference addition that you made wasn't saved, but otherwise I would have approved that article in a heartbeat had it had them there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I haven't created an article since 2006, and things were a bit more lax then. Will try again. MikeG (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Feedback on Articles for creation/Engineer Mohammed Bashir Karaye Prize for Hausa Writing

Thanks for looking at my article proposal. In addressing the significance issues, I have to begin by saying the reason I suggested the article was so my edit to the List of literary awards page didn't get deleted. (That page only allows literary awards for which a Wikipedia article already exists.) I was doing some research on literature awards as ways of promoting and sustaining minority languages, and I came across the Hausa prize almost by accident. When I saw that no prizes were mentioned for Nigeria on the list page, I re-found the information on the Hausa prize so I could add it. Of course this doesn't answer the question of significance.

It's unlikely anyone would doubt that the Pulitzer Prize (one of the most famous American equivalents to the Nigerian prize) is significant enough to be included, nor that most of the 200+ prizes listed for countries other than the United States on the List of literary awards page, are likewise significant. (Though I'll confess, I doubt the significance of a couple of them.) So my question is what makes the Pulitzer different, and at what point would the Nigerian prize qualify?

The Nigerian prize only awards N150,000, which is roughly US$1,000, for its top prize. This is substantially less than the Pulitzer Prize award of $10,000, but when one takes cost of living into account, the Nigerian award is still fairly substantial. Nigeria's per capita GDP is $2,500 [PPP] - compared to the US figure of $47,200 [PPP].[1] This isn't a perfect measure for cost of living, but a prize that is 10 times smaller seems acceptable in a country where the people are 20 times poorer. If it were a larger prize in absolute terms, it would definitely be closer to the significance threshold, but even prizes of only nominal monetary value can be still significant (for example, an Oscar is only worth $1, because the Academy puts a buyback provision in the contract when one wins an Oscar).

I have only found evidence that the Nigerian prize has been awarded three times: in 2007, 2008, and 2009. The Pulitzer prize is much older, but surely a prize doesn't have to be 50+ years old to be noteworthy (probably half the list I was trying to add the Nigerian prize to would become disqualified if that were the case). However, three years is young. Maybe there should be a minimum threshold that an award be granted continuously for 10 years before it get a page (as there are dozens of prizes that are one time deals).

The candidate pool for the Pulitzer is potentially the 300 million people who live in America. Even though Nigeria has over 150 million people, the Nigerian prize is limited by the target language. Hausa is spoken by between 20 and 40 million people (depending on whether you include second language speakers), and the number of literate Hausa speakers is even lower (68% of Nigeria is literate, but because of what schools emphasize depending on the part of the country, many are only literate in English, and struggle reading or writing in their native language). But this limiting factor still gives the Hausa prize a larger base than similar prizes listed for Hebrew literature, for example.

The Pulitzer Prize has more categories, but unlike my article, each Pulitzer Prize category has its own page. I don't feel the Nigerian prize is yet significant enough to deserve a separate page for each of its two categories (prose and drama, with the possible addition of poetry), but taken as a whole the prize may still qualify.

The Pulitzer has lots of information readily available for more reading. The Nigerian prize does not have its own website, nor do the sponsoring parties: the Bashir Karaye Foundation and the Association of Nigerian Authors (though the ANA used to have its own website, and it still appears to maintain an email list serve). However, something need not have its own website to be noteworthy. As far as I can tell, there was a big push to get websites for all of these initiatives in 2008-2009, and then the websites were taken down for lack of resources to maintain them. This is fairly common in many parts of Africa as well as other parts of the developing world, where I have seen more than one government body or university take down a website because of lack of resources and know how for maintaining one, and a perceived low return for having one as many of the people they seek to serve don't have internet. Unfortunately this makes it difficult to confirm that the prize is still being offered. The latest information on the ANA suggests they haven't done anything since 2004, but then they are listed as running the Hausa Writing prize, and their email list serve gets good traffic (50 messages this month - though it may be spam for all I know, I haven't signed up for it), but they haven't updated their blog since 2009. If the prize was cancelled, it may not be significant (again, three years is not very long as far as these prizes go), but I suspect it just isn't getting internet traffic. Of course, my inability to access source documents coming out of Nigeria except by the internet (such as official ANA minutes of print newspapers) limits my ability to verify, which works against establishing the significance of the subject, but that should bear more on proper and adequate citations and not on significance. As for the citations I could find, one is to a newspaper published online announcing the third year prize winners, one is to a blog by a reporter who published the official announcement of the third year results in its entirety, one is to an announcement on a bulletin board giving the short list for the second year prize, and one is to a Hausa language announcement on a message board of the prize's first year (though I'll confess, my Hausa isn't great, and that's one language Google translate doesn't do). Even though two of the sources are pretty weak (message boards are never as good as established media actors), these are four independent sources that collaborate the details of what the prize is, how it was founded, and that is does in fact have winners.

As a final note about significance, I think this is more significant than most of the prizes on the literary award list because it is one of the few prizes in a colonized country that was specifically created to encourage the creation of literature in an indigenous language. The only other prize I could find for indigenous languages in a country where a colonial language is preferred over indigenous languages in public life is the Philippines, which has major awards for English and Tagalog, and essay contests three other indigenous languages.

Now if you feel that makes the subject significant, how do I fix the article so that it is evident that it is significant, and so it doesn't get deleted right away? I admit that my article in its current form is probably a stub, but beyond some minor cosmetic changes (like listing the winners of the third year), I'm probably not in a position to make the article look more significant because of the lack of source data issue. It would probably require someone in Nigeria finding updated information. If it doesn't rise to the level of significance, I could probably put the information on the page for the Association of Nigerian Authors, which has information about other prizes they administer (again, the latest information there is 2004). Vojen (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Vojen. From the looks of your explanation, you have provided a reasonable reason for notability (and lack of sources) and I will go ahead and clean it up later today, if someone doesn't beat me too it. Thanks for the wonderful explanation as well, as I never really thought of the trouble that people go through in order to find sources that don't constantly vanish. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


I saw that the page is up. Thanks again for your help.Vojen (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Prostitution in Vietnam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sapa (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) 10:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Feedback: Articles for creation/Disabled Sports USA

Is there editing I can do to expedite the review process for this article? It appears that this article, my first, is taking longer than other articles to review, and I am concerned that I have done something to complicate its submission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davejsimonson (talk • contribs) 14:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It's all set and ready to go! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Also, you did nothing, I was the one who made it more complicated so that I wouldn't accidentally decline it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Kevin! The article has been assessed as C-Class. I read over the grading definitions, but if you have any recommendations on how I can improve the article's grade, I would welcome your advice. For this article and future articles, I want to make sure I am submitting high quality content! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davejsimonson (talk • contribs) 19:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

At this point, I would just write in whatever you can as long as it continues to fit the style of the encyclopedia. Additionally, it wouldn't hurt to add in more citations an do whatever you can to improve it. Once you think you think that you have improved it significantly, let me know and I'll see if it can get a grading boost or be nominated to be a good article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Great Job!!!

I am so grateful for you helping improve Prostitution in Vietnam the sources are really good. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to help me with this as it has a ton of potential for expansion (to something the size of the Thailand article) if you want. Besides, Pianista is working on the media section (which also has huge potential) and just stumbling into things on the internet is really quite an informative experience. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aidan Salakhova.

Dear Kevin, thank you for the time you devoted to reviewing my article. I have a few questions for you re my submission. I have read Wiki guidelines corresponding to the issue I have with my entry, and I still cannot understand why my article lacks information about significance an importance of the person I want to write about. Aidan Salakhova is one of the most important contemporary artists not only in Russia, but far beyond Russian community. Her work reflects on many crucial and delicate themes of the modern society, and interest to her art has grown even more after the 54th Venice Biennale scandal, where obviously, her artworks were severely censored, again, because of the subjects she tackles in her art. This incident attracted attanetion of major international media like Independent, Observer, Art Daily, etc etc etc...Moreover, she is one of the most influential art gallerists in Russia, promoting strong contemporary Russian art. She obviously is on one of the major figures in the Russian art scene, and her name now is well known outside Russia and Azerbaijan as well, not only because she is a very talented artist, but also because she is a free thinker and a challenger. She inspires people, she makes them think and ask.

Said all above, I truly hope you can help me figure out what is wrong with my text.

Thank you in advance, Kevin, have a great day.Sashani4 (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Sashani! Personally, I did not initially feel that she is notable, although reading over it in a different light has allowed me to place her into that gray area of notability. I would encourage you to submit it again to see what others think though, as there is more than one reviewer at AFC. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Kevin, for your comments and support. Meanwhile, I have edited the page a little bit more, minor improvements, and also linked it (I hope) with the Russian Wiki article. Thanks again. and I wish you a Happy New Year. Sashani4 (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The same for you, as well! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of '90' THE FILM

A tag has been placed on '90' THE FILM requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, image description page, image talk page, mediawiki page, mediawiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, or user talk page from the article space.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

need ur help

hey kevin hope u are in good health, Happy new year brother with many many wishes for u, well u didnt accept my article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Babar_Malik and reason left that no reference about article holder, well i think wikipedia requirements meet with this article because wp notability is that some notable organization or notable personality say something about the article holder make him/her notable so u can check the last reference taken from reputed newspaper as well as check external link which is also mentioned in references where a notable personality which is leader of the house (Senate) and ex president of the county said something about his work... i think this is acceptable to show someone about the work of article holder and his notability, world watchdog journalists organization also saying something about the article holder which makes him notable.... please check it and fix the problem brother, atleast this article can have a space in journalist stub which is mentioned in article. Regards, (Bob 05:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decoderz (talk • contribs)

Well, a majority of the references are about things that he has said, and honestly, so until you fix that, there is no way to gauge his notability. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion Policy Question Regarding Notability

Dear Kevin, Happy New Year! I was hoping you might give me your opinion. The Whippany River Watershed Action Committee is being considered for deletion because "This committee is a local committee and really has no other notability than cleaning up a local river." On their Wikipedia page there are six references including one from Rutgers University. I was doing a search of similar watershed committees regarding Notability and came across another (Great Swamp Watershed Association) also in New Jersey that is listed on Wikipedia. The Great Swamp Watershed Association has no references. Why is the Great Swamp Watershed notable and not the Whippany River Watershed? Thanks in advance for your time. (LeonardC (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC))

It was created over five years ago and hasn't been really touched in two years. It also is not notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Lion's Share

Hi Kevin,

Sorry if I've done some errors in trying to set up the page correctly for the music band Lion's Share but English is not my first language so some things I might misunderstand. However Lion's Share is one of Sweden's leading hard rock bands with 6 worldwide full album releases and thousands of fans all over the world. The band has been signed to the leading labels for this genre in Europe, Asia and USA and the videos has been all over MTV and other European channels in the same style. The band has toured with many of the biggest names in this genre and played the major festivals. All references are to Blabbermouth.net since this is like the CNN for hard rock news and read by all english speaking people worldwide. This band really deserves some correct information on Wikipedia right from the horses mouth since in the past there has been only poor and also incorrect information about this band here. I tried to link some bands in the text to other Wiki sites, but for some reason there's only a number or half the name in my submitted text? What am I doing wrong here?

I really hope you'll take the time to check that this band is more than suited for this site and would be a great resource for new fans and journalists in their research.

Happy new year from Sweden! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcmpromotions (talk • contribs) 22:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Right now, please diversify the references as having this as your only source could say one thing, but the others say something different. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kevin,

I'm a bit confused what you are after here? Anyone familiar with this genre knows that Blabbermouth.net is like a CNN news portal that reports from other sites and keep track on events etc. It's not something they make up or I send to them. Also they of course would never report something that did not happen. The bands Lion's Share have toured with are some of the classic and major acts of this genre (Motörhead, DIO, Manowar, Saxon etc etc). Also the people that have guested on the albums are major guys from bands like KISS etc. I have updated the References with some reviews. I have TONS and TONS but most are scans or real magazines from all over the world. I have word docs full of even more reviews plus interview schedules, however I don't feel confortable posting all this on the site. If you send me your email address I can send as attachements instead. The reason I'm doing this update is because much smaller bands already have their site at Wiki and even our singer has a personal page there. I'm very confused by your rejection to be honest and would appreciate if you could specify exactly what you need from me? The band is VERY established and well known so I'm sure I can supply you with anything you ask for. I can even send you the albums if you want?

Here are some live clips and as you can see there's loads of people screaming along:

Thanks for taking the time to check this info and take care! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcmpromotions (talk • contribs) 23:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, most people are not familiar with the site. I trust you completely, but I'm just asking for a bit of diversity in references so that it will help establish notability to those of us who are not familiar with that site. If you can add more diversity to the sites, that would be great. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kevin,

Will the reviews from different sites do? I have updated it with some. Have hundreds, but the band has been around since 1995, have released 6 albums toured with biggest names in this genre in big ice hockey rinks, played the major European festivals to thousands and thousands of fans, has had the videos on TV worldwide and songs on the radio WW, been signed to the biggest labels for this kind of music. To be honest I'm not sure what else you need if you are in any way familiar with the hard rock and metal genre? As I said even our singer who is only a fourth of the band has his own Wiki page....?

The latest LS cd was the best selling on the whole record label. Other less selling artists are of course on Wiki like Lillian Axe, The Poodles, Bloodbound etc. ??

Take a look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_Rock_Festival#2007_line-up As you can see pertty much every other band on the bill has been approved for Wiki. Isn't that strange to you??? LS have played that festival 3 times with the biggest names in the business.

Here are more links for you to check out: http://www.metalstorm.net/bands/band.php?band_id=2450&bandname=Lion%26%23039%3Bs+Share http://www.metalkingdom.net/band/band_discography.php?idx=3737 http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Lion%27s_Share/2605#band_tab_discography http://www.speed-n-power.com/band/Lion%27s_Share/ http://www.tvcoast.com/lion%27s-share/ http://www.metalunderground.com/bands/details.cfm?bandid=2241&tab=news http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/lions-share.aspx http://www.metal-temple.com/site/catalogues/entry/musicians/lars_chriss_lions.htm http://www.proggnosis.com/PGArtist.asp?AID=2088 http://www.spirit-of-metal.com/discographie-groupe-Lion%27s_Share-type-Albums-l-en.html

Lcmpromotions (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Can you please have someone else take a look at this who is more familiar with this genre?

Cheers! (Lcmpromotions (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC))

Regardless, you should change your username here so that it doesn't appear as a conflict of interest. Also, the "experts" on this site are located here. Good luck! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kevin,

This is really frustration for me. I can't understand why every other band that is less know can get accepted and not Lion's Share. I have submitted a bunch of various references from different parts of the world. My singer's other band Astral Doors have NO references at all and got accepted??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astral_Doors

Please explain...

I'm not a promotion company. That's just a user name...

What I'm trying to do here is to get this musical group listed amomg the other Swedish metal groups like in this place http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Swedish_heavy_metal_musical_groups

The bands on here hardly have either info nor references and still got accepted:

etc. etc. etc. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcmpromotions (talk • contribs) 01:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to write an article about the band if that's what I've been doing. I need some help to get listed at the correct section since I'm new to this.

Thanks!!!

Lcmpromotions (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The references are not good, and the fact that you have placed at least twenty references on the submission shows that you are trying to establish notability. Also, you are a promotional company, so it is more than likely that you have a conflict of interest here. Nevertheless, I have no idea what bands you are talking about because we do not approve every article on this site and this band is not notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

EuroTracer article

XserPRint (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)I am sorry, but I do not understand. The website for eurotracer is given, it is third party and it can be verified by clicking on the link given.XserPRint (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No it is not. If it is written by the company, it is a first-party source. Please find an acceptable third-party source for the article, although I feel as thought the topic is not notable to begin with. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Article for creation

Thank you so much for your comment about Article for creation: Disambiguation of Green Canyon (disambiguation). I'm confuse about Article for creation of Disambiguation. When I made it in Creation for Disambiguation article, someone told me that I can directly made at Article for creation (ussually I made it through New article for advanced users due to I have made more than 10 new articles, exclude the ambiguation articles), but for this moment I can't do that and the new article of disambiguation go to you. May you help me to make it clear.Gsarwa (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I created the article so I'm partially confused to what you are asking for. Additionally, you could have gone ahead and created it directly as there was nothing preventing the creation of that article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Syven (new article)

Good day Sir,

I think Syven are significant enough to deserve a Wikipedia article for the following reasons;

  1. Their 'parent' band, Nest (band) have a long standing article on Wikipedia. Syven is an unofficial continuation of Nest.
  2. Many of Vendlus Records singed artists already have a Wikipedia article.
  3. Syven have just released an album in 2011 and will become increasingly searched for in the coming months. A wikipedia article would be able to give more info about the band (such as genre, major works, and so on) and I believe Wikipedia should be at the forefront of peoples minds when they go to seek more information about anything.

I value your critique and appreciate your comments.

Thank you,
Mopondo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mopondo (talk • contribs) 08:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, most people are not familiar with the site. I trust you completely, but I'm just asking for a bit of diversity in references so that it will help establish notability to those of us who are not familiar with that site. If you can add more diversity to the sites, that would be great. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello MR. Rutherford

Hello Mr. Rutherford You have recently declined my article for creation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Viliana_Georgieva . Could you please help me to edit my article, in a way appropriate for wikipedia.Last time i was advised from couple of editor via the live chat and they also made some contributions and said that the article is ok, and even from point of sources its perfect. However they did not approve the article becouse they have made contributuns... So please help me to understand the right way for writing for wikipedia so a could make contributuns in future. The sources that i ve point in the article are third party and are more than a dozen, so i really cant understand what is the problem. Thanks for your help. Best Regard Tsvetozar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsvetozarv (talk • contribs) 09:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The references just need to be fixed so that they are reliable, as I fear at this point you just dug up links, although I could be wrong as this might not be the case. Honestly, I just do not see notability here, and each user has different views on terms of notability. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sceneround

Dear Ktr101, Thank you for reviewing the article I created. But could you please be more specific about what kind of changes you feel I need to make? I think it is a notable article because it's a new and unique kind of way to present a theatre show. It has never been done before, as far as I know & researched, and it was invented by a producer who produced shows around the world. Hope to hear from you. Kind regards, AnneWritten AnneWritten (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like more of an advertisement and does not appear to be all that notable as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

On Notability of Luis Herrera Cometta (proposed as new article)

Hi Kevin, I got a litle bit confused with the evaluation of the proposed article on Luis Herrera Cometta. With few things fixed, as was said, the article will not change the notability of Herrera. Anyway, a scientist with 164 published international papers, that is not notable? For venezuelan people, he really is or should be. He is not ordinary people, he has won three National Awards. Oh come on! At least for Spanish community Herrera´s accomplishments are notable, and for international relativity community I'm pretty sure he is. In fact, a Physics Report on Anysotropy is not published by ordinary physicists. It is clear to me that we need to expose our academic and intelectual values to everyone who doesn't know that Venezuela is much more than oil, pretty women and extravagant neo dictators. Is there an article for en.wikipedia? Please, reconsider your review. I know that the proposed article can be substantially enhanced on the proposed basic article. Thanks, --Wobarreto (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest resubmitting then, and pointing out his number of publications, as that is a plus. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

BULLSHIT

So what do I need to do then???

It isn't a notable corporation, sorry. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Help

Can you please help me with something? I submitted an article for creation called Volunteer Jam/Classic Live Performances: Volume two and things aren't showing up correctly. My infobox is not done correct and I included the track listing, which only shows up on the edit screen and I was going to add a review, but how can I when it's probably not going to show up? If you could please help me, it would be much obliged. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie Daniels Biggest Fan (talk • contribs) 01:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You're good to go! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Notability and Accompanying Photo

Dear Kevin, I am in possesion of a photo taken in New York in 2001 where the Whippany River Watershed Action Committee was given The 2001 Environmental Quality Award for Region 2 by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (which is mentioned in the Wikipedia page.) In the photo is acting Federal EPA chief Christine Todd Whitman as well as several members of the Whippany River Watershed Action committee. Based upon primary criteria in Notability (organizations) this is a source a Notability for the committee from a National source. I can't post the photo since I do not have enough edits. Can you please help me post the photo or direct me to someone who can? If I can't post the photo how can I reference it to give the committee Notability. Thanks in advance for your help. (LeonardC (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC))

Not really, because the award itself isn't notable. Sorry. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Help on submission for Ian Marchant article

Hello, and thank you for looking at the article I was trying to submit. I'm new to Wikipedia editing as you can probably tell, but I did have a look at people who seemed similar to Ian Marchant in terms of importance, and I thought I had as many good sources as they did (eg quality newspapers like the Guardian and Times, and organisations like the BBC and top publishing companies). The guidelines for "notability" say The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. I do think this is true of my subject - I could certainly give you links to more reviews of the books, which were reviewed widely in the main broadsheet and literary magazines, but I hadn't wanted to overload my article with links. If you could give me any guidance about the sort of thing I should do to make my article more acceptable, I'd be really grateful. Thanks, Esther. Estherstephens (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I do not feel that he meets the notability requirements, but it is also in that gray area of notability. I would encourage you to resubmit it again so that someone else can take a look at it you can get their opinion. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Lindsey Ueberroth denied article

I was wondering if you could help me to write this article so that it does demonstrate that this is a notable person. I feel like the President of an international company and is well known in her industry is notable enough to be on Wikipedia but I'm not sure how to write this article so that it is accepted and so that it is not written as an advertisement. I've found a lot of third-party sources as well as company sources for her biography but can't seem to get this correct. Her profile is as complete as [Randall L. Stephenson] and I tried to write the article similar to that one. Thanks! [1] 24.14.103.171 (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I do not feel that Lindsey is notable as being in charge of a large corporation does not necessarily make you notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Sorry. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Ktr101. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Brief bulleted points as to what to do to pass the screen

Hi!

I clicked on the linked that was written here. But I don't exactly know what it (you) meant. I may just be tired so please understand my situation. I sincerely appreciate that.

If you don't mind, I'd like you to specifically tell me your bulleted analysis and what specifically should I do to pass your screen (also in bullet points, please; and briefly, please).

Thank you so much and Happy New Year.

(Coek (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC))

I would advise talking to people over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts, as they will know more about the topic than I would. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Green Canyon (disambiguation)

Kevin, I was sort of working on this.  Disambiguation of Green Canyon will only work if you change the main article title to something other than Green Canyon.  Since they are not both primary articles, I added hat notes to Gulf of Mexico Green Canyon pointing to the Java Green Canyon.  And, put in for a G6 speedy delete of the Green Canyon(disambiguation) DCS (Talk Talk) 08:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I mean, they submitted it to AFC and I accepted it, so I am confused as to why you are telling me this. Also, I am confused as to what you are trying to say in general. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I was trying to nicely say, it should never have been accepted, because it did not do anything. DCS (Talk Talk) 14:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

help in adding a company page

We have been trying to add a company page for Palawan Press Ltd for about three momnths without success. Please can you help us?

It is a very small private company which publishes limited edition books, mainly about Aston Martins and other classic cars. These books are collectors items, but also authorative sources on the cars which are profiled.

We have a number of external citations for individual books, but little by way of description of the actual company. Consequently our own description kept being rejected as it had no citations. Now the description is so short that it has been rejected for having insufficient information.

We feel like we are going around in circles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Palawan_Press

Sue.Bramall (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, the corporation is not notable. Sorry. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Spyder IDE Notability

Hi, Ktr101

Could you explain why do you find Spyder IDE not notable in comparison with other Python IDEs? You are welcome to continue discussion in this thread - https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/spyderlib/xEmexCIGKz8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techtonik (talk • contribs) 23:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It just doesn't feel notable, although you are welcome to ask someone to move it into the main space for you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

response Honor Flight Story

Kevin—thanks for tip—cut 2nd group footlist to 3 essentl. Stay safe. Sniperscout (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
quickfire there, buddy—like that! —USMC Sniperscout (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for approving the article I had put up. A barnstar for you!

Kind Regards from abdars (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Aww, thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding articles for creation: Meenuliyan Para

Hi Kevin, I've added the importance and significance of the place. It is a tourist spot that is currently not so popular, but is sure to attract attention in the coming years. So I thought an article in Wikipedia could be helpful for people to get information about the place. Hope you are having a wonderful new year :)

Visakh wiki (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Gilbert Ling denied article

Thanks for looking at my article proposal. I'm new to wikipedia editing, however I don't understand your criteria: you mentioned A7 (no indication of importance). The article I was trying to submit gives indication and references about the fact that Ling is - among the other things - author of a revolutionary cell physiology model, and of over 200 papers and books, developer of an important device used in medicine, editor-in-chief of a scientific journal, his works have been praised by Nobel laurates and scientists, and yet your review said "subject appears to be a non-notable person". However Wikipedia has a whole page about Mae-Wan Ho (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mae-Wan_Ho) whose works, books, articles, are based on Ling's theoretical framework and yet no mention is given in that page. Then what makes a person "notable enough" for inclusion I wonder?

Wyrdfire (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Gilbert is in a gray area, and I would encourage you to re-submit it to see what others think. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Well I think, which is why I resubmitted for Wyrdfire who has been put off contributing in future, that he does meet WP:PROF.
The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work -- either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account.
That's an extract from WP:PROF that I based my addition of links to 60 citations of his work. That's to two of his works - he has over 200 so the total citation count is probably in the thousands. I appreciate everyone is trying to do their best, but I think you are misjudging the response that using a second template messages on people's talk pages which does not specifically address why you aren't satisfied with the changes they've already made to address the points of the review (i.e., not making a specific point as opposed to relying on the template) isn't helpful. Also, as an observation, choosing to review the proposed article again yourself when you'd already declined it once with the comment that it should be resubmitted to "see what others think" was probably not the best thing to do. Both would be likely to upset the original contributor more (not me, I don't care!). Just a thought for next time - cheers. QU TalkQu 07:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I just want to provide clarification here. I left this submission until the end of the backlog so that I could spend some time on whether or not it is notable. After a discussion with another editor, we came to the conclusion that it Gilbert is not notable. Their rationale was that there were not really any citations that would help to satisfy WP:PROF. Sorry about this, but he is not notable in our eyes. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

click.to - Notability

Hi Kevin, I would like to say thank you for looking at my article. I'm brand new to Wikipedia and would like my article to stand, but I'm not sure exactly what you need more of to prove notability. I have several references and weblinks, is it the quality or the quantity of the references that is in question? I hope that this is the right space to ask these questions. Emeb (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The article didn't have the feeling of notability, but looking over it and with some Google searching, it appears as though it just passes notability. I'll go ahead and create it soon. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Non_notable person?

Dear Kevin, Thanks for taking the the time to look at my article on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Philip Michael Wolfson i am very new to Wiki so apologies if this is a really obvious question. But, I would like to understand why you feel the subject appears to be a non-notable person. I have included a a number of links and other references (including books). i wish to hope to understand how to make this a more notable subject and enable this to be uploaded onto the encyclopedia. please respond. MRPMorris (talk, 14:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I do not feel as though Philip is notable, and he probably will never be. Just because he is mentioned in many books and media does not necessarily make him notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Help on my submission

Hi Kevin,

Thank you for reviewing my Ariane Lopez-Huici submission. Unfortunately you did not accept it. So I am wondering if you could give me tips to improve it and move it on the bright side. I would really appreciate it. She is an important photographer, supported by many critics - Arthur Danto, Edmund White, Carter Ratcliff, Julia Kristeva- and collectors in the US and in Europe. Thank you for your help and attention. Kind regards Ariane Lopez-Huici (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Anne

It appears as if you are not notable, although even if you were, citing to your website does not help to back up any of the claims in the article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I see, I misunterstood what goes in this links section - I am actually not the artist mentioned in the article but an independent curator. Shall I try to rework it and submit it from a different account/address ? Thank you for your help. Best Anne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariane Lopez-Huici (talk • contribs) 15:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Afc John Tarrant

Hi Kevin, and thanks for your review on my Afc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/John_Tarrant. I note your comment "Sorry, this person does not yet seem to meet our notability requirements for athletes and sports people. Please read WP:ATHLETE for more information."; yet looking at WP:ATHLETE I see one of the criteria is "7. Has at any time held a world or continental record (including world junior records, world youth bests and masters age-group world records) ratified or noted by the appropriate official body", and as the Afc states, he set world records for 40-mile and 100-mile distances.

I have, of course, also explained why he was unable to compete in the Olympics, IAAF events, or any of the international races mentioned in the WP:ATHLETE criteria (the only one he might have been eligible for, the London Marathon, was only established after his death). Indeed, it is partly the controversy about his ineligibility for these events that makes him notable - though his world record performances should qualify him as 'notable' as well.

Look forward to your reply, and thanks for your hard work as evidenced above!

Drjamesaustin (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought he might be notable when I was reading over that, but I cannot believe that I missed that part. I am so sorry about that, and I will approve it as soon as possible. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
If you could please cite his record stuff, that would be great. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you; and done (re citation)! I've added a list of his records and wins, in order to further consolidate his notability (despite his enforced absence from international competition).Drjamesaustin (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Addit - somewhat off-topic, I know, but *wow* - just spent a fascinating couple of hours reading through the links from your user page; especially the RFAs (and picking through jargon and links arising therefrom). I've never really looked 'under the hood' of Wikipedia before. What an eye-opener - I don't think I'll ever see it quite the same way again. Thank you - and good luck! Drjamesaustin (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Enigma (Japanese Playstation Game)

Hi,

Please refer to this article you rejected:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Enigma

I spoke to Dragonfly on livechat, so I am not sure how this stands:

Basically, this game doesn't have any Western sources that can be checked as such, which is why I provided those, gamespot has been used for many games when they have full descriptions, gamefaq also for some games on Wiki.

Due to this title being Japanese only and never having been released in the west, I realised this before writing the article and read the rules.

However, since these sites are the only places that has information on the game at all, gamefaq, more specifically - then can't it be considered as gamefaq has hundreds, thousands of detailed faq records by players who have played games thoroughly.

The information from Gamespot was basic, Amazon Japan had no description whatsoever just box shots, Koei Japan's site was difficuly to navigate through and didn't have google translation available for the text. I have sent an email to Koei US, American customer service to see if they can provide information on the game with an outline of this article. If they can't, I have asked if they can forward to their Japanese Branch as it brings the game (an obscure one) to the wiki readership and raising awareness to general gamers or retro gamers etc.

Dragon fly mentioned if those are the only sources available (gamespot and gamefaq, then it shouldn't be a problem), but that is why I am checking with you.

The game is not in the US The information is available from those two sites (publicly)

What do you make of it? I don't think Koei will come back with anything being the US branch and contact with the Japanese branch - they are separate entities.

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chojin1980 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If you can place Japanese links on the article, it probably would not hurt, as long as it is marked in the references that the language is in Japanese. Other than that, I think it is pretty good to go. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kevin,

Sorry, not sure if you can edit previous talk section.

Again from above I checked http://www.koei.co.jp/koei_home.html

Their site is only in Japanese and won't translate with Google. However, their official online store does:

http://www.gamecity.ne.jp/products/

http://www.gamecity.ne.jp/products/products/index/

And roadblock again; they have other game systems/consoles listed, except for PS1!

So, it cannot be traced through their official website nor retail website.

I have also checked more Japanese online retailers and information is practically non-existent - possibly due to age/time of release?

There is one site that has a little bit more info on the game synopsis:

Anime Densetu

http://www.densetsu.com/display.php?id=134&style=platform

'a site dedicated to asian games and entertainment' repository of sorts. Can this also be used as a reference?

Have you tried Google Books or Google Scholar? They might have something.

From what I could see it's geared towards academia and legal stuff. Tried searching anyway - nothing of any relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chojin1980 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that does put the article in a pickle. Do you think you've done everything possible to try to find notability? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I can wait to see if I get a response from Koei, no rush really.

And possibly put in the article about exhaustive searching of japanese/english sites for info.

Everything upwards is fairly exhaustive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chojin1980 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Help on submission for Tactical Network Solutions page

Kevin, you recently reviewed my article on Tactical Network Solutions. I was merely trying to resolve a broken reference in the Wi-Fi Protected Setup#Security_issues page. This page includes a link to the company named Tactical Network Solutions, so I created a stub page with basic information about the company just so that reference would be satisfied. Can you provide some more detailed feedback that can help me improve the article so it will be accepted? Thank you. 20:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eacmen (talk • contribs)

Ah, it seems as though someone added the link to the article, even though it isn't currently something I would consider notable, as it has ten employees and their only claim to fame is that. I'm going to talk to others, but if it is indeed deemed notable, I'll let you know. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Incorrectly formatted AFC articles

I see that you moved two articles, Joe Bowker and Phillip Glasier, from AFC to mainspace yesterday and left them with some very broken templates. Please be more careful. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 20:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that's odd. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Anomie⚔ 20:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Godsized (band)

Hi Kevin,

I think this band is way above the bar for notability since they have feature coverage in national music magazines Kerrang and Metal Hammer (meeting criteria 1); received live reviews of national tours with Black Label Society and playing Download Festival (criteria 4); and were spun on BBC's Friday Rock Show, a national radio show (meeting criteria 11). If I'm wrong will you please explain why? Thanks!

213.105.1.168 (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Kevin Carroll

Hi Kevin, Thank you for the insight on my article creation. I have made the recommended changes. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Kevin_Carroll — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theydidwhat (talk • contribs) 02:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Award

 The Good Friend Award
For remind me about the rule of Wikipedians.
Aamuizz (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Couple of minor errors

I've noticed a couple of minor errors on talk pages that you do as part of your AFC gig. You have my sympathies on AFC as that is one hard job.

  1. WikiProject Biography should always be the first banner on living people.
  2. The "living" parameter is required in the bio banner. If "living" or "listas" is not set, it goes into a tracking category which is how I find talk pages of yours.
  3. For some weird reason, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Television and WikiProject Literature do not include people. So, they don't go on talk pages of people. WikiProject Children's Literature and WikiProject Poetry do include people which gets me confused. Seeing how 81 out of 107 new biographies yesterday were for footballers, I'm amazed I can remember anything beyond football.

Bgwhite (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I use Timotheus Canen's AFC script, which automatically places the AFC project first. I'm pretty good at adding those now, so there might be one or two that slip by a week. Yeah...it sucks...but hey, it's life. Other than the fact that I have realized that Wikipedia is becoming my life...which is seriously concerning because I am on break. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Review of new article "Lloyd Kasten"

The new article "Lloyd Kasten", which I've just uploaded, has been assessed as C-Class, which I see on the Grading Scheme page means it is "still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material." So evidently it contains either too little or too much -- but I can't tell which of these two problems is the one to focus on. Can you be more specific about where the room for improvement is? Kotabatubara (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with it, although it could probably be a bit longer. Either way, don't read them literally, as it is just a "grade" which is placed there arbitrarily by some user who really has no huge knowledge on the subject. Honestly, don't worry about it, as it is a good article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Kevin, evidently this issue is as settled as it's going to be. Now can you advise me how to take your Talk Page off my Watch List? (Oops, almost as soon as I posted this I found the answer. Thanks for your feedback.) Kotabatubara (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Article review

Thank you for your review of the biography of G.Ugeux. It is a C/Start class, so what do you see as the missing ingredients for a higher quality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lip gloss for2 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It just runs a bit short. If you look at other B-Class articles, they are a lot longer. Regardless, it should be a C-Class, so I have corrected it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I have edited it a bit around 1995. Incidentally, I created a page in French, but, due to a prior deletion procedure, it may well be destined to the same fate (unfairly, I think). Lip gloss for2 (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/OBKB

Hello,

I am unsure as to why you have rejected this entry two times now based on "notability." I have read the guidelines on "Notability: TV Series" and this appears to meet those guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TVSERIES#Programming). I have included enough diverse sources from local news stations (WTNH News 8 coverage) to nationally syndicated talk shows (The Today Show interview about the show) to adequately demonstrate that this is indeed a series of notability as recognized by independent media/news outlets.

I have also consulted the Wikipedia Help Live Chat to find out what else is missing and the help desk concluded that with the number of diverse external sources added after the first rejection on notability (see References and External Links) this was deemed as notable and would be approved.

A nationally recognizable figure (Bill Cosby) is doing a nationally distributed series (OBKB)... Is there a way to have another reviewer chime in? Because I am not sure how else to convey notability to you.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nydc201 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. If you just re-submit it, someone else can take care of the review process for it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Solomon Curtis

I'm curious as to why you nominated this as G6. I don't know anything about the AfC process, but is that common procedure? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 22:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

As it stands now, the submission is unreferenced and possibly (and most likely) a hoax about someone. In this case, it is allowed to G6 it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Not sure why you say that the article was a hoax, since there is evidence that the person exists, even if the article was (very) fluffy. I'm just surprised that AfC's are deleted per G6. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 01:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The person definitely existed, but a lot of the claims there made it likely that most, if not all of the material was a hoax. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure it was a hoax as much as a promo, but regardless, have you seen this? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 01:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh man, they are persistent. I'm going to remove the PROD tag an speedy that as it shouldn't even be in the mainspace, even if it is borderline. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you deserve this

The Articles for Creation barnstar
For exceptional dedication to the AfC process :) Pol430 talk to me 20:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Huh?

I didn't create the article listed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tim Gavin (Australian Rugby Union Player). The person who created it was Matt Loneragan, as seen from his contribs Feinoha Talk, My master 23:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Well, apparently you were listed as the submittor of the page, so the script notified you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Data Visualization (Software)

Dear Kevin,

the article rejection reason for the "Data Visualization (Software)" is not really clear to me. If I am not wrong you already reviewed this article twice and it has been rejected also by other two of your colleagues.

I already had also a talk with reviewer "A412" who explained me that a Wikipedia article should not be an instruction manual. I think that I have understood his hints and also the guidelines you reviewers were referencing me; however my impression is that:

  • there are several links demonstrating that the tool is real and notable (with more than 6000 downloads and rated by more than 200 users);
  • the article has been changed by me so that it cannot be confused with an instruction manual anymore.

Could you please tell me what's still wrong with this article and how it can be corrected so that it can be published?

I cannot believe that there are necessary thousands of links in order to demonstrate that this tool is notable (hundreds of published articles in wikipedia just have a little quantity of links quoted in order to demonstrate notability) and I don't believe that my quoted links are less reliable than several other links used to demonstrate notability for hundreds of published articles in wikipedia.

Please help me to wake up from this neverending nightmare...thanks.

Tervonen (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, none of us view it as being notable. To have three people review an article submission is a rarity, and if three people have said it is not notable, then it probably isn't. Some types of software are notable, but others are not. Besides, 6,000 downloads is nothing compared to a lot of the other software that we have here, so it really isn't notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Solving the Ice Cream Dilemma

Dear Kevin,

Hope you are in the best of health!

I would like to discuss one of my latest contributions - Solving the Ice Cream Dilemma - which you have edited. You have deemed it unfit for inclusion in Wikipedia under the notability factor. The wiki is about a book that has been recently published. My post has three reference links that clearly mention the book.

Can you please help me in making the entry more suited to Wikipedia standards, as I am not quite sure about what more is needed therein.

Looking forward to your reply.

Thanks Gauri (Gauri Batra (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC))

It's not notable a this time, but if you wait a few years and the book takes off, it might be worth it to revisit the creation. Honestly, it wouldn't pass a deletion debate at this time as well, so it isn't worth it to improve it, since most likely everything is done to improve it that could be possibly be done. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin. I appreciate your response and shall keep your advice in mind. Gauri Batra (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for review of the Paul R Hill page and any suggestions for improvement?

Thank you, and your colleague, for reviewing the above article and improving it (especially the format of the references). I was wondering if you had any specific suggestions regarding areas that I could work on to improve the article further, as I would like to try to get it to a higher standard than a C, over time? Anthony Mugan (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)Anthony Mugan

Expand it, and add more references. Basically, have fun and continue doing what you were doing! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Agha Shahid Ali, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamilton College (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) 11:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

SIS LIVE feedback

Hi, thanks so much for taking the time to check out my attempted posting. Must admit I've not posted to Wikipedia before and, despite being ok with html I'm struggling to get my head round the conventions of posting. For example, the SIS LIVE article I submitted which you checked needs a title, but I've no idea where or how to add this in, whether it's part of the markup language, or an additional box. Any further help you can offer would be greatly appreciated. Thanks jake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakebailey1981 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it (we've had an issue with pages not being shown because of a substitution of a template issue), but I should have one that before I declined it. Sorry about that, but it is not also a notable corporation. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Monica Brito Vieira

Hi Kevin! I have a question for you regarding your editing of the new article on Monica Brito Vieira. Wikipedia rules state that anyone meeting at least one of the criteria of notability (academics) can be included in wikipedia, the first of which is "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.". I have thus cited reliable, third-party sources asserting the notability of the person - I refer to a peer-reviewed journal and Oxford University Press. However, you still found that insufficient. Could you be so kind as to explain what criterion did you follow? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lipe083 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't state how she is notable. Here is a good link to an article which states the notability of the professor: Sheldon Goldman. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Roy Walker

Dear Kevin

Thank you for reviewing the above article for creation. I would be grateful for any suggestions you can offer to help with the inclusion of Roy Walker in the history of St Ives Artists. In answer to your comment that 'the suggestion doesn't sufficiently explain the importance or significance of the subject' Roy Walker was a very important member of the Cornish art community in St Ives from 1965 to 2001, (over 30 years), He was Director of the Penwith Print Workshop, Chairman of the Penwith Society of Artists for many years, Founder member of the Porthmeor Printmakers, He was a member of the Newlyn Society of Artists, Plymouth Society of Artists and the Royal Society of Painters, Etchers & Engravers. There are samples of his work in the Victoria & Albert in London, the British Arts Council, Durham University etc. etc. He has had numerous exhibitions all over the world including Gallery 66 in Connecticut USA. In 1975 He was the subject of a BBC Peninsula Documentary ‘Windows of my Mind’. and is listed on the BBC website

Roy Walker lectured at the Plymouth College of Art, the Falmouth College of Art, Camborne College, the Royal Cornwall Museum and was Artist in Residence at Withywood School in Bristol. As well as running a St Ives-based workshop for Franklin College of Switzerland; he also took classes at the St. Ives School of Painting as well as the Porthmeor Printmakers.

I would think that all of this gives a valid reason for inclusion.

I look forward to hearing from you

Regards Tenteam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenteam (talk • contribs) 13:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I mean he doesn't seem to have done anything big, although saying, "he belongs to [21]..." does not help the matter. Regardless, I don't think that he is all that notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Kim Taylor (singer-songwriter) article for review

Hi there. I'm the one writing an article about one of favorite musicians, Kim Taylor. I don't understand why it continues to get rejected when the article has met at least two of the notability requirements namely Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. This latter requirement was listed and notated with her airplay on the nationally syndicated show the World Cafe with David Dye on NPR out of WXPN, Philadelphia. Is an NPR program not valid? I listed that she had been interviewed and linked to the NPR page that they have on Kim. I have also listed multiple, non-trivial, published works that Kim has appeared in (see references). I've also listed major television shows where her songs have appeared and cited them, including Flashpoint and Smallville. I'm stumped as to what else I'm supposed to list. I see many lesser qualified singer-songwriters listed in wikepedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellery_(duo) -- with hardly any references listed that were accepted. Please advise. --1.973.1.974 14:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyhazy38 (talk • contribs)

I think that there is a bit of notability there, but not enough to warrant an article. Being on a local radio program does not really establish notability, and being on television shows does help, but I don't think that she is all that notable in the end. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

NPR's The World Cafe is a nationally syndicated program. This is not local radio. This is national syndication. Kim is listed on NPR's website as one of their artists: http://www.npr.org/artists/15356397/kim-taylor. She meets two of the requirements for notability listed on the musician's section. Are you supposed to meet more than two? Please advise--1.973.1.974 02:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyhazy38 (talk • contribs)

I'm also confused why the first reviewer who reviewed this entry said that this musician was notable but I just need to add a couple more citations to back up her information? Thanks. --1.973.1.974 02:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyhazy38 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, it would be good to have some of the more trivial things backed up. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

John Laing, British Actor

Although John Laing is not a famous actor, he is at least as well-known as many of the others listed, with biographical pages, under the Rose Bruford Alumni category pages. If they can be listed then why can't he? His biographical details, details of his work and a photograph can be found on the Northern Lights website; his award-winning play 'One Cool Cat' was published by Methuen and is still being performed in schools and in youth theatres round the country. I will add the link to the Northern Lights website. If this is not enough to justify his entry as a Rose Bruford alumni thus updating that information then I'll give up.

You can re-submit it, but if someone else declines it, it is more than likely that he isn't notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Pjl53 (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

MoneyRates.com page

Please disregard the previous message. I figured out the error and resubmitted the page.

Renoeditorial (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

List of United States Air Force Bands

I think this list strongly lacks notability. Only five items on it have their own articles. I was going to put it to AFD, but I figured if I brought the topic up with you that you might just CSD U1 it. In any event, I undid your addition to the {{US Air Force navbox}} at first because it was a red link but also because the list just doesn't seem to fit with the other items in the navbox in my opinion. All of the other items are of Air Force-level or MAJCOM-level significance. The lowest unit mentioned by name is the Numbered Air Forces. We already have a list for Squadrons and the bands should be listed in the Squadrons just like all of the other types of squadrons. See List of United States Air Force squadrons.--v/r - TP 21:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

After realizing that the pages are not there, I'm probably going to form-create the pages within the next few days. We have a page for military bands, so I see no harm in keeping it for now, as merging it might create confusion amongst people. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cape Cod Central Railroad Line

Template:Cape Cod Central Railroad Line has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Repaired

There were also problems with the displaying of this template, but I think they are all fixed now. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

New article - title change

Hi Ktr101

Thanks for reviewing the new article on Peter Hill. I wanted to check with you on the title change from Skateboard and Streetwear Entrepreneur to Skateboarder for this new page. The article was intended to match the similar one on Peter Hill's brother, Stephen Hill, and as both started their careers as skateboarders but then went on to found a skateboard and apparel & footwear company, I figured it was more accurate to portray them both as company entrepreneurs, for which they are known rather than just skateboarders. Would it be ok to rename Peter Hill's article to Skateboard and Streetwear Entrepreneur? Please let me know what you think? Thanks, Jbro68 (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the proposed name would make it rather long and unwieldy (the parentheses thing shouldn't be huge when compared to the name of the person/thing). If anything, putting "entrepreneur" at the end might be better, as it reflects his most recent career choice. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I know what you mean about long & unwieldy! Is it straight forward to change both brothers to (entrepreneur)? I'm not sure on the process of renaming a page. I can then put the longer Skateboard and Streetwear Entrepreneur in the general description and on their disambiguation pages. Thanks again, Jbro68 (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Done! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Good one, thanks again! Jbro68 (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Fabryan article

Hi Kevin I have read your guidance notes before writing but as a new contributor, I could do with some guidance. You have not outright declined my article but you suggested I needed to make it more neutral, which I did and resubmitted, but you then said it hadn't changed. I felt that (second time around) it was written in a suitable third-party way, not in an advertising style, and there are genuine published references for all my main points. As regards notability, I know that it is hard to talk about 'other stuff' but there is a directly comparable article on the competitor fashion company Bunmi Koko, which is I would argue more promotional in style and is similar in notability terms. Can you give me any further guidance on how to proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimmo13 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, one of the issues that makes it hard to tell what has changed (a lot of times we just see what has changed in the differences on the body of text itself), is the fact that you placed a second copy of the text on the article, so one submission is better than two. Other than that, I would encourage you to re-submit the article so that others can judge it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I apologise for the doubling up, which betrays my newbie status, I'll try to find out how to avoid that when I resubmit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimmo13 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Notability

H Kevin,

You have raised a concern on notability for my page which you reviewed a few days ago. Can you please provide specifics? As far as I see, I am not violating any of the notability or references guidelines.

Thanks,

Also, how do pages such as these with no references get into wikipedia? I see quite a few of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Market_of_Turku

Shsomash (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't have control over what others write, but I guess the article has sufficient notability. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry...when you say the topic has sufficient notability, are you referring to my page or or the "market of turku" page? If you meant the former, how do I make the wikipedia alerts on top go away? If you meant the latter, can you please respond to my question on notability?

Thank you, 131.107.0.81 (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Notability of Roger Brooking

Hi Kevin

Thanks for you feedback on the notability of Roger Brooking but your response is a standard format and quite vague. It does not say why Roger Brooking is not notable. In saying that I am aware that New Zealand is a tiny country at the bottom of the world and not much that happens here is notable on an international level. However, I have now read some of the information about notability in more detail and I could not find anything about the need for notability to meet international criteria. The page on Roger Brooking seems to meet the criteria for notability in New Zealand.

1) Wikipedia states that the basic criteria for notability is that “A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.”

Roger Brooking clearly meets this criterion in New Zealand. Although I included about a ten different references from multiple sources, he has been the subject of many more than that and most of them are national newspapers, television channels and magazines with a New Zealand wide audience.

2) Wikipedia indicates that additional criteria include that “The person has received a well-known and significant award or honour, or has been nominated for one several times.”

After you rejected the page, I included additional information that indicating that Mr Brooking has twice been awarded the John Dobson Scholarship. I’m sure you have never heard of this award, but it is the only award in New Zealand recognizing public contributions to advocacy in the addictions sector. Please check this link for more details. It is a very significant honour in this field in New Zealand and only awarded to those who make a contribution above and beyond simply performing the role or job that they have.

3) Wikipedia also says that a person is notable if: “The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. (For instance) A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. “

Mr Brooking is not a politician but has made a consistent effort over ten years to highlight the extremely limited assistance which is available to the 100,000 plus offenders in the New Zealand justice system with alcohol and drug related offending. His concerns have been picked up by New Zealand media and received ‘significant press coverage’. Additional information has now been supplied in the page on Mr Brooking indicating his success at persuading the Government to provide alcohol and drug assessments on prisoners applying for parole. In other words his advocacy in this area has been taken seriously on a political level.

4) Wikipedia says: “A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.“

Mr Brooking has published a book on the links between alcohol and drug use and crime called “Flying Blind – How the justice sector perpetuates crime and the Corrections department fails to correct”. It has become recommended reading for criminology classes at Universities in New Zealand, been reviewed in a number of independent publications and cited by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal recommended it as a resource for the Corrections Department which is an extremely unusual and notable achievement. Generally the Court would only provide a decision on comment on the details of the case under consideration. In this case they went much further and commented.

“The wider issue of the availability of rehabilitation programmes in prison for drug offenders and the timing of such programmes is a matter of importance and some public controversy, as evidenced by Mr Brooking's recent publication on this subject. We express no view on this issue, but we invite the Department of Corrections to consider it. It is important that the Department's policies on this issue be known to sentencing judges so they may be taken into account as appropriate in sentencing decisions. We direct the Registrar to send a copy of this judgment and Mr Brooking's affidavit to the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections for consideration.”

Mr Brooking’s book appears to meet the criteria for notability and contributes to his personal notability. I respectfully request that you review your decision about whether Roger Brooking meets the criteria for notability. Offender9000 (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

From the looks of it, I would suggest trimming some of the text so that it removes some fluff, but after talking to other editors, it appears to be notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to remove 'fluff' - but can you be specific please. One man's fluff is another man's falafel.Offender9000 (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well put, sir (or madame). Basically, the book information could be trimmed a lot, as it takes up half of the article, and we're talking about a person here, not a book. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Cult (book)

hello sir. I write to you with reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Cult_%28book%29

You had declined the submission saying it does not appear notable. May I put forward that the notability guidelines mention that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." The book has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources including India Today and more. Can you please review the book again? Thanking you, Sincerely, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.251.75.18 (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I mean, at an initial glance, the few references I glanced at were a mix (I didn't check them all because it would make reviewing a chore). I would encourage you to let someone else review it and see what they think. Regardless, adding ten citations to the end of the article is a bit of citation overkill, so it would be wise to either spread them out or remove most of them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Thanks for reviewing my article! Trashbird1240 (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

declined review Ottmar Ette

Dear reviewer, first, thanks for looking at my proposed entry on Ottmar Ette. Let me, however, briefly respond to your objections, namely that the academic in question is not noteworthy enough to appear in Wikipedia. For one thing, as a former journalist (kicked the habit), I seriously disapprove of people who aim to simply get free attention by appearing on the WWW for no good reason. So I applaud tight scrutiny (even though one might cite cases of people who have slipped through in Wikipedia). But, and you knew this was coming, Ottmar Ette is no such case. Even along the lines of Wikipedia's standards, it is perfectly acceptable to have an entry: he is a member of a relatively exclusive academic body, the Academia Europaea (not as exclusive as a National Academy of Science, true, but not "nothing" and certainly a sign of positive peer review), his German authored books are with top-notch publishers (Suhrkamp, Insel etc. are MAJOR publishers - easy to check), his English-language publications are largely limited to journal articles, true, but include publishers such as the MLA, some of this stuff is with the University of Chicago Press (nothing wrong with that).

Please bear in mind that the English standards are very much tailored to fit the image of English/American academic prestige. In this world, "endowed Chair at Harvard" is enough to get you in, no matter what. The philosophical question here is: what does this do to academics from other parts of the world? Do they not appear on English-language Wikipedia? There are no such telltale signs of prestige in the German academic world. Universities and academic associations are much less about prestige (and money) than in the English-language world. This might make a guy like Ette look unspectacular. But given the enormous output in publications (please check his output again, in terms of quantity and timing - one needs to get that stuff published, it's quite impressive), there WILL be people interested in looking him up on Wikipedia. There are entries in German and Spanish.

I happen to know Ette (former student of his) and team of researchers, I am not in any way directly associated with him or his projects. From time to time, I will do translations for him. A colleague of his asked me to write the entry. I work fulltime at the University of Hannover (not Potsdam), in Romance Languages.

Please reconsider this review, and thanks again for your time. - Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkMinnes (talk • contribs) 17:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking over it again, I guess it meets notability. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Rejected article

You recently rejected my article about Occupational Knowledge International due to issues of NPOV. Could you give me more specifics about what parts you find to be non-neutral. All opinions are properly cited... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdurand (talk • contribs) 18:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time seeing notability here. It does have a lot of sources, but most of them probably do not mention the article. Additionally, I am seeing only two Google hits here, so that clearly is not really showing much notability on the internet. Sorry. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

--Kdurand (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

316 game article

Hello,

I'm writing to you about your review of my article, The 316 game.

When I clicked on the article to read your reviewer comments, it showed you had declined the article and listed the reason simply as "Wikipedia is not a news site."

Well, that's odd because I was reporting on an historic event, not a news event, and went to great lengths to ensure my writing was neutral. There seems to be some bias at play here.

Indeed, there are other Wikipedia articles that have been green-lit, on football games and even football plays (such as the Immaculate Reception).

Before you said it is not 'historic'... really? Is that why it became the MOST-TWEETED event in sports history?

I would ask you to revise your assessment, or I shall go to the media (I'm both a writer and a Harvard Law educated attorney) about Wikipedia's very apparent bias.

When someone whose profile lists his political views, and actually even lists them as "very liberal", it's no doubt there is an anti-Tebow and anti-Christianity bias at play here. There is no other explanation for your declining to publish a neutrally-worded article about an historic event.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missadelgado (talk • contribs) 00:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Some comments struck with Missadelgado's permission. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 02:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Just so you know, religious views have nothing to do with this. I had a discussion with two other users over the past day (including one administrator who works at AFC), and we came to the conclusion that it isn't isn't suitable for Wikipedia because we aren't a news site. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Kevin,

With all due respect, then you need to re-assess whether you understand the definition of a 'news story' versus an encyclopedia-style article. My entry was not a news story nor was it written in that style. A news-story would read: "And they're playing the Pats on Saturday, should be an interesting game!" My article was referencing a PAST event, that is historic as it set records and became a pop culture phenomenon with a coined phrase ("the 316 game"). Wikipedia has an entry on the "Immaculate Reception" -- is THAT a "news story"? At what point does a game become "historic" enough for you that it no longer qualifies as a "news-story"? A week, a month, a year, 20 years? It is a ridiculously vague standard that is ripe for arbitrary abuse.

Moreover, both of the live-chat help specialists I spoke to earlier today said, in THEIR opinion, the article qualified for publication.

So you'll have to forgive me if I feel your "very liberal" views (as you describe in your profile) had something to do with your apparent inclination to decline this article.

Regards,

Arlene Delgado, Esq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missadelgado (talk • contribs) 03:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I have created the article as it seems that other users have been able to put their input in on the article (although I have no idea why they didn't create). Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, I said that that I didn't feel that this article was a clear-cut case of NOTNEWS, but didn't want to create because of my religious/sports bias. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 13:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

January 12, 9:25 EST: I see the article is published now. Thank you for re-considering it and for publishing it. This article will be a very useful reference for years to come. Arlene — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missadelgado (talk • contribs) 14:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

List of Tule - Language Films

I'm not sure how to move pages back from articlespace to AFC, but this guy moved this page back after you took it out. Could you please move it back? A412 (Talk * C) 05:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I have moved it back. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Reason for declination

Hi. I am trying to establish the reason for the declination: The person in question died for his country in a World War. I consider the person to be of equal notability to the other named person in the submission, namely Hermann Greiner *Aces of the Luftwaffe* If the format is incorrect then I would try to amend this, but it is based on the wiki for Hermann Greiner so there should not be an issue. Regarding notability, I can type many persons names into Wiki and find they are there although they seem quite insignificant, typical examples, footballers who have achieved nothing.

Please advise, it seems a very frustrating process just to give recognition to someone important. Regards, AlanAlaneccie (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm still finding it difficult to understand your guidelines. It seems I can find people of no notability who have not gained gallantry awards or achieved anything of interest ( try here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Whaley ) Sorry to have used this person but what is noteworthy about him? Hermann Greiner was a Nazi fighter pilot who is notable, my uncle was a British bomber pilot who is not, I'm confused!?! It's getting to point where I would rather submit to websites who will gladly accept submissions on merit - see http://www.ww2awards.com/person/47557 Thanks, AlanAlaneccie (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, there is no notability for Alan, other than being an ordinary guy who was shot down during the war. On the other hand, it appears that Simon is notable because he appeared in a lot of matches, although I do not follow football, so that article is meaningless to me. If Alan did something extremely notable other than being shot down, please place it there, but I honestly see no notability otherwise. Additionally, Hermann shot down a heck of a lot of people, making him exceed notability expectations. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Just thought I'd chime in here... Alan, I have also read over your submission and agree with kevin that the subject of the submission does not appear to meet our notability guidelines. I understand that the voluminous pages of Wikipedia policy and guidelines can be confusing; however, in a nutshell: notability is established through significant coverage in numerous reliable sources. Unless you can find significant coverage of your uncle's exploits in numerous reliable sources, the article will not be published. As an aside other Wikipedia articles are not accepted as reliable sources and can not contribute to a subjects notability. Pol430 talk to me 01:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ping

YGM - Nolelover Talk·Contribs 16:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Recommended Revisions Incorporated into Article

Hi Kevin - I think I've responded to the revisions you recommended. Thanks for helping guide me through this; I'm a bit new at this! John M Kamensky (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem! I'll create now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kevin - I would still like to publish this even though it is rated "C Class" and I will seek advice from others on how to improve it in the meanwhile. What is the process for publishing? Thanks - — Preceding unsigned comment added by John M Kamensky (talk • contribs) 20:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is live, so I am unsure of what you are looking for. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Occupational Knowledge International article

Your review of my article only mentioned neutrality - not notability. So which is it? It seems like an arbitrary decision to reject an article with no valid explanation. If you google Occupational Knowledge International, you get many more than two hits, so I don't quite understand the notability argument... --Kdurand (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right in that you get more than two Google hits, but that is because it is because it searches for every page with one of those words in it. If you search for Occupational_Knowlege_Institute, you get two hits. Sometimes we reject articles with one issue, but that doesn't mean that there are also other issues which we don't know about/aren't actively searching for. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

My article is about Occupational Knowledge International, not Occupational Knowledge Institute. Perhaps the Institute is not very notable. --Kdurand (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh my, I cannot believe that I did that...twice. Yeah, just resubmit and see what others think. It might take a few days (or longer) as a few of us are doing all the reviewing, so if anything goes awry, just let me know. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Godsized

Hi Kevin, This band is obviously way above the bar for notability since they have feature coverage in national music magazines Kerrang and Metal Hammer (meeting criteria 1); received live reviews of national tours with Black Label Society and playing Download Festival (criteria 4); and were spun on BBC's Friday Rock Show, a national radio show (meeting criteria 11). You've rejected it twice with a copy-and-paste: it's pretty frustrating. Can you please explain why? Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Godsized(band)

213.105.1.168 (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Then please show us the references for that. Honestly, two reviewers have not seen any notability and I know that that mentions a radio play, but it seems to be one event, not a cycle. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The non-radio references are (3) an article about them in the print version of Kerrang! magazine (one of the UK's top selling music magazines, it has a circulation of 43k), (4) an article from the print version of Metal Hammer magazine (which outsells Kerrang!) and (5) a repository of on- and offline press coverage about them (which I thought too tedious to list in an encyclopaedia article). This band has national press coverage, they're obviously notable. 213.105.1.168 (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I kind of meant something else, but I'll go ahead and create it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Downtown Plaza (Hamilton, New Zealand)

The article Downtown Plaza (Hamilton, New Zealand) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability provided; merely existing and being a shopping center is insufficient--need sources to verify mall is notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Epeefleche (talk) 06:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Your comments

Kevin, I have never had occasion to attack you or demean your work on this project. You are as familiar with our core policies as I am and I'll ask you to remain cordial. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I know, and I will reply via e-mail as I would like to have a private discussion with you about all of this. 02:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing in your mail that cannot be discussed with transparency. There is a popular misconception, held also apparently by yourself, that listed 'members' own their project space. You need to differentiate between people who jeer innuendos, and those who do constructive work. Although I do not 'work' there, I am fully conversant with the workings of 'your' project - but judging from the tone that rules there, I will likely decline your suggestion that I make any further comments or suggestions. You would be wise to reconsider how you wish to encourage others to participate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I never said that myself or anyone owned the project, and I am pretty sure that I made that clear in my e-mail. There is the view amongst some editors that that is the case, but I do not view myself in that regard. What's done is done, so I'll see you around. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
You already have a mail waiting for you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I will get back to you in the next few hours or so. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
In the meantime, you may also wish to read this - from top to bottom of course :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
That's pretty cool! Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Svetlana Gorokhovich notability

Hi Kevin,

I am new to Wiki, so sorry for possible mistakes. However, in Wiki note on musician's notability it was mentioned that at least one record is enough; also winning competition is enough. Svetlana Gorokhovich (I heard her performing at IBLA many years ago) won two international competitions and produced few records, two of them with well known labels, one with Helicon and another with Japis (Icelandic production company). So, I wonder why do you consider her not notable? Thanks in advance for explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeepBlue1000 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards no, just because she doesn't have any big-name references and doesn't appear to have done anything huge. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative

Hi Ktr101,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tagging of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anastasia Miles

Hi Kevin. I declined your speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anastasia Miles per WP:CSD#G10 as there was nothing in the submission that would constitute it as an "attack page". I agree that the submission is not appropriate for Wikipedia, but that particular reason for deletion is not correct. –Grondemar 20:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

That was an accidental click, but it still is an unsourced BLP. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

YGmessages

here. G2G, so can't take care of it myself. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 21:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Bleh. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks

hi1 thanks so much! (Alter Egos) Pumkinhead001 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC).

No problem. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Declined Page help

Hello, this is my first time posting a new page to wikipedia and im slowly learning how to navigate and use the site. I created a page called autoflowering cannabis which you declined to accept because you said it is not a notable subject. Autoflowering cannabis is a very popular subject on online forums and many people grow these strains. Not having a wikipedia page that describes what autoflowers are has led to a lot of potential first time growers going with other more common strains because they cant easily find reliable information on the subject. according to google, the term autoflower is searched 80,000 times a month. Thats a potential 80,000 searches that could and would connect people to the wikipedia page.

There is only one mention of autoflowering cannabis is any of the other cannabis related post on wikipedia (which i linked to in the page) making a page devoted to the subject that much more needed. Since autoflowering cannabis is relatively new, little peer reviewed information is available on the subject in the form of autoflower specific literature. There are however multiple sites which i listed in the pages references which primarily discuss growing these species. I am a breeder of autoflowering seeds myself and am working on the first autoflower focused book to hit the market. as soon as this book is published it could be listed as a reference to make the subject more notable.

Please tell me why the page keeps being declined. I know for a fact that a lot of people will be interested in reading the entry as well as expanding on it once its up. I have plenty more information i would like to post along with unique pictures concerning the subject but i do not want to do it in vain. Please approve this page, there are many many people interested in the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HomeGrownRx (talk • contribs) 22:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! I am not here to argue the notability of the subject, but I would start out by adding a section to the main cannabis page then working your way up to making a full dedicated article to the subject in question. It is a method I personally use and it really helps develop an article further. If you have any questions just respond bay here. Peter.C • talk • contribs 22:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will take your advice and add an autoflower section to the cannabis cultivation page. I understand it is not your place to argue what is notable, that is the place of the wikipedia guidelines. however after reviewing said guidelines i am not sure which guideline the autoflowering cannabis article does not satisfy/follow and/or meet. If you could give me more detail on the reasoning behind the article being declined, i would greatly appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HomeGrownRx (talk • contribs) 23:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I just finished updating the cannabis cultivation page so that autoflowers now have a few paragraphs of relevant info. When you can, please reconsider approving the new autoflowering cannabis page, or let me know why not.

thanks

HomeGrownRx (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I mean, the fact that your username seems to be representing a company doesn't help, but I viewed it as more of an advertisement that was trying to promote something which probably was not yet notable on its own. Also, it appears as though the company sells that autoflowering cannabis, so there might be a conflict of interest there. Regardless, I did not view it as being notable enough for its own article, and it fits better into the autoflowering cannabis one. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Re rejected article

Hi Kevin, I was just wondering if you could have another look at the most recent saved version of the article I wrote on the Port of Hastings Development Authority. I accidentally posted a first draft which didn't have any references. This was due to mu unfamiliarity with developing and posting articles as opposed to editing them. I've subsequently added many references. Can you please have a look at the mist recent draft and see if it meets your concerns. If there are still some issues, please let me know. Many thanksCon Belacoski (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I will. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I looked at it again. I think your initial view is right. It needs improving and wasnt in sufficiently good shape to post. I'll have another go at it. Thanks Con Belacoski (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Lady Renwick

I saw this one and skipped it because I thought she was non-notable based on a Google search but couldn't verify the print articles cited. But when I went back to take a second look, I saw your decline comment. I don't think sentence choppiness is a valid reason for declining an article because copyediting is something we, as reviewers, can do (and should do) to be less bureaucratic and nitpicky and BITEy to new users who have taken time to submit an article for consideration. As for this particular article, I'm fairly sure she doesn't meet WP:BIO. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go change it now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

School of technology,Gandhinagar

Dear Kevin, with reference to my above mentioned article. I have submitted it two times, but you have rejected it. I want to say this is the article about engineering and technology college, why u are rejecting it? I am studying at the campus with other 600 students. I have mentioned the reliable resources as links. please help me to get that article on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeevsingh007 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no clue as to why I did that, and I have no excuse for doing that. It is good right now, although it could use a bit more ttext, a references section, and headers. Again, I am incredibly sorry for that, and please let me know when you finish up so I can accept it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

New articles

You have moved some new articles to mainspace. E.g. Hanke-Henry Permanent Calendar. That article was completely not fit for mainspace. It included an incorrectly substituted template, and capitals in headers. And Fuel tanks in trucks also had an incorrectly substituted template, footnotes that were not formatted, not to mention that the title (Fuel tanks in trucks) doesn't fit the subject (Diesel fuel tanks). Debresser (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

We try to not nitpick users on references, and sometimes broken templates slip through. I have moved the other one, though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
And why did you move a userpage to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/new article name here? Articles for creation proposals should be in "Wikipedia talk" namespace. Will you be more careful in the future, please! Debresser (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
That move was probably the day I started working at AFC again after an almost year-long hiatus, and was also a month ago, so I have no memory of that event. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
You wouldn't know anything about this issue, would you? Debresser (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
If I'm correct, Chzz made an edit and accidentally messed it up. As far as I know, Mabdul fixed it, as we aren't getting that issue anymore. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I have thanked you there for your reply. Debresser (talk) 05:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Higgs field

I decided to create article "Higgs field" in the hope that the laymen could gain some understanding of this concept. They shouldn't have to learn all about the "Higgs boson" and "Higgs mechanism" to do this. It would be like someone finding out what an "electromagnetic field" is by reading articles on "photon" and "electromagnetic induction". Adding a section to "Higgs boson" or "Higgs mechanism", I think, would be a kludge. "Higgs field" is a high level concept and deserves a headed article. So could you please revise your decision to disallow this article, or refer the decision to a physics expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mal (talk • contribs) 12:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing! I'll get it done in three hours, as i have to get a page deleted. Thanks again for your submission! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Things have changed! If you read the first sentence of Higgs mechanism you now get a link to Introduction to the Higgs field If you look at the Talk on the Higgs field re-direct, someone makes my original point, though! So I'll leave it to you - I'm happy for the "Intro..." article to remain, but if *you* now feel Higgs field deserves its own article then please take down Introduction to the Higgs field and put the content in Higgs field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mal (talk • contribs) 11:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Advice re Robina Napier page

I wasn't certain whether Robina Napier would qualify as sufficiently "notable". The argument follows: in the historical-cookery community, one can say "Napier" and everyone knows that you're referring to "A noble boke off cookry ffor a prynce houssehold...", edited by Mrs. Alexander Napier; it's one of the half dozen leading sources for medieval English cuisine, and as far as I know she's the only person who has ever edited and published this particular manuscript. I don't know whether she's equally notable in the world of Johnson scholarship -- I'm not in that world.

So how do I make that case in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbloch (talk • contribs) 03:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I really see no notability in the article, other than she did something a couple of centuries ago. If anything, expanding the article might add something notable. What is this scholarship that you mention, and how does it relate to her? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Re rejected article

Hi Kevin

I need some feedback on why the Port of Hastings Development Authority was rejected again.

I tidied up the article. The subject is clearly notable. The organisation runs a public port and has very substantial public and commercial responsibilities. It lies within a State of 5 million people (Victoria) at the edge of a city of four million people (Melbourne). The port development has also been the subject of some controversy.

As far as I can, each major point is referenced from available sources. The legislative basis of the agency is meticulously referenced to both foundation statutory material and Parliamentary debates both of which are available in hard copy and online sources and thus can be easily checked if you are concerned about the accuracy of the material. The trading activities of the port are sourced to the only available public material, ie online sources. One could maybe add a couple of newspaper references but these are notoriously unreliable in my experience.

In those circumstances, what other improvements could be made? Can you let me know please.

Thanks, Con Belacoski (talk) 08:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

From the looks of it, it doesn't appear notable (partly because it was created two weeks ago), so I would wait a bit. Besides, in a few years it might gain a ton of notability, so it might be able to be created then, but until then, it really isn't notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Robert Tavernor

Hi Bryce ... or Kevin (sorry)

I've been editing the page above for a while now, and have studied the criteria for notable academics carefully. It seems very stange to me that I keep getting the page rejected. RT really is an important academic, and really has made a massive contribution to the filed of architectural history and urban design. He really has published notable works, the evidence for which (publishers and critics) I have tried to include. AND, with regard to the criteria for listing again, he has held an important named Chair (in Edinbrugh). So what more can i reasonably do to this article....you seem not to be applying your own criteria, which seems a little, dare I say, irrational! Help!! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absvh (talk • contribs) 10:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I mean, another user also found him to be unnotable as well. I would go into the Wikipedia help channel (a direct link can be found right above the edit box, as an edit notice) an ask them for advice. Otherwise, I really don't know what to say, as I am not really seeing anything huge in there. Sorry. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

AfC overload

Hi Kevin,

Re: My ideas for AfC.

You said the other day in AfC/Talk:  "A lot of those ideas will cause more harm than good in the end."
Some new information has come to light.  Maybe when you have some extra time, you could be specific about your concerns.
Thanks. :- ) DCS 17:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Basically, some ideas might end up hurting us in the end. I'll be on IRC later tonight, and we can talk then, but I think we have some pretty reasonable ideas down there right now, so there is nothing concerning. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Roger that.  I should have a permanent IRC terminal from now on. :- ) DCS 21:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Middlebrook AfC

R.D. Middlebrook clearly meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability of academics as given here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28academics%29#Criteria [2]. Specifically, as a Life Fellow of the IEEE, he meets criterion 3 (and you only need to meet one, although IMO he meets several). (Life Fellow is more prestigious than Fellow, and the criterion specifically says IEEE Fellows are notable.) Please check the criteria and re-evaluate. Afhoke (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Andy (Afhoke)

Okay, would you be willing to add links to the awards that he has won? Also, you still need to fix the formatting awards section (and rewrite it in your own words) so that it isn't a copy-paste from another source. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Advice on Locayta article please?

Hi Kevin I am new to Wikipedia so hope that I'm using the correct channel to ask for your advice! I have been trying to create and upload an article on Locayta - an industry provider of search and merchandising software in the e-commerce industry. I have had several different rejection comments now including that the article reads more like an ad (I have tried to make it more neutral), I have not sufficiently explained the importance of the article, and the subject is not considered notable enough for inclusion. I do understand the comments in principle and have consulted the help pages to get clear on these, but because I'm new to using wikipedia's feedback format I'm losing track of which of these issues remain an issue...so to speak. I'm seeing several different feedback messages now and am unsure which still apply - or whether you consider them all to still be an issue...

Would you be able to clarify for me exactly which issues you feel still have not been addressed so that I can give it another bash? Certainly I can provide additional references. I do think Locayta can be demonstrated as being notable - they are a key resource for more than 100 branded industry clients such as Tesco, Boohoo, BT and Nectar, and they are also closely affiliated with Venda and Dan Wagner - both of whom have made it into wikipedia's directory. However I'm wary of over-emphasizing this in case I then fall back into the "reads like an ad" trap!

Your advice and patience will be hugely appreciated by a wikipedia novice still finding her way around. Thank you so much in advance for your time.

All best wishes Amy Amy Hatton (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It still reads like an advertisement, and I feel like most of the article would have to be removed in order for it to have a chance of being advanced, although I really doubt that it is notable as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kevin. Thanks for your quick response. I am really sorry but I'm confused. You say the article reads like an ad and is not notable. However there are articles on [[2]] and[[3]] already published on wikipedia that to me read in a similar way. They specifically state that the companies are leaders in their field, name clients, services, recognition and products in (I think) a similar way to my own. Given Locayta's close affiliation with these companies and the fact that Locayta was also founded by Dan Wagner, who has enormous coverage in the e-commerce press and his own page on wikipedia, could you please give me more detail of exactly which bits of my article are causing it to read like and advertisement? Apologies, I'm really not trying to be difficult, I am just genuinely confused as to what differentiates them to Locayta and keen to revise the article if I can.

Many thanks for your time. Amy Hatton (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It still reads like a bit of an advertisement, so I'll go ahead and remove it, so that it reads better. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, thanks for your response. Forgive me but I'm not quite clear on what you mean. Are you saying that you are going to remove the elements of the article you feel read like and ad, or are you saying you still believe the whole thing should be removed? Pls clarify, thanks you very much for your time on this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amy Hatton (talk • contribs) 10:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(Responding to an e-mail query) Okay, I have gone ahead and cleaned it up now. I removed the part about the associated companies, as there is no article there, and it will only hurt to have it there. At this point, you can still submit it, but if it is declined, it is probably not notable enough for the site. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much Kevin, I'll see what happens! 85.210.22.179 (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Your rejection of the Dr. Peter T. Scardino, Cancer Researcher entry

Dear Editor: I am flummoxed by the suggestion that I failed to show the significance of Dr. Scardino. Here is a quote:

"He and his colleagues introduced statistical models called nomograms that predict both the natural progression of prostate cancer and its response to treatment.[4] Today, nomograms are being used to assist in medical decisions about a variety of cancers of the pancreas, lungs, and breast."

I have links to news items about him. I have a link to a Charlie Rose interview with him. I have a link to his book, which is the leading consumer book on prosrate cancer. I also could have inserted a link to PubMed for the 200 or so peer reviewed articles he's written but was afraid of rejection on that alone.

What is it that you want that I can further supply?

Thanks for your time. Could you please reply to me on my personal email: joanoleck@optimum.net, as I have a lot of trouble navigating on Wikipedia.

Best, Joan 19:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joanvalo (talk • contribs)

(E-mailed as well) Well, it looks as though he is notable, although the way it reads is initially a bit odd (having a lot of external links within the text is a no-no), but it is salvagable. If anything, adding a link to the nomogram page and expanding his connections with him would also help. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Northern Star magazine

Hi,

I have made some updates to the page for The Northern Star magazine, and am just wondering if I did what you required. I also am having problems creating a link from the name to the magazine. Am I making a code mistake?

Thank you for your help.

Will — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildwillinpg (talk • contribs) 17:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but please remove the external links from the page and cite it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Rejected article

Kevin

This is a further communication about the Port of Hastings Development Authority article which you've rejected twice. I am a little troubled by the methodology of the reviews. I shall be adjusting the article again later in the day and will make another attempt to have it posted at that time. In the meantime, I'd ask you to consider the following points.

The reasons you've given for rejection have been different both times. You instanced referencing on the first occasion. I agreed with that sentiment and fixed the referencing. No other reason was given. I tidied up the referencing which is now exhaustive in my view. The sources of each substantive point are clear. As I indicate above, where possible, the material is available in both hard copy and online sources. Accordingly, if you want to check any of the points made in the article, you can. For example, if you want to check the Parliamentary or legislative material, it's very easy. The statute book is available. The debates are available.

On the second occasion you indicated that the subject was not notable. I am having great difficulty understanding this point. As I indicate above, "(T) the subject is clearly notable. The organisation runs a public port and has very substantial public and commercial responsibilities. It lies within a State of 5 million people (Victoria) at the edge of a city of four million people (Melbourne). The port development has also been the subject of some controversy."

Now, it's worth pointing out that the notability ground wasn't mentioned in your first review so I was given no idea that you had this concern and therefore was given no opportunity of addressing it. You mentioned it this time but with no supporting reasons for that view. On current figures this State is larger than around 29 American States. It's larger than Alabama, it's larger than Kentucky, it's larger than Utah, Arkansas and a whole bunch of other States. Similarly the city of Melbourne. By American standards, at over 4 million people this is a very large city, much larger than most US cities, and people here are interested in local affairs including the instituions that their politicians create.

As I indicated above, the port development was a matter of substantial Statewide and local controversy down here. It is of interest to many people including those who live near the port and those who transact business through it. It has also been in the news many times including multiple page spreads. OK, some may see this as a small out of the way place, but the population certainly suggests that its not and, in any case, it's of great importance to those who live here and who access this encyclopedia.

I'll update the article a little more later. I'll add some of the local controversy material if that is seen to help the "notability" thing. What I'd simply ask that you please give this some more time and thought to your review. People don't generally try and contribute to Wikipedia without some real passion about the subjects they approach. They take time and effort to add an article or make an edit. I know, I've posted over 50 articles in other guises and made thousands of edits. The number of rejections I've experienced across all of that work is not yet in double figures and most times the reasons I've been given have been very considered. And, I could grab hundreds probably thousands of articles from the encyclopedia right now, including recent ones, that don't meet the standards that you seem to be applying.

Thanks Con Belacoski (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, it's created. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Just FYI: this removal followed by this notice. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the notice. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Your Trading Edge Magazine

Hello, Can you please explain what I need to do to get my article approved? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Your_Trading_Edge_Magazine It is the same product as this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Times Thank you. Aimee yte (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The citations do not really help to establish any sort of notability, but it doesn't have the feel of a notable article as it stands right now. Feel free to improve it and resubmit it again, before the blackout. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. The magazine is the same as these existing articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_%28magazine%29 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_Analysis_of_Stocks_%26_Commodities, or even this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_Trader_%28UK%29 - plus I have put much more information in our article. I am still unsure what I am supposed to do to get the YTE article approved. Aimee yte (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Just resubmit it, to see what others thing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

rejected article

There are mathematical article on wikipedia that are technical. This article (Ramanujan Master theorem) was to motivate mathematics student towards evaluation of definite integrals.Whole of Mathematics cannot be written in words.Please atleast try to get it review from a perspective of a maths student.

Yeah, it just needs some more text at the beginning for its use. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I have again written the article with some applications. You can review it again at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ramanujan%27s_Master_Theorem.

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks, a lot lot for clearing the huge backlog in WP:AFC. I wish somebody appreciated me for doing the same work too.(sob.....sob.....sob.) Ankit Maity Talk • contribs 06:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Aww, thanks! This is my fifth barnstar in the past few weeks for AFC, so I guess if you just do some insane number of reviews a week, you too will get way more recognition than you think you deserve. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Easyswap - rejection on the basis of references being in French

Hello,

Thanks for taking the time to review my article.

I was told by a previous editor that references in French or in any other languages are not an obstacle for publication. Please see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chiswick_Chap/TalkArchive2011#Easyswap.

Has Wikipedia English now changed its policy?

Is this the only basis on which you rejected my article?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shardy22 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I would have liked to have seen some links in English to back up the facts. Either way, it is a good article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

RadioCentre rejection

Kevin, many thanks for reviewing my article on the UK commercial radio trade body. I am a relatively new WIkipedia user, so excuse my ignorance, but I have read all the links you have guided me to and I am still confused as to the definition of 'notability' in this instance. RadioCentre is to UK Radio what Thinkbox is to UK TV, and Thinkbox is listed. It is the only fully representative body for all other radio stations in the UK which are not under BBC jurisdiction. As I cite in the article, this is nearly 50% of listeners.

RadioCentre appears to me to also be the glue which holds many other UK radio related articles on Wikipedia together. It part funds RAJAR, the Radio Academy and the digital radio switch-over process in the UK - all significant parts of not just the industry but wider media life.

Grateful for your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rendezvousin (talk • contribs) 11:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The article says some things which could be contested, but they aren't backed up by citations, making it harder to tell if it is notable or not. If it sounds like it could be contested, cite it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Article for discussion

Hello Kevin! As I understand it, I am supposed to create a new section on my article, in order to discuss its rejection. I am new at this, so i hope I've done this right. Thanks a lot for you time, and I hope I'll manage to sort this out in the end... Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dr._Albert_Flipout#DISCUSSION — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanaLush (talk • contribs) 18:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the references are poor, the article reads like a hoax, and I don't see any notability there. Sorry, but the article just isn't notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Koob declined article

Hello Kevin,

It is my understanding the article satisfies criteria 9 for notability in academics WP:Creative, and criteria 2 for creative professionals 'The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.' Let me know how to get that to come across in the article to resubmit. I have referenced a few sources about his glia cell concept/theory including an interview in Scientific American. Thank you-

Kilmerbatman (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that article is strange because I started reading it, thought he might have created something important, and did not find anything. Honestly, try expanding it more, and resubmitting it again so that it can be reviewed again. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, the article which cites his theory only allows for paid access, so some non paywall references would to good to back up whether or not this is a huge theory that is gaining recognition or just one man's opinion. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin - I've edited the article and putting up for review again. Kilmerbatman (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Declined Article

Re: Nir Seroussi Hi Kevin, Thank you for taking the time to review my article of creation. You may have quickly realized this was my “first” so I am very grateful for the extra work and effort you have provided me with. This project is one in my bucket list.

So a bit of history on my article of creation:

When my research began, I quickly realized -the subject was already noted, quoted, and included, in many important Wiki pages, which of course would prove the subjects involvement in all aspects of the music business from reliable independent sources and through hundreds of Internet sites.

The notability of the subject is worthy of notice because this is a 36 year old young man born and raised in a foreign country, with no knowledge of a specific genre of music (Regional Mexican) became a major contributor in its business, not as an executive, but as an award winning music writer and producer for that particular genre. I could continue to provide reliable links and third party sources on the subject, including interviews, but the nature of my subject would be lost.-----or so I believe. Being in this business for so long has taught me a few things! Or so I think...right? LOL! Here we go...did you know that... Regional Mexican sales are responsible for 65% of total music sales in the United States? The sales and You Tube hits generated by the Artists that were discovered by the subject changed the history of its genre and its one thing to discover and sign an artist, but no money or machine in the world will buy you audiences, air play or hits. So it has to be great, not good. And lastly, there are more Regional Mexican radio stations in the United States than there are Pop/Urban.My intent with the subject’s article was to keep it simple and clean. Let me know what else could be done to accomplish an article worthy of a page.

Sincerely grateful, TTBBIL — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTBBIL (talk • contribs) 19:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You say that he has won awards, but you don't mention them. Honestly, I don't see any notability there. Sorry. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The subject was the recipient of a BMI Award. The links are included in the reference areas. A huge honor to receive by any composer or songwriter as it denotes a song with massive airplay --worldwide. The subject also executive produced Gammy award winning albums. All for a genre he was not "raised" in. If anything we are looking at a very particular genius here. TTBIL —Preceding undated comment added 03:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC).

  • (talk page stalker) The references are full of links leading to things that don't actually mention or discuss him. The BMI site seems to be down, so I can't check that, but it's noteworthy that this award seems not to have been noticed. Various references and searches indicate that this person exists and has a job, but not that he has notability by Wikipedia's standards. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Social Status Clothing

This is my first attempt at submitting a Wikipedia for a company out of Orlando making some waves. What specifically needs to be done to make this acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beansedb (talk • contribs) 21:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It needs to gain notability, which it is currently far from having. Sorry, but the company is not notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ktr101. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

SarahStierch (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Re rejected article

Hello Kevin

Thank you for reviewing my article for creation: Jacob Cartwright and Nick Jordan. The message states I must indicate the notability for musical performers. However, Cartwright and Jordan are visual artists, with a long track-record of notable exhibitions, films and authored works (by notable publishers such as Book Works and Cornerhouse). I have been careful to tidy up and make full references and citations to many verifiable sources in the UK(such as the Guardian newspaper and the BBC). I have now also added an award for their work, in the latest edit submission. In light of this, please could you re-consider the article for inclusion. A web search will reveal further extensive evidence of the artists' notability and recognition in contemporary visual arts. Furthermore, many of their contemporary peers, who have a comparable reputation and profile, are already included in Wikipedia. With thanks. Jorbert30 (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I mean, it doesn't look like a notable festival, but someone else will probably end up reviewing it as I'm taking a break from AFC for a bit. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Review Kenny&Mason

Dear Sir, Madame

You have reviewed my article about the brand Kenny&Mason. You've indicated that their are some problems that needed to be fixed before you can allow publishing. Can you please explain to me what I have to do to get it listed because this is the first article I publish and I do not understand what I am doing wrong. I really like to contribute to your encyclopedia.

Thank you for your help!

Kind Regards

Paul Jones — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Jones2 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is not a notable corporation, and probably never will be. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Kevin

As a student Political sciences and History I'am sure you understand the importance to pass on as piece of our local English history. It is a pitty that you are apparently not familiar with the rich tradition we have here in Birmingham in the fabrication of taps. Kenny & Mason is one of the leading brands of our region that is around for more then a hunderd year. In my opinion this is certainly worth mentioning in an ecyclopedia. I hope you reconsider your judgement or give me some tips to get this article listed.

Warm regards

Paul Jones — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Jones2 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Jones,

I am Peter.C and I looked further into the concerns you raised with regards to the article you submitted for creation. The reason why your article failed is because it does not appear to be notable. While yes, the company may have been around for over 100 years, there are not many reliable sources detailing it. Furthermore, the article is also written more like an ad than an encyclopedic article. If you are able to provide more reliable sources on the subject mater and write it in an encyclopedic format I see no reason why it will not be moved into main-space, and become a "real" article. If you have any questions, just reply here. Thanks. Peter.C • talk • contribs 02:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Peter c

Thank you for your feedback. I'll revise my article.

Regards

Paul Jones — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Jones2 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

?

Kevin, do you actually like this job? ;) Drmies (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Naval Air Station Sanford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SIOP (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) 11:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

AFC Creation Issues

It seems that User:Anaamikamathu has been creating and moving pages from AFC which are clearly not ready for mainspace (see Chakravyuha (Kannada Film)). Can you move it back/talk to the editor about it? (I'm not sure how exactly to approach the editor) A412 (Talk * C) 22:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Also see User_talk:Anaamikamathu#Lagori_.282012_Film.29. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 22:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh yea, that guy. Regardless, it's done. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
When you start putting speedy deletion warnings on your own talk, its time to take a break. ;) That said, thank you for the incredible amount of work you do. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 22:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I'll put in a request someday over at the Twinkle talk page to get that done, as it does get quite bothersome after awhile. 22:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

BLC Bank page

Hey there, i hope this message finds you well.

This is in reference to the BLC Bank page available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/BLC_bank

We have submitted and re-submitted this page after two writing adjustments to 1) adjust the tone used in the article itself and 2) to integrate the citations and reference as per wiki-approved protocol. As such, if you could be so kind as to point out what parts exactly still need adjustment so we can address them as soon as possible, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance for your consideration and response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NEL Interactif (talk • contribs) 09:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, just resubmit it and see what others think. I'm taking a bit of an AFC vacation at the moment, so I'll let someone else look over it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm very new to article submissions. BTW I did read the AFC sub link before I posted through. Matt Homeyer

Hey, fellow Wikipedian(?)

I've been declined for the Matt Homeyer article and I have no idea from the header how long ago, if it's been reviewed since or what to do about it.

All of my sources have come from him directly and I have no applicable references to add, seeing as Facebook cannot be one of them. :)

I'll keep trying but until then I would like to find out how I know that my article has come through etc etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polarbear ed (talk • contribs) 12:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no references there, and he doesn't seem notable anyways. Sorry. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

translating into a foreign language

Hi Kevin,

Is there a Wikipedia mechanism to translate an article into another language?\ Kdennis1 (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Google Translate works, but then it makes everything a bit funky, so you have to read over the text to fix up grammatical errors. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
        Thank you for your help! Kdennis1 (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ktr101,

I'm sorry to bother you, but I don't understand exactly what I need to change about my article about Sceneround. Could you please help me out and sent me some guidelines to hold on too? It would be much appreciated.

AnneWritten (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding projects

Hello, Ktr101. You have new messages at Bwmoll3's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dog Cloning

You suggested that this one be merged, but it was actually a copyright violation (which I have now deleted), from the source that was provided in a link. Please watch out for those. Thanks Kevin. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Prostitution in Vietnam

The DYK project (nominate) 08:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Coalition of Hope, Article Justification

Coalition of Hope - Justification for Publication Hello, I'm writing to explain why the Coalition of Hope is an organization noteworty to appear in Wikipedia. The draft article is located here [4].

The Coalition of Hope (CoH) is noteworthy as it follows in the traditions of the International Red Cross, the Mercy Ships, [5], and Project Hope [6]. If that were not notable enough, the CoH is the first ever non-governmental organization (NGO) to convert a warship into a floating hospital. The converted LHA, redubbed a HADR/V (Humanitarian Assistance / Disaster Relief Vessel) will be the fastest medical ship afloat. The current USNHS Mercy and Comfort are capable of just 8kts. The HADR/V can do over 23kts under full steam. Medical mission planners at HQ USSSOUTHCOM see the presence of an HADR/V as significant in their planning of disaster responses.

Please consider the above and let me know about future publication of the article.

V/r G H Smith (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Glenn Smith [G H Smith] — Preceding unsigned comment added by G H Smith (talk • contribs) 01:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I should've declined it as a verifiability issue as well, as it needs reliable sources that aren't the organization's own site in order to be accepted. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Additionally, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, as the organization is not notable, and the entire article is mostly hype. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Kevin, we are currently working on the secondary references, I am not requesting publication until they are submitted. I am aware that the current version of the article only referenced to the project site. Understand however, you are completely wrong about the tenor of the article ["and the entire article is mostly hype"]. This article was reviewed by Tom Fiedler, Dean of the College of Communications, Boston College, and a two time Pulitzer Prize winner, to ensure the article is encyclopdic in tone. V/r GHS G H Smith (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up to the recent TEMIS submission

Dear Kevin,

I am writing to you regarding our recent submission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/TEMIS

We understand there are criteria for a company profile such as ours to be included on Wikipedia among which company notability and article style.

While our industry is not mass-market, it is already identified on Wikipedia [[7]] and several of the companies listed on this page are either of comparable size as TEMIS (Attensity, Clarabridge, Basis Technology, …) and other much smaller ones (AeroText, Fair Isaac, LanguageWare, …) yet also have their own Wikipedia page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attensity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarabridge (etc…)

Based on the fair application by Wikipedia of its notability criteria accross an industry, we would appreciate it greatly if you could give our submission a second look.

Regarding the style of the Article, we have modelled it on the above two providers’ pages (which were approved) to make sure it was appropriate, and cited verifiable third-party sources. If there are other specific steps that we can take to make the page more acceptable, please tell us.

Thank you very much for your consideration and kind regards, Martine Falhon (Corporate Communications, TEMIS)

Temisluxid (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, resubmit it then, but it probably isn't notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AVANCE

Thank you for your feedback re improving the references. I have worked on these and resubmitted the profile. Fbell74 (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks

>This suggestion doesn't sufficiently explain the importance or significance of the subject.

Information about one of the oldest and best established conferences in the field of neural networks that gives stipends to students is not significant? I am an old professor and perhaps find different things to be important. Sorry, but I give up on such sources and will discourage my students to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wduch (talk • contribs) 07:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll get back to you later today, as I want to make this a good response. Don't worry, I have seen this! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is a list of conferences in computer science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Computer_science_conferences

My entry http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wduch&diff=0&oldid=474841412 is not different from what you have there, but I got several times claims that it "doesn't sufficiently explain the importance or significance of the subject". It is more detailed than most of the existing entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wduch (talk • contribs) 07:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll look at it later. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I declined it based on verifiability issues, so I would just try to diversify them a bit more and resubmit it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

University of Edinburgh categories

Hi, I've nominated the categories University of Edinburgh people and University of Edinburgh faculty for deletion, because they're completely redundant to existing categories People associated with the University of Edinburgh and Academics of the University of Edinburgh. Regards, --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize that there was already a category, already. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

USRD WikiProject Newsletter, Winter 2012

Volume 5, Issue 1 • Winter 2011 • About the Newsletter
This edition is going out to all USRD WikiProject members (current, former, or potential) in addition to other subscribers as part of a roll call to update the participants list. Anyone that would like to continue to receive this newsletter in the future needs to update the subscription list if they are not already subscribed.
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—Imzadi 1979 → 22:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

About Fahrenheitº article

Thank you for your support, I was trying to understand how or where to use the refilinks but I definitely could not realize how to use it and I could not fix the article. I hope you can orientate me where I can find a less complicated explanation on how to use/add it. Best. --Dan Prior (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Dan. Check out this page first (to make sure that the RefToolbar is on), and then check out this page. The former will allow you to have a tool that will allow you to fill it out, which the latter is the more bare-bones method. If you're still lost, please let me know, and I'll be happy to help you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:cross-tables player & Template:cross-tables tournament

These two AFC submissions were rejected as illegitimate uses of a template. However, they were cribbed directly from similar templates listed in the Category:Chess templates category, which are used to create external links to rating/statistical info on FIDE and related sites. In the case of my new submissions, these templates are intended for a similar purpose, to create external links to a site (cross-tables) that holds statistics for all North American tournament Scrabble players. Request reconsideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.19.225 (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you show me similar templates of this, as I am curious as to what the others look like. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's a nearly identical example: Template:Fide
Here's a page that uses this template to create a footnote external link: Deen Hergott
In similar fashion, I would use the new Scrabble (cross-tables) templates to regularize various external links to cross-tables.com's player and tournament records on Wikipedia pages such as Scrabble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.76.237 (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you need further information on this request? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.137.2.51 (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I realize now that I neglected to sign previous posts to this talk page. --Barbicels (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh shoot, I never noticed that until now! No, and I'll go create it now! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

International Society for Music Education (ISME)

Hi Kevin, I'm a bit surprised at the AfC decision to create this article. First of all, the title is not according to the usual guidlines (includes the organization's acronym). Secondly, an article about this organization already existed (at the correct title emplacement). Thirdly and finally, the article is rather unencyclopdic and promotional in tone. I know that people working at AfC are overburdoned and have to cut corners, but checking whether an article already exists should not be too tough! :-) Anyway, thanks for your hard work there, just thought I should let you know about the problems with this article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Honestly, I have no idea why I didn't create it without that acronym, as I never would allow that in a normal situation. Thanks for catching that! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Notability without promotion

Hi Kevin, You declined my page WIMCO, citing lack of notability, which I understand. However, in the past it was declined because it was written in a promotional tone. Do you have any advice how to bring up notability without making the article an advertisement? Jameshorn28 (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It still reads like an advertisement, but I really don't see any notability there. Sorry. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Kevin, but there are numerous Wikipedia pages out there that have much less notability, and/or only have links to the websites themselves as sources. An example would be Abercrombie and Kent, a similar business to WIMCO ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abercrombie_%26_Kent ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameshorn28 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Just because other articles exist, does not mean that we have seen it. Try submitting it again, and if it is denied, then it probably isn't notable. By the way, thanks for letting me know about that, as I will AFD it, as it is poorly sourced and not notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thank-you for your time Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameshorn28 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Declined submission - notable organisation.

Hi.

Hope you are well?

I have been tasked to create the Wiki page for Incahoot. The submission was declined as a non-notable organisation, however this is one of the largest group buying websites on the Internet, with a very substantial range of reliable references, including but not limited to: - BBC News - BBC One - The Times - Which? Magazine - The Sun - The Guardian - The Daily Times - The Sunday Times - The Mirror, and every national newspaper in the UK, with coverage on a weekly basis (do a Google search or search one of the big national papers, e.g. The Times).

Only a few of these are mentioned in the article to avoid making the article biased (feel free to add as you see fit), but they are all properly citated, and I am happy to provide you with an extensive verifiable list if you wish so.

Can you please advise on the next steps required, and I will make sure it is actioned.

Many thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.167.138.130 (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Just because there are famous clients does not make it notable. I could own a business which contracts cleaning supplies to the federal government, but that does not make my company notable. If you can find reliable sources covering this, please add them, but otherwise I see no notability here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect your comments are highly unprofessional and incorrect. This company has the same significance and notability as Groupon, Living Social and many more, and a simple search on Google news returns a very significant set of reliable and verifiable sources (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q=Incahoot&oq=Incahoot&aq=f&aqi=d1d-o1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=3384l6813l0l7113l8l8l0l4l4l0l250l714l0.3.1l4l0), including The Times, Financial Times, Daily Mirror, The Mail and many more. The most recent article is less than 24 hours old.
Furthermore your reference to a cleaning company is completely irrelevant. Incahoot was the first group buying company globally to focus on key household services, and have changed the way consumers purchase these services online. The company may not have a presence in the US, but that does not mean that the company is not notable. I suggest you spend a bit more time doing your research before declining the article again, or give it to someone more suited for the task (as you clearly have very little knowledge about what is notable outside the US). As an international journalist I find some of your statements hard to swallow, and it is exactly statements like this that undermines the integrity of Wikipedia. All the cites/references follow the guidelines for verifiable sources, unless you think that the Financial Times, Which? Magazine, The Times and The Daily Mail are unreliable? You may claim that this only verifies the company as famous, but not notable, but I suggest you read the articles as any organisation or company that changes consumer behaviour is notable by definition. My view is clearly biased, but the article is not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.167.138.130 (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, that cleaning company thing was an example, and I was not mocking your company in that way that you thought I was. I was linked to a page which lists five articles, and a Google search lists less than that number of results. I also do not appreciate the words you are attempting to insinuate at me as well. I asked for references that are notable, and I was linked to a page that lists a Telegraph.uk one. Other than two links, I am not seeing anything besides a brief mention on what they do. I asked for reputable sources to be founded and added, as reputable clients are not the same thing. Either please add reliable citations, or do not complain when your work is declined for that very reason. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies if I have made any offense. Here is a list of reliable citations covering pretty much every national newspaper in the UK: Incahoot offers discounts on household essentials (Which? Magazine) Can Incahoot save you money on bills? (The Daliy Mail) Incahoot featured in The Times and The Sunday Times Incahoot deals show there's power in a collective (The Guardian) Group buying website takes on price comparison sites with deals on household bills Incahoot interview direct on BBC News 24

Hopefully this list should provide sufficient 'evidence' with regards to notability.

Okay, it's good now. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


Edit being repeatedly deleted by a cyberbully

Hello Kevin,

I decided to turn to you because one of my edits is constantly being deleted. I edited the page "Julian Assange" by adding two facts which I've put under a new segment, the common "In popular culture". It has been removed several times, even though there is no reason which would justify that act, since I've written it according to Wikipedia's guidelines.

Many articles have that segment, such as "Neil Gaiman" ("References in popular culture ; Gaiman made a guest appearance on long-running cartoon series The Simpsons in 2011, in an episode called The Book Job.") and "Lindsey Buckingham" ("In popular culture ; Lindsey Buckingham has been portrayed by Bill Hader in a recurring sketch titled "What Up With That" on NBC's Saturday Night Live. He appeared as himself on the May 14, 2011, episode during this sketch.").

Especially after reading these edits one can see that there is no plausible reason for deleting my edit. In order to avoid the risk of being accused once again of being engaged in an edit war, for a mere act of reaction on my part to someone's act of arbitrariness and to put this once and for all behind, I would like to ask you the following :

What am I to do in order to keep individuals from deleting my edit repeatedly and without any reason ? If the two aforementioned segments aren't outside the pale and can be and stay in the respective articles, so can mine.

After all, you can see it for yourself ; look up "Difference between revisions" of that page, you will find it under "Revision as of 08:30, 15 February 2012"

(In popular culture

He will appear on the 500th episode of The Simpsons, which will air on February 19, 2012.

He was impersonated three times on NBC's Saturday Night Live by cast member Bill Hader, during December 2010.).

As far as I can see, there is not one thing in these edits that could be considered a breach of any of Wikipedia's policies.

The only step to be taken by someone in my position that is suggested by Wikipedia (or at least the only one I happened to find) is to discuss it on the talk page, which isn't an option in this case ; discussions with unreasonable individuals who are arbitrary by nature are unfortunately impossible. Someone who responds to my edit with "Trivia - this article doesn't need random 'popular culture' entries, and see WP:CRYSTALBALL" is not open to any rational conversations. As far as I know, that individual has been reported for incivility in February 2012 and during January he has been advised to stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial to articles or any other Wikipedia page and received the following warning : "This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at talk:East Germany, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.".

I started contributing to this encyclopedia with the intention to share relevant and valuable information and knowledge with the international community and not to be dragged into an edit war and subsequently being verbally abused by someone who is constantly breaching guidelines and insulting other users.

Plus, none of my edits includes speculations, rumors, or any sort of information that is irrelevant and/or false. In this case, both are approriate encyclopedic content ;

if "References in popular culture ; Gaiman made a guest appearance on long-running cartoon series The Simpsons in 2011, in an episode called The Book Job." is appropriate, then "In popular culture ; He will appear on the 500th episode of The Simpsons, which will air on February 19, 2012." is as well ; if "In popular culture ; Lindsey Buckingham has been portrayed by Bill Hader in a recurring sketch titled "What Up With That" on NBC's Saturday Night Live. He appeared as himself on the May 14, 2011, episode during this sketch." is approriate, then "He was impersonated three times on NBC's Saturday Night Live by cast member Bill Hader, during December 2010." is as well.

If instead of "...which will air on February 19, 2012" a change to "...which is scheduled to air on February 19, 2012" is necessary, then this change will be made. After all, after February 19, 2012 it will be necessary to change it anyway to "...which aired on February 19, 2012".

I would like to settle this before the airing date, since it's a jubilee, a milestone, and therefore a cause to celebrate.

Greetings Audrey Horne 89 (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I really do not want to touch this. You have a case, but I am not going to get involved in this. Try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for people who would be better at this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

176th Fighter Squadron Article

Ktr101,

Article: 176th Fighter Squadron.

I'm in the process of assessing articles with incomplete or no "B-class" assessment. I came across this one and I was wondering what is citation 3 and 4 referring too? You can take your time and do it when you have time to do so. Adamdaley (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

They were generic citations that existed on every wing page, and they have been routinely added to other pages. Feel free to remove them if you want. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Fugowie Tribe

Not heard of them, but I do remember the Fakawi tribe who are very short and live on a plain covered with very tall grass. They can often be seen jumping up and down, shouting their tribal cry, "We're the Fakawi! We're the Fakawi". (Works best in a Scouse accent...) Peridon (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

For a second, I thought you were them, and was trying to figure out how to get them to stop complaining. Man, that was a fun article to decline. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

130th Airlift Wing

Kevin, I'm taking a look at 130th Airlift Wing. The history section is sourced to this link, but when I try to access it, I get an error:


Access Denied by security policy This message was sent by ROSC3-BP-01

The security policy for your network prevents your request from being allowed at this time. Please contact your administrator if you feel this is incorrect.

Do you get the same error?

I thought a better source might be a link from this page, as it sounds like it would be the complete history, but when I click on Read the Full History, I get a time out error.

Any thoughts?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a site error, as the same is happening to me. Here are links one and two, through the Internet Archive, though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'll try again later, as the internet archive links don't take me to the history page, unless I missed something.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, you have access to the entire site through that link. I also e-mailed their webmaster as well about the issue, which is almost two years old, apparently. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your support at my RfA, which was successful and nearly unanimous. Be among the first to see my L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation appeal

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 the are 2559 submissions waiting to be reviewed.

Do you have what it takes?
  1. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
  2. Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
  3. Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
  4. Are you autoconfirmed?
  5. 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.

--Bmusician 12:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

... Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SpiderGraph chart - Notability & independent Sources

Dear Kevin,

I've been trying to make my article more encyclopedic since 10/2/2011 with the help of 7 Editors, of which you are one. The article seems pretty much finalized as of Feb. 15 and I wanted to let you know and to Thank You for all your help.

The article's remaining objections have been about Notability and citing published Sources that are reliable and independent. Now that I have new files to attach (to an email or something) that would prove Notability & independent 3rd-party Source, I find myself wondering just how I go about doing that?? It doesn't look as if any attachment files (let alone 8 files) are possible with this form?? Can you tell me what I should do?

Gregory L. Chester (GregLChest@aol.com) Gregory L. Chester 07:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

Talking to other editors on IRC, it seems like they feel as though it isn't notable. At this point, I really don't know what to say, other than to suggest adding more reliable sources. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Article Failed Once Again

I have submitted an article three times now and am still failing the requirements (the feedback was rather limitied as to what to do next).

I have cited so many sources, what am I doing wrong and how can I gain a successful sub?

Thank you for your time.

What's your article? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Andrew_Harrison

Cape Cod Air Show & Open House

I have some concerns about Cape Cod Air Show & Open House. Most of the statements are very specific, but there isn't a single reference. Where did you get the information? I see an external link, but it no longer works. I checked with the Wayback Machine, but didn't find any support for the contents.

Second, the closing comment "As events go on Cape Cod, this is comparable to a rock concert and is the biggest reason to visit the Cape, next to tourism." is not the type of phrasing belonging in an encyclopedia, and should go, but I'm wondering if the whole things should go. What are your thoughts?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I can remove the questionable material, if you want. We haven't had the show in almost five years, as BRAC indirectly removed the airshow, and there might not be much. Also, I did write that years ago, but I will fix it at some point in the future. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
As I mentioned, the closing sentence really needs to go. The rest, if it can be reliably referenced is OK, but if that's not easy, well, I'll let you make the call, as long as the choices are reference or remove. Thanks for your understanding. As an aside, it does bring back memories. I was never at that air show, but I have fond memories of air show at Pease AFB, which no longer exists.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 03:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I just removed it, actually. I'll find references at some point, although I think I was just successful on that edit where I found an archived version of that site. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Kevin!

I appreciate your reasons for rejecting my piece on ArtsBridgeAmerica. You are a busy person but also very perceptive and clear. Thank you. I'll work on re-sourcing the piece, then get back into the queue.

KFFOWLER (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

IRC Comment

Kevin,

Sorry I missed you on IRC.  I have 3 different monitoring programs running background on that machine.  So, unfortunately its beeps tend to get ignored.  Tomorrow I will change IRC-AfC to Sunshine in the Rain by BWO.  That will not get ignored.  You have my email, and my MSN and G-Talk (I think) and are welcome to use them any time.  Not that I will notice that much sooner if I am busy.

:- ) DCS 07:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

10th Amendment Task Force

Kevin, I appreciate your consideration and review of the proposed 10th Amendment Task Force Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/10th_Amendment_Task_Force) . A task force or caucus within the House of representatives qualifies as an important or significant subject. You will find several others within the Wikipedia domain. Many other caucuses have Wikipedia pages and I don’t see how this one under qualifies when compared with the others. May I ask how the 10th Amendment Task Force does not merit a Wikipedia page when people may arbitrarily create them for themselves such as this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Lawrimore? How is this any more worthy of an encyclopedic reference.

There are numerous and diverse source citings that are reliable and independent throughout and it appears as though your editing is based less on the page’s failure to meet your requested criteria, and more on your personal disregard for the page itself.

According to independent analysis from several other Wikipedia editors, the sources included meet both the reliable and independent criteria.

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UTSpring12 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious to see what other task forces exist, before I reconsider this. If you could help point me to some noteworthy ones, I'll be happy to look it over. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sunshine in the rain

Sunshine in the Rain not available on the web? I can fix that for a limited time only Sunshine in the Rain

Time is up: Katy Perry, Firework

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. When you recently edited Naval Air Station Oakland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oakland Airport (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) 10:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You're invited to DC Meetup #28!

DC Meetup #28: March 10 at Capitol City Brewery

DC Wikipedia meetup #28 is on Saturday, March 10, 2012, from 7pm on at Capitol City Brewery in downtown DC. (11th & H St NW).

Join us for an evening of socializing, chatting about Wikipedia, discussing Wikimedia DC activities and the latest preparations for Wikimania 2012. (RSVP + details)

Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC), on behalf of User:Aude

You're invited: Smithsonian Institution Women in Science Edit-a-Thon!

Who should come? You should. Really.
She Blinded Me with Science: Smithsonian Women in Science Edit-a-Thon will be held on Friday, March 30, 2012 at the Smithsonian Archives in Washington, D.C. This edit-a-thon will focus on improving and writing Wikipedia content about women from the Smithsonian who contributed to the sciences. It will be followed by a happy hour meetup! We look forward to seeing you there!

Sarah (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Cleanup

Hello, Ktr101.

You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion.

To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Roger Connors

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Roger Connors

This article on Roger Connors was declined because it fails to establish notability. I think that writing 3 New York Times bestsellers is pretty notable, so I was wondering if you had any suggestions on things I could do to better establish notability. I have read through the notability guidelines and thought I did a pretty good job of following them. I appreciate any suggestions you can give.

Thanks.

PILWiki (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Oops. I'll go correct it now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, being on the bestsellers list does not necessarily make the person notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

File:194th Regional Support Wing emblem.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:194th Regional Support Wing emblem.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Question regarding rejection of Roxanne Starr article:

Kevin (Ktr101) :

Regarding my submission of brief bio of Roxanne Starr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Roxanne_Starr) you left the following comment:

"It needs reliable outside sources that aren't comic ones."

The links I provided are indeed comic related but (as far as I know) are accurate, highly regarded and well trafficked sites. http://marvel.wikia.com/Main_Page, which provides generous information regarding Starr's credits, I believe is owned and maintained by Marvel/Disney. The Sites are comic book related because that is Roxanne's industry. There was an interview with Roxanne in the Atlanta Magazine (back in the 80s) but that does not seem to be online.

My question:

Is the problem here one of true verifiability or do you have questions about Roxanne's notoriety? If so, I can tell you that she has been a known figure around the comic industry for over 30 years, having worked (as mentioned in the bio) with some of the more well known names of 80s comics and her (enticing) name has become part of Flaming Carrot lore (FC being one of the big cult comic books of the last 30 years), often murmured by young boys, under the sheets, after mom and dad shut off the lights.

I did keep the submission very brief so I figured all would be easy to verify - so is there anything else I can do clarify Roxanne's contributions to our world? As I mentioned above, I don't know what else to give you besides links that are comic book related, as that is Roxanne's chosen field.

Thanks in advance for your attention - Ray Weisfeld Tom7789 (talk) 05:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Word of mouth is a valuable tool for historians, but unfortunately it is not yet accepted on Wikipedia. You actually gave a good quantity of links, but they're not of very good quality. One of the links is dead, another is a short bio (one sentence saying that she exists). Another shows the images that she made, and yet another shows that she has done work. It is really had to establish notability on something like that, as I could write them (which is why I'm uneasy about Wikia and wiki links). If you could find a newspaper article or something independent, then I will reconsider but until then, I cannot accept it. Thank you for helping, and I look to see what new links you might send my way. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Kevin

A belated "thank you" for reviewing an article I submitted -- it wasn't accepted, but I felt your reasons for not accepting it were reasonable and you explained them clearly and described how I can fix them and re-submit the article. It was my first article posting and I thank you for being a good reviewer. Xunker (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of CG-1432 Crash for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article CG-1432 Crash is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CG-1432 Crash until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ...William 17:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Same-sex quasimarriage in Mexico City

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Same-sex quasimarriage in Mexico City, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Same-sex quasimarriage in Mexico City

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Talk:Same-sex quasimarriage in Mexico City, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of 1966 EC-121H Warning Star crash for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1966 EC-121H Warning Star crash is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1966 EC-121H Warning Star crash until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ...William 11:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of 1967 EC-121H Warning Star crash for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1967 EC-121H Warning Star crash is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1967 EC-121H Warning Star crash until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ...William 11:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of 1965 EC-121H Warning Star crash for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1965 EC-121H Warning Star crash is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1965 EC-121H Warning Star crash until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ...William 11:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Progress report please

Is too soon to receive a report on my revision of the article at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Weidhorn  ? Thank you.

Paul Ilie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilie (talk • contribs) 18:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not seeing any notability, but please feel to resubmit it so that it can be reviewed by others. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your support at my RfA. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! New England Wikimedia General Meeting

 New England Wikimedia General Meeting

The New England Wikimedia General Meeting will be a large-scale meetup of all Wikimedians (and friends) from the New England area in order to discuss regional coordination and possible formalization of our community (i.e., a chapter). Come hang out with other Wikimedians, learn more about ongoing activities, and help plan for the future!
Potential topics:
Sunday, April 22
1:30 PM – 4:30 PM
Conference Room C06, Johnson Building,
Boston Public Library—Central Library
700 Boylston St., Boston MA 02116
Please sign up here: Wikipedia:Meetup/New England!

Message delivered by Dominic at 09:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.

Progress update

Pilie (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

ConfirmAccount extension

Hey :). You're being contacted because you are involved in the ACC process, or participated in the original discussion in '08 about the ConfirmAccount extension. This is a note to let you know that we are seeking opinions on switching this extension on, effectively making the ACC process via the Toolserver redundant. You can read all the details here; I would be very grateful if people would indicate how they feel about the idea :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Portal:United_States_Air_Force

Hi. I would like to take over this project. I see you asked to take over a few tasks back in 2010. If you don't mind, I'd like to take those off your hands.--v/r - TP 19:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead. I haven't really been able to give it the amount of time in the last year or so, so please go right ahead. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC Meetup & Dinner

Please join us for a Wikimedia DC Meetup & Dinner on Saturday, May 5. This will be a great opportunity to meet other Wikimedians from the DC area, discuss upcoming Wikimedia DC activities and events, and have fun over dinner and drinks. All ages are welcome! Kirill [talk] 04:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of A. J. Burnett (meteorologist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A. J. Burnett (meteorologist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. J. Burnett (meteorologist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 23:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Patrick AFB Category

I noted that you added both Strategic Air Command Installation and Aerospace Defense Command Installation Categories to the Patrick AFB article. Since Patrick has never been an installation of either command, I was wondering why you did that. Is it just because they had tenant units there at one time? Lineagegeek (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I was actually replacing existent categories, although I really don't think that they should even exist for that matter. The more interesting issue is why the place is split up into two articles. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, since I assume you have no objections, I'll delete the categories on the basis of inaccuracy. Oh, Two articles? Lineagegeek (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

That and Banana River. Go ahead, but I already took out one. I think a lot of those categories are probably unnecessary as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

PAFB vs Banana River

I noticed that you claimed to have merged the material from Banana River into PAFB. Fine, but why not redirect Banana River at this point rather than maintain the same material in two places.

Alternately, why not have a separate section "Banana River" in PAFB and summarize the "main" article. It doesn't seem like a good idea to have duplicate material in two places. Student7 (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

See this edit. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Just "summarized" Banana River in the PAFB article with ptr to NAS as "main." Student7 (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to take another look at this in the coming days and get this figured out, as it currently is not really effective in terms of having more information on one page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Elephant_and_Castle_-_Tube_Connections_Game

Kevin Rutherford - This was definitely NOT submitted as a joke in any way shape or form!

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Elephant_and_Castle_-_Tube_Connections_Game

I wish to know specifically what you find erroneous about my submission as it is quite serious to me.

I understand that you are still quite young and haven't had much life experience, so I am not surprised by your out of hand dismissal of what may seem a pass-time. I sincerely wish to 'fix' my submission to comply with the less than stringent policies of Wikipedia. I must admit that this is the first time I have even tried to look deeper into submiting information.

The lack of factual references to the specific BBC World Service shows that this game has been regularly played throughout many decades is awaiting response from the BBC.

I even spoke years ago to my now dead Grandfather about the 'Game' and it's appearance on BBC Radio when I was awarded the certificate as a youth. I was hoping to drum up some more specific information by the publishing of this submission.

Was it just a matter of the writing style, or was there a deeper problem related to my use of first person statements?

Just because you personally have no knowledge of something doesn't mean it isn't truthful. History is filled with the rash decisions of petty dictators.

Due to many current world events several sources of reliable information have been muzzled by being made 'classified'. The annals of the University of Oxford and their internal student activities have been kept quiet since it's beginnings.

Are you such a highly learned and qualified historian that you are actually qualified to know about the events spoken of in my submission? Would you also have rejected out-of-hand anything referencing the Sociological Significance of the old BBC radio comedy series "The Goonies"?

How might I correct the submission based upon your Review Comments, when you didn't actually leave anything of any substance to direct my improvements. I admittedly haven't exactly devoted a great deal of time or effort to this submission.

Review completed.
Your submission did not meet Wikipedia's criteria, but if you can address the issues found in the review, you are encouraged to make improvements and re-submit it.
The reviewer left the following comment about this submission
Thank you for your submission. It appears that your submission is either an attempt to be humorous over being factual, or is an obvious hoax. As Wikipedia strives to contain only factual entries, we can not accept your submission at this time.


Please respond with some specific recommendations, as I have read the articles and guidelines you refer people to on your page and do not see any other solutions.

Sincerely, That Hairy Canadian (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

p.s. Not trying to pick anything with you with this further note. On your User Page there appears to be a glaring typographical error, followed by a sentence completyely missing any appropriate subject; ""When I am not editing this project, I can be found reading on the couch reading whatever sparks my interest. This usually also gets me to edit an article on it."" Hmmm... maybe a literature course or two wouldn't hurt before you complete your graduate studies, eh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by That Hairy Canadian (talk • contribs) 05:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's not notable, but thank you for the correction to my userpage. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You're invited: Smithsonian Institution Archives Edit-a-thon!

Please join us for the second Smithsonian Institution Archives Edit-a-thon! This event will focus on Smithsonian history including the history of the Institution's museums, archives, research centers and the people behind them. This will be a great opportunity to learn about the Archives, work within them & with staff, and learn more about the world's largest museum complex. We hope you'll join us on Friday, May 25. Please sign up here! Sarah (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Note: You received this message because you were listed here. If you no longer wish to receive messages of this nature, please remove yourself from that list.
In the words of Charlie Brown: "Augh!" I'm not in DC at this time, and might not be for a long time. Have fun! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Source

What is the source of data for File:Top Wikipedians compared to the rest of the community.png and File:Top Wikipedians.png? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 15:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The lists themselves. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of National Slave Memorial for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article National Slave Memorial is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Slave Memorial until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. | helpdןǝɥ | 15:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Block

Remember me? I'm the user you "adopted" a long time ago (Rowdy the Ant).

I noticed that an admin hasn't posted a message on my talk page that my sockpuppet account nor my has been blocked. Again I apologize for creating those extra accounts (yes, there are more then 1, but the Man of I-Mages is the only one I remember the exact name to) and abusing them.

Can you please notify an admin for what I've done? Thanks, Rowdy the Ant talk to Rowdy 01:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, it's good to see that you're still around! I don't think anyone has noticed, and since you haven't editted in almost three years, I don't think blocking would do anything different. I'll let someone know though, and they can take a look at it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I just showed it to an admin and they said not to worry about it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The signage thing at NY Ave Station

I did see SOME new signage at the NY Ave station. I looked on the morning that SchuminWeb changed everything back to the new-name-to-be. I stopped on the way to work, got out, and walked around. I changed it back--again. But I threw that statement in as sort of an appeasement to him. Uporządnicki (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I went out on the morning of May 6th and checked out the north side of the station, saw no new signage, and assumed something to be amiss. I normally entered the station from the southeast side, although I guess I missed the obvious renaming of the station (although, to be fair, I had a friend who never noticed the arrival time thing until after three months of living there. I'm wondering if there is going to be some sort of mass changeover over the weekend prior to everything, or will it continue to be haphazardly changed over time. I talked to another user in DC and he said that they were all renamed immediately once the word came out, but I think that if that was the case, they would have renamed them on maps and stations months ago. At the same time, the station pages aren't even renamed on the official websites. I'm going to wait the month, and just monitor everything until then. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Rotherham Real Ale Festival

Hi Kevin,

Just wanted to drop you a quick message to advise you that I have taken on board the comments that you kindly made about the Rotherham Real Ale Festival page earlier this year.

I have included some additional information, which reflects the significance and importance of the event (Both within the context of the region and nationally), and wondered if you might be able to advise whether this is acceptable now for submission?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Kind regards,

MrJRids (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, just resubmit it and someone will look at it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Tuya bit

Back in 09 you created the Little Diomede Island article. At that time you referred to it as a tuya which is a volcanic landform. However, it seems Little Diomede is composed of coarsely crystalline Cretaceous granite - so tuya it isn't. I'm curious about what source you used for that. Vsmith (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I likely used the source material mentioned here. The same information (or misinformation if it is indeed incorrect) is still there right now, so feel free to correct it if need be. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Ah ... ok, fixed that also, seems it was added a couple years earlier by an editor not around lately. No source for the "erroneous" tuya bit was provided. Vsmith (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kelly Pierce

Just so you know... The user that created Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kelly Pierce has also been working extensively on Kelly Shore which is the live article about the same person. In short, they don't need to create an article since there already is one. Dismas|(talk) 04:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that is odd. Well, I just AFD'd it, so we'll see what comes of it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Declined submission

The reason I have declined your submission, because it is just a normal bus stop. I know that it's on a special route, but it is still just a bus stop. It's a flag and a pole and the picture doesn't even show the line stopping, just a normal bus route. I suggest you read WP:NOT and WP:NOTDIR, in particular. Considering, you had your submission declined, I don't think you should accept/decline others' ones.  Adam Mugliston  Talk  07:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't. It is on a notable light bus line, is not just an average stop (because otherwise it would be a numbered route or something), and has notability. Also, how the hell was my submission "declined", as I didn't even write the article! If you're going to make assumptions like that, I suggest that you please get your facts straight, as I have considerable experience in AFC, and going around assuming that the person who complains is actually that who wrote the article is a incredibly bad thing to assume. Have a great day. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Alton Douglas

Hi

You have just declined my submission for the Alton Douglas2 article and I am confused as this is my first submission. The reason given was for lack of notability which I struggle to understand as he is the author of over 50 books, all of which have ISBN numbners and can be followed through that system. The books are of local content and have no national coverage in press etc. What can I do to get the article accepted?

Regards

Keith Price — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeithPrice11 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Writing many books does not necessarily make one notable. He would just have to become notable in other ways in order to have an article, as even his television appearances aren't notable, unless he had major roles on some major shows/films. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Abandoned & Little-Known Airfields

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Abandoned & Little-Known Airfields requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You speedy deleted something that should have gone to AFD. Please for the sake of my sanity explain the reasoning behind this, as the article has been up for a few months. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, I had a look at the article before it was deleted, and it did fit the criteria. Being up for a few months does not exempt it from being nominated for speedy deletion. Speedy refers to the process, not the time between creation and nomination. --kelapstick(bainuu) 03:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I can fix it by adding more information, since it is used as a reference on hundreds of sites here to help verify that many airfields existed in the first place. It was up for almost a year, and if it's been up for more than a few weeks, I like to AFD it, so that I could gauge community views towards it. At the very least, can someone nuke the talk page so that it doesn't look broken, until I can request that it all be reversed so I can expand it beyond a few sentences? Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
In that case I would suggest going to WP:REFUND with your rationale, shouldn't be an issue restoring it if you intend on improving it. If it is actually used as a reference on Wikipedia, I would suggest wikilinking it in the citation template, currently Nomans Land Range is the only one which does that now. Cheers, --kelapstick(bainuu) 03:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I think we need a bot for that, as there are a lot of pages I would have to edit. I'm not against doing it, but if I have to, I will. I was the one who linked that page, although I will definitely link it on others when and if I decide to create the pages. Regardless, that is a task for another day, as I know I probably won't get around to it within the next few days. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Egads! That would be a tedious task, although it could probably be done with Auto Wiki Browser, I have access to it, but haven't used it, and haven't been able to get it to work properly, but there is a request page within the AWB page, if you were interested.--kelapstick(bainuu) 04:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Holisic versus Analytic Cognition

Hi Ktr101, I'm writing regarding the my post on Holistic versus Analytic Cognitionthat you moved back to Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Holistic versus Analytic Cognition. I am a bit confused as to why this happened and was wondering if you could clarify the reason. It says that it is under review again- is this different from being declined AFC submission? Is there anything that I need to do? Thanks! Thisisjm (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Thisisjm

I did it to fix an issue with it not being created accurately, and then the interface would not allow for me to do it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, it's my first time creating a page, so I might have done something wrong unintentionally. Is there anything I can do to get the page back up? Not quite sure what you mean by the interface not allowing you to make changes. Do I just resubmit the article? Thanks! Thisisjm (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)Thisisjm
No, you're good. I'll try to get around to it soon, or someone else will. It just didn't get accepted properly, so I had to revert it so it could be fixed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Awesome. Thanks! :) Thisisjm (talk) 03:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)Thisisjm

Nicolo Giraud

Hi. You see you're really reverting Risker, right? diff. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, I didn't want to actually put effort into this. Oh well, here goes nothing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Adopter

Hey Kevin! :) I thought Sonia would be too busy to take care of me by herself, so if you're not too busy as well, could you be my co-adopter? Sonia seemed okay with the idea. Thanks! ♥ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 00:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your review on the World Conference on International Telecommunication

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for your review of this page. I wonder if I could get you to look at it one more time to see if I've addressed your concerned regarding notability? I am rather new to this, and so more specific guidance would be greatly appreciated if I'm still falling short of the mark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/World_Conference_on_International_Telecommunications

Pigdog234 (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It just doesn't appear notable to me, and the lack of outside sources mentioning it as being notable isn't swaying my opinion, either. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Barry Building

Why does this building look non-notable to you? Almost all of the references are exclusively about it, and it is of interest for historical preservation... Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and resubmit it, and let someone look at it. To me, the article doesn't really have notability, and the whole prose feels a bit funky to me. Just because a building is old and being preserved doesn't make it notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Toolbar

Thanks for coding the toolbar on your page. It's very convenient for browsing on cellphones where it's hard to press those tiny buttons with my big fingers. I've used it to make something similar on my own page (smaller, but with the same basic idea). ☮Soap☮ 17:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem! I actually copied it from a few users when I made it, but it does wonders. I actually had trouble today on my iPhone clicking links, because the Wikipedia mobile application is only good if you are viewing articles, and not much else. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh wow, I just realized how awesome it really is. I didn't even have phones (or anything else for that matter) in mind when I did that. Thanks for letting me how awesome accidental coding really is! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Gérard Rozenknop for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gérard Rozenknop is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gérard Rozenknop until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Certificat de formation à la sécurité article

Hi. Sorry for disturbing you. May I just ask your help for the article : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Certificat_de_formation_à_la_sécurité. You ask me to delete list. The problem is know fix. Thanks a lot in advance. Best Regards. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Crystal Cathedral article.

Please revert your name change of the Crystal Cathedral article. You should not have changed the article's name at this stage - especially without first asking for discussion or consensus. The change has violated various policies. I have already removed some of your recent edits. Thank you. Afterwriting (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, for the delay, but I was sleeping. You didn't have to bring that up to AN/I, regardless. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Looking at it, I never was checking the watch page, as I assumed that it would be uncontroversial. Regardless, what's done is done, and thanks for the fix. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Although I think the article talk page would be the better place to discuss the page move, and there are some legitimate questions and concerns. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Surprising? Or not?

To Bwmoll3 and Ktr101

I note some commonality of language in:

One paragraph isn't particularly surprising:

No flying unit was ever permanently assigned to Vouziers/Brienne/Vatry/Chenevieres and it was used for dispersal training only. However, it did require the same level of equipment as a standard air base. NATO security personnel were required to control base access, guard equipment, munitions and supplies stored on the facility, as well as prevent vandalism.

as all four were NATO Dispersed Operating Bases so a similar description is appropriate.

However, I was surprised to see:

Construction began in 1953, and Brienne Air Base/Vouziers Air Base/Vatry Air Base/Chenevieres Air Base was designed for 50 fighters with three large hangars constructed

Is it really the case that all four had three hangers, were all constructed starting in 1953 and all were designed for precisely 50 fighters?

Complicating the question is that while a source is mentioned in a reference section, it is not used as an inline citation, so I don't know how much of the article derives from that source, in particular, I don't know whether this specific claim came from there.

I'm hoping that one or both of you have access to the book, and can provide an inline citation if the claim is supported, and change it if it is not.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Bwmoll3 responded and added inline citations, so this issue is now moot.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I just saw this now, but I don't have book access at this time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Dow Air Force Base

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Dow Air Force Base, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.flybangor.com/content/4044/History/, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Dow Air Force Base saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Now resolved, thanks for your help.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, as well! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of 1965 Fort Benning Mid-Air Helicopter Collision for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1965 Fort Benning Mid-Air Helicopter Collision is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1965 Fort Benning Mid-Air Helicopter Collision until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ...William 13:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Category merging

You don't need to manually move the squadron categories; it can be handled by the bot speedily. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 23:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not, fortunately. I'm actually trying to add some semblance of sanity to the pages, as a lot of pages have two categories on them and I am trying to make them more modelled after the Air Force articles. I'm going to move on to the Marine Corps articles after this. If I wanted to do this, I would have AWB'd them all last night. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Still need reviews for the Wikipedia Education Program research project

Hey, Kevin! If you have some time to review the quality of some articles, we're using the results for a really important research project that will help shape the future of the US/Canada Education Program. For a few projects, we're on a pretty tight timeline and are really eager to have many more of these articles reviewed over the next week. However, we think it's most useful to come from experienced Wikipedia editors.

I have gone through each class to prioritize for various projects, and everyone on the Education team at the Wikimedia Foundation would be extremely grateful if you could participate by reviewing a few articles ('pre' and 'post' versions). If we can rally a lot of editors to review one or two articles each day, we will be able to make the most use of this research for our tight timeline. As many of our Ambassadors have requested it, we are really eager to find out which classes have been successful according to the Wikipedian standard.

If you can spare some time, please check out these priority articles and give it a go. Even 1 or 2 a day would help immensely! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Fighter squadrons of the United States Navy

Just wanting to check Kevin; there are no fighter squadrons of the USN that we have articles for that have not transitioned into VFAs? No other pre-Tomcat fighter squadrons? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Also, are you aware of WP:SMALLCAT? Categories with under three members usually should not be created. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I only tackled articles with categories on them. I could go through and make sure that they haven't been internally renamed by users who can't actually perform the move if you want. Also, I built those categories with the potential to expand, as I am sure that there are a lot of historical squadrons that have yet to be created. The template for squadrons also shows that there are at least 10-15 more articles in need of creation, many of which would help populate those categories. I was unaware of that though, so thanks for the notification! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Franck Goldnadel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Franck Goldnadel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franck Goldnadel until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:University of Massachusetts logo.svg)

Thanks for uploading File:University of Massachusetts logo.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

RfA strikethrough

I modified your strikethrough at RfA. It appears that you accidentally struck the comment of another editor. Please revert me if I made a mistake. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow, thanks for noticing that! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
No problem, have a nice day! On another note, I'm a poly sci major myself Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

FreeTaxUSA.com

Hey Kevin,

I wanted to thank you so much for taking the time to review the FreeTaxUSA.com article. I know your time is valuable, and I'm grateful for it. As you know, I'm struggling with the issue of notability for my article. One of the ideas that was suggested to me by one of the other reviewers was to note that FreeTaxUSA.com filed the blank most returns in the 2011 year by the IRS.gov. I agreed with his idea, and I'm currently working on establishing that. Would something like that be enough to establish the article as notable?

If you have any other ideas to help with the notability of the article, your suggestions would be much appreciated. Thank again so much for your time!

P.S. I read through your bio, and I am impressed with all that you have accomplished on Wikipedia and other areas of your life. To me it is obvious that you know what you're doing and have a lot of valuable experience. I'm grateful for your time and consideration.

Newtaxguy (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure, that would be good, as long as it wasn't filing a disproportionately small amount of returns (i.e. 90%, 7%, 3%). Thanks for the compliment, as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutral Buoyancy Simulator

The current Wiki story on the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center tank has some inaccuracies.

It looks like they're confusing 1966 events with things that happened in 1967. On the other hand, if they are correct it should also be noted that Environmental Research Asoociates (ERA) demonstrated neutral buoyancy (Wet Workshop) to a group from Marshall in July 1966. At that time the Marshall reseach group told ERA that they had simulated (they would not say how) the Wet Workshop tasks. In addition, during the meeting with ERA, the group from Marshall could not show any photos of their Wet Workshop accomplishments.

Recommend that contributors to the Neutral Buoyancy Simulator story have an offline conversation with the info source for the "Neutral buoyancy simulation as a training aid" story. If there's any way to facilitate that conversation, it will likely be enjoyable and beneficial to all participants.

Thanks - — Preceding unsigned comment added by DM18HD (talk • contribs) 14:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I would bring it up with them, as you are the one who knows more about this than I do. Since you have also worked on a similar topic, it might be a good idea to join in the conversation with them, as I am sure no harm would end up coming from it. Other than that, I really cannot see any part where I could be involved, as it isn't something where a third party needs to come in and facilitate a discussion. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response. First, a question: Would you have a suggestion on how we get in touch with "them" (the primary contributors to the Neutral Buoyancy Simulator article)?
Second, more comments: The Marshall Neutral Buoyancy Simulator article is now several pages. It talks about how they built their tanks and some of the people involved. However, they don't seem to mention its major contribution, Skylab solar panels.
When NASA launched Skylab, one of its two solar panels did not deploy. It hung up partially deployed and did not generate any power. NASA set up a simulation to see if they could fix it and sent two astronauts into orbit. The problem turned out to be that a metal strap holding it in place for launch did not separate properly. Around that time, we tried to find out how NASA simulated the problem but we were not allowed to visit Marshall so we still don't know whether they set up the actual problem in the tank or not. At any rate - the Astronauts cut the metal strap and were thrown out of position by the deployment of the panel. The report that we have is that - by the time the astronauts recovered and stabilized themselves the panel was completely deployed and was happily generating electric power.
The point is - this was the first unplanned - required EVA and it was more than a bit hazardous. If the strap whipped around and cut one of the suits we would have lost our first in astronaut in outer space. If they generated the intelligence to cut the strap and where to cut it and how by means of neutral buoyancy then it rescued the mission. Without that successful EVA, Skylab would have been a total failure. Based on all of this, we would recommend that the Wiki story on the MSFC NBS should be expanded further to focus on the value of neutral buoyancy and not around how they built the tank.
Or, from a different view, would it be more appropriate to include this within the article that we published (Neutral buoyancy simulation as a training aid)? Seems like the answer to this question would best be from folks at Marshal who might have more facts on what NASA did to prepare for the repair mission for the Skylab solar panel.
Thanks for looking further into this.
--DM18HD (talk) 06:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
If you go on the user's page, on the left bar, there is a link which says, "E-mail this user." If they have e-mail enabled, you will be able to see this and e-mail them. The story itself sounds like something worth placing in the article, as long as it is adequately sourced. In terms of the answer, I would suggest contacting Marshall and seeing if they can help you in any way. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your 23 June response. In the meantime, I had a good conversation with Mr. Dave Shayler, FBIS, author of Walking in Space and many other book relating to this subject. Mr. Shayler confirmed his sources for the material that we were prepared to move forward with. End result is updates for three articles (Neutral buoyancy simulation as a training aid, Skylab 2, and Neutral Buoyancy Simulator). All new info relates to neutrally buoyant training in support of the successful Skylab 2 repair EVA. I think we'll let the dust settle for a little while. Thanks for all of your help with this! --DM18HD (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for more clarity regarding declined submission: Articles for creation/Local Initiatives Support Corporation

Hello,

I attempted to submit a new article for the Local Initiatives Support Corporation and my submission was declined. I read your comments and the links on neutrality and reliable sources and also looked at samples from articles on similar organizations (Enterprise Community Partners and Neighborworks America) to get an idea on how the article should read. I don't mean to trouble you, but I'm a little confused by how my submission was considered non-neutral and/or how I should treat the sources differently. It is my impression that those issues are treated similarly on the aforementioned similar articles. Would you be willing to give me a little more detail on how I should change the language or specify a sample of some of the language in my submission that seems non-neutral, please? I'm just trying to learn about this process (this is my first article submission), so I'd appreciate your assistance.

Thanks! Hreijm (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Hreijm! Basically, the article reads in a bit of a promotional tone (although, this is actually looking to be more and more unavoidable at another glance). This paragraph is probably the worst offender:
"While LISC's mission has evolved over the years, its enduring goal has been to support community-led efforts to rebuild distressed, low-income neighborhoods. It aims to create "healthy and sustainable communities of choice and opportunity — good places to work, do business and raise children."[5] For its first 25 years, LISC primarily provided financing for community development real estate (affordable housing and commercial facilities) and provided operational support to community development corporations. In 2007, LISC realigned its operations and programs to begin a new strategy, called Building Sustainable Communities, whereby LISC's work would be more comprehensive. Building Sustainable Communities is defined by five goals: "Expanding investment in housing and other real estate, increasing family income and wealth, stimulating economic development, improving access to quality education, and supporting healthy environments and lifestyles."[6] Building Sustainable Communities is being implemented in dozens of communities across the country, where local organizations collaborate with residents to engage in all five of these goals at the same time in order to achieve a more holistic and lasting impact on people's lives."
I think if you could clean that up so that it reads less like a promotional pamphlet for the company, as well as the rest of the article, it has a fighting chance. Good luck! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Ktr101:

Thanks, I'll keep working on it!

Hreijm (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Medium tiltrotor squadrons of the United States Marine Corps

A tag has been placed on Category:Medium tiltrotor squadrons of the United States Marine Corps requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for four days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 06:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

RFA closure

I saw you closed this RfA prematurely per WP:SNOW. The closure was correct, but the rationale wasn't: SNOW is for millions of people jumping on the same bandwagon - this only had three opposes. I would have advised you to close it as a WP:NOTNOW instead. Thanks for your edits! Rcsprinter (deliver) 15:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I actually thought of the SNOW/NOTNOW route, but I decided not as I didn't think anyone would care since it was dead on arrival. Oh well, what's done is done, but I will go back and change it if you think it would help. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles For Creation decline: Campo-Formio (band)

Hi Ktr101,

I'm Alexander Menor, and I write in regards to the article, Campo-Formio (band), I have been trying to get into the Wikipedia Article Space. The last time I had submitted the article was a little more than a month ago and it was declined due to a lack of sufficient notability.

I believe the varied references I have supplied prove well the subject's notability and therefore believe the article should be included into article space, considering the fact that among the references there are numerous interviews and articles written about the subject spanning different blogs, online magazines, and, arguably, Puerto Rico's best newspaper, El Nuevo Día.

Can you please help better explain how I have not been able to establish notability for the subject, and what I must do to achieve as much? And if this was a mistake, may you be so kind as to re-review the article?

Thank you for your assistance, and happy 4th of July!

Respectfully, A. Menor

Menor, A. (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Happy 4th to you as well! I think that the accolades are very minor, and their lack of being covered in something other than a site which highlights a certain genre is also a bit concerning to me. If you can address that, go ahead and resubmit it. Good luck! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yoga Swing

Hello, I have gone through, made edits, received more reviewer/editor feedback, made more edits, researched, more edits and I beleive I have re-written the article to comply with wikipedia´s policies and it is ready for submission. Would you like to take a second look and see if this reads more as a encyclopedic entry, and let me know if there is anything else to change. Thank you. Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Yoga_Swing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchild (talk • contribs) moved here from accidental article creation Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It still needs third-party sources, like news organizations and the like, before it has a chance of being approved. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Figured it out!

Kevin, just realized where I remember seeing you from - DYK! Best, Lord Roem (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Woo! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

US MIAs of the Vietnam War

Thank you for reviewing my draft article. There are 2 problems with the way the page has been set up - first the list includes civilians and not just US service members and it doesn't make sense to split them up, particularly when for example an Air America plane is shot down carrying a US Army passenger. Second there are 1600 MIAs and I intend to summarise them all, so the page will have to be split up into multiple different pages which is why I split them up 1961-4, 1973-5 and then there will be a page for each year from 1965-72 because that several hundred were lost each year in that period. regards Mztourist (talk) 11:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The thing that makes me cautious about summarizing all of them, is that it will turn the page into WP:NOT. I would suggest keeping it simple, as it was stumping a few of the established reviewers, including myself. The article itself is already a bit iffy, but the other reviewers and I thought that it might be better off as a single page. I would suggest keeping everything simple, as I can easily get overwhelmed and threaten the existence of the article as a whole. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Worcester Flood Diversion Channel

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Worcester Flood Diversion Channel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Receptie123 (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm expanding this. Please do not tag these things immediately, as that is akin to WP:BITE. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Adminship

Have you thought about going for adminship? I imagine you have but I thought I'd check. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 15:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Eventually. Probably after Wikimania, but not in the initial onslaught that might occur, beginning tomorrow. Thanks for noticing me, though! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

MirrorLink article for creation

Hi Kevin, just wanted to check why was the AfC for MirrorLink not accepted. There were quite a few links there that show MirrorLink to be an established tachnology with leading audio players adopting it for their headunits. Could you throw some more light on the reasons for rejecting it. -Ambar wiki (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It has been declined four different times in a row with the same reason: The references do not establish notability. If you want this passed, you are going to have to find press sources that are not blogs. This includes newspapers, or other media sources. Good luck! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey, have finally got the article up on wiki after the AfC review by some wikipedian. Take a look at MirrorLink article and leave your comments on the talk page. This is just a initial draft and the article is likely to grow as the subject and its notability grow. I believe this to already be a notable subject (if not highly notable) and with almost all key players from the global industry supporting the initiative, it is likely to grow further and become an article of high importance. Now, since we are into the article early, its a time when we can really contribute to improving its quality and taking it to the next level.-Ambar (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Local H Article for Creation

Hey there, I was also curious about my AfC for Hallelujah! I'm a Bum not being suitable. I have read the Wikipedia: Crystal Ball criteria, and my article does not violate these rules. It is about an album from a noteworthy band that is definitely going to happen. It does not assume anything, and has multiple sources backing up the planned release date and information provided in my article. I'll cite Oceania as an example. The article for this release was in existence months before it was released.Ckolar612 (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Because it hasn't been released yet, there is no way to know if it is notable or not. There is nothing wrong with the text itself, but it borderline runs into WP:CRYSTAL. I would suggest waiting a bit over two months, and re-submitting it again. A lot of us are more cautious on AFC than other venues, so if you want to get another user's opinion, try re-submitting it now, and see what they think, but I remain cautious on its prospects. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I see what you're saying. The only argument I can offer up is that every other release (even the non-studio releases) by this artist all have notable articles, and those were created long before they were officially released, so there is no reason to assume that this article would not be notable. However, I suppose I'll just wait a little longer before re-submitting.Ckolar612 (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

logged out user thing

BLP issues are an exemption to 3RR, so it wasn't actually edit-warring (except for the huggle users who reverted the removal of BLP problems that many times in a row :p) Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Notability Requirement for Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Fourteenth_Van_Cliburn_International_Piano_Competition

Mr. Cliburn is one of the most notable living US citizens because:

1.) He received the National Medal for the Arts in 2011. (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/02/109719/pianists-van-cliburn-honored-with.html)

2.) He received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2003. [[8]]

3.) He received the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award in 2004. [[9]]

4.) Van Cliburn's recording of Tchaikovsky's First Piano Concerto was the first classical recording to sell a million copies. It is now gone triple platinum album.

5.) His namesake piano competition is a quadrennial event starting in 1962 - it is ultimately a 16-17 day piano festival and considered the best in the world in tandem with the Queen Elisabeth Music Competition and Arthur Rubinstein Piano Competition.

6.) A Google search for "Van Cliburn" on site:wikipedia.org returns 1590 hits from the US, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Hungary.

7.) Van Cliburn won first international Tchaikovsky Competition in Moscow in 1958.

I'll include his medals and honors in the next submission, plus pictures and history from 1962.

Additionally, the VII through the XIII Van Cliburn International Piano Competitions all have Wikipedia pages in the same relative format.

Lyn Evans

You don't have to add the biography part (actually, it is really irrevelant, so it would be unnecessary), but I didn't realize there were 13 other competition pages on it. I'll go create it now! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

AFC submission "Memotoo" declined

Hello Kevin, you recently declined my article "Memotoo" but gave no detailled reasons. After reading your page "User:Ktr101/Articles for Creation", I suppose that Notability might be your issue. However, my article contains useful details, has many links and external references (13, for the time being). From my point of view, the article is also written in a neutral attitude. Also, I am not related to the topic (website). After the decline, I had a look on several other articles that are online in the same category, such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A2Zapps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcasa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackSpider_Technologies_Limited http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brightidea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24SevenOffice These articles seem to have been "accepted", even though there is very little content and there are few references. In view of the above, it is difficult for me to understand your decline. Also some detailed hints would be appreciated. Is there a space, where better authors than me can improve the article before it get online? Thanks 60tagegratis (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, a few of those articles are really bad examples, but I see what you're getting at. A good example would be to look at the Salesforce article (a competitor of one of the above), and go from there. Mainly, if you could add good news sources that aren't blogs, that would help. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions about adding citations to secondary reliable sources entirely independent of subject?

Hi Kevin. My entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Good/Bad_Art_Collective was recently declined by you. Third time total. I was wondering if you had any suggestions about "adding citations to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject?" I felt I had done that but I guess I am getting it wrong? I'm going to keep tightening this down and citing it correctly until I get it right. I've looked over the help pages and instructions again and it's made me realize some things. But any tips you might have after looking it over would be appreciated! Perhaps on specific citations that are already there? Thanks much, MarkAllen5 (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Three separate editors have found it to not be notable, so I would suggest finding national news coverage. If that is impossible to find, then it doesn't really have any inherent notability, other than local mentions. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! MarkAllen5 (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

See this and further comment regarding review process at page of your original reply

Note, in part the aim here is have technically oriented scientific articles reviewed for content by content experts in the same field, and to have articles offered by recognized content experts reviewed for format and wiki standards by other than editors in training -- so the mistake made regarding unnecessary rejection based on format issues does not repeat.

No one with limited time can justify spending time on content creation when the review component process is more arduous than the creation component, as it has been in this case. Here you need to trust me (with my case being made by this aside): In the pharma industry we were early taken aside by business/marketing teams, and taught the difference between "walkers" and "talkers". The former are those that have a negative experience with a product or process, and simply walk away (generally, to a competitor). The latter are those that face the the same product or process and respond to the negatives by communicating the issues at hand to the product or process provider. The goal of on-market product support, then, is in part to turn walkers into talkers, so product/process can be improved (and sale and market segment not lost). The point here is that you (and the others involved at wiki) have a talker on the hook, where -- trust me -- most of my colleagues simply would not bother, but would walk. They would either try once to generate content, experience the difficulties of wiki editing and approval, and then walk, or (as likely based on evidence) they would never create in the first place. (One junior biological colleague from a prestigious university recently came in for a look, and then left for good -- specifically, pasted in a bunch of original material into a talk page, and departed.) Bottom line, if you don't turn walkers into talkers, and don't facilitate the product and process changes of the talkers (when they are reliable, sincere, and capable critics), the whole of what wiki is doing will be the worse for it. As it stands, there are emerging alternatives to wiki for quality scientific content, and the longer this takes for remediation, the likelier that I will join others in exodus. Please elevate this text, along with other, for the higher level discussion proposed at your editor badgering reply. Prof D Meduban (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It is hard to keep new editors when we have begun essentially becomming either borderline paranoid at a lot of contributors, or are creating so many rules, that new editors are being scared away before they can even become part of the community. Every day, we risk scaring off new people, while at the same time, trying to increase our prestige in order to be taken more seriously by organizations and people who have the ability to contribute a lot of material. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

mammoth studios declined

Abbythecat (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)My article on Mammoth Studios was declined. This isn't an appeal to add it. I accept and understand it being rejected. I only want to say this ... I'll never understand why a submission is accepted or rejected. I understand this is your job. But do you ever think how hurt a person is when a submission is rejected? Obviously, if somebody submits something, it's important to him/her. Yet most of the time my submissions are rejected. The reason is usually about sources or references. I get tired of this. I listed a good reference. I think Wikipedia demands too much in this area. I once (no joke) listed that John Lennon was a member of the Beatles and stated they recorded "Yesterday". This was rejected because of lack of references. Come on. I need to reference that Lennon was a Beatle? I have to source that they recorded "Yesterday"? It just gets ridiculous. If I list that the sun is above us, or that the earth is round, such obvious facts shouldn't need referenced. Anyway, sorry for sounding off, I mean no disrespect. Have you ever wondered how many contributors you scare off with rejections (and the over-kill of references?). I understand you have to be careful, but perhaps consider lightening up on the references. I am not a liar, so it's a bit offensive. Again, no problem here at all, the submission wasn't that important. But, man, Wikipedia, lighten up and let some of us see our submissions accepted! Thank you. Abbythecat (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC).

See, there was nothing wrong with the article proper, except that it referenced Wikipedia. If you could provide sources, I would have no problem accepting it. In terms of scaring people off of the project, it is a very valid concern that we have. At Wikimania two weeks ago, we had some serious discussions about how we could stop doing this. Hopefully we will be able to effect change, but that is something that is a very valid concern and something that we take seriously. As to the John Lennon incident, I really don't know what to say, as I am not the editor. What they did was a bit harsh, but it is more towards the extreme side of those who like to have everything cited. If that ever happens to you again, I would suggest talking to them and working out a compromise (it sounds silly, but you were on the right side) and figure out what works. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Abbythecat (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Thanks - I did reference the "A Shroud Of Thoughts" website, even cited name of article & author. I also mentioned TV shows & movies, which can be viewed pretty easily. But none of this was good enough...? Again, it's not a big deal, but I wish it were "easier" to get submissions accepted. I understand your views, and they are valid (being fearful of cranks, etc) -- but please understand sincere people, like myself, spend a lot of time & research on submissions only to have them rejected. I once submited an article on Jack Grinnage and it was rejected as not being noteworthy. So the guy from THE NIGHT STALKER and REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE isn't noteworthy. I still can't believe that one! So I understand why people are hesitant to submit articles. I'm certainly tired of trying. What's the point? But thanks again. Best. Abbythecat (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC).

Actually, you have the ability to create articles in the mainspace, so there is nothing holding you back there. I would encourage you to do that if you want to improve, because there is no better way to improve an article than putting it in a firing range, something which I do this quite often (see the prematurely tagged article above for a good example). Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Abbythecat (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Sorry if I sounded like I was complaining. Let me please ask you 1 last question then I'll leave you alone (promise!). I cited "A Shroud Of Thoughts" website, article, & author as reference. So why isn't this good referencing? I think it is ... any chance you could reverse your decision & accept this submission? Sorry to bother you! Thanks. Abbythecat (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC).

Honestly, I don't mind, and you made some very good points above, so it was all valid. Asking questions is what makes you smarter. If you don't ever ask questions, you doom yourself to not knowing what you really want to know. If you could provide the website in the article to show that it exists, it could easily get approved. I'd rather you ask questions than rage quit, as one editor retained is another one not lost. If you ever have any questions, I am more than welcome to help you on anything you might need help on. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Abbythecat (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Thanks. I resubmited it. I put the website in the article to show it exists as you suggested. Feel free to google "A Shroud Of Thoughts" and read it yourself (it's quite informative). I will keep trying to add to it. I hope this will get the submission accepted. If not, any additional help you can give me to get it approved is appreciated. At least I'm trying, thanks to your help and kindness. It feels better to try than to complain or quit. Thank you again. UPDATE: it got rejected again! This time by Txcrossbow. Oh, well! Abbythecat (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC).

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You're invited to Masterpiece Museum Edit-a-Thon!

"Masterpiece Museum" Edit-a-Thon at the Smithsonian American Art Museum

The Smithsonian American Art Museum and Wikimedia DC present the "Masterpiece Museum" Edit-a-Thon. Drawing from their vast vaults of art, the caretakers of the Smithsonian American Art Museum have meticulously drawn forth canvas jewels to import into Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia articles. The museum directors and staff are excited about this project, and would love to have experienced Wikimedians help in the effort! Kirill [talk] 18:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

When
  • August 10, 2012, 10 AM - 4 PM
Where
  • Smithsonian American Art Museum, 7th & F St NW, Washington, DC
Signup

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Jeremiah's Gutter at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Jeremiah's Gutter

Hello! Your submission of Jeremiah's Gutter at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Drmies (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Operation Head Start

Hello! Your submission of Operation Head Start at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Manxruler (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the kind help for improving my Mammoth Studios page & for accepting it. Best. Abbythecat. Abbythecat (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Mammoth Studios

Hello, KTR. Quick question about the Mammoth Studios article. I declined it because it had no references. You moved it to article space, but it still doesn't have any references other than the one blog plus it has more than a couple of redlinks. You have way more experience than I with reviewing articles. Was the blog sufficient for passing the article? If so, should it be marked as a stub and the "REFERENCE" section and redlinks be removed? Thanks! Cheers! Stella BATPHONEGROOVES 19:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Crap, I forgot to clean it up. Well, I just did that now, so it should be good. The redlinks are to notable movies, so are the films from what a bit of research has shown. As to the last part of your question, yes, it should be marked as a stub (which I have already done), and I also have removed the reference section. As to if the blog, I am a bit conflicted. Yes, it is a blog, but I felt like it is a very well-researched article and I am going to assume good faith here. I also have been able to find mentions of Mammoth Studios on other websites, so I suppose I will add them in shortly. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't want my submission to cause anyone trouble, so please do what you feel is best, thank you. AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC).

Institute on the Environment

Hi,

Dcshank has been helping me with my article about the Institute on the Environment, a cross-departmental organization at the University of Minnesota that supports research projects and hosts the sustainability studies minor. The organization has a publication with thousands of subscribers around the world and each year supports dozens of new projects. Dcshank is concerned about notability and said you had experience writing about research organizations. Do you have any advice for asserting notability? Thank you. Kmerna (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I would just try to find more outside and independent sources. It seems notable, but unless you can help back up the look of notability, it really has no chance. Good luck! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you know of any well done articles I could look at for reference?Kmerna (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean? If you want good articles, I would suggest checking out Wikipedia:Featured Articles. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Getting Wikimedians to the Olympic Games

Hi. I am part of an effort to get Wikimedians access to the 2016 Summer Olympics as accredited reporters and photographers. Part of this effort includes covering the 2012 Summer Paralympics. Two Wikimedians have credentials to attend these games as reporters through Wikimedia Australia. As English Wikipedia does not allow original reporting, this is largely through Wikinews with a project page found at Wikinews:Paralympic Games. If you are interested in helping to get Wikimedians to the next Summer Olympics,I'd encourage you to assist with Wikinews efforts, and also to work on all language 2012 Summer Paralympic Wikipedia articles before, during and after the Games to demonstrate a track record of success. Thank you. --LauraHale (talk) 04:36, 17 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 2559 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk.

Do you have what it takes?
  1. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
  2. Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
  3. Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
  4. Are you autoconfirmed?
  5. 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

Nomination of Idees Vol Vrees for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Idees Vol Vrees, which you recently reviewed as part of the Articles for creation process, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The discussion is occuring here. As the reviewer, your contribution to the discussion will be helpful in reaching a consensus. NoomBot (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

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.

Loring Air Force Base (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Britain, Department of Defense, John Wood and The Dispatch

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Random question...

Hello, Ktr101. You have new messages at Levdr1lostpassword's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Ktr101. You have new messages at Levdr1lostpassword's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Ktr101. You have new messages at Levdr1lostpassword's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Ktr101. You have new messages at Levdr1lostpassword's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Jeremiah's Gutter

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Signature

Any trouble reading? Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope, it's good. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Marblehead Harbor

Hi, I reviewed the DYK nomination and there's a referencing problem. I hope we can get this resolved today so it can get in the queue to appear tomorrow. I'll watchlist the nomination. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Marblehead Harbor

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: National convention table

Hello, Ktr101. You have new messages at Talk:National Junior Classical League.
Message added 18:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK nomination of Loring Air Force Base Double Cantilever Hanger

Hello! Your submission of Loring Air Force Base Double Cantilever Hanger at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Maile66 (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Loring Military Heritage Center

Hello! Your submission of Loring Military Heritage Center at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Maile66 (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Heights of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush

Hi, I noticed you've edited Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States in the past. I was wondering if you could give your views regarding this talk page discussion about the heights of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Thanks! --76.189.110.167 (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Operation Head Start

Orlady (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Songs for Dustmites

Hi: It looks like you intended to say this one was good to go, but you didn't give it the checkmark. There seems to be a shortage of passed hooks right now, so if that's what you intended, could you check it off so it shows as passed to the bot? Thanks :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for the heads up! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, would you also be willing to check out my request on the DYK talk page, as if that could be done, we'd have a few more hooks accepted. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Loring Air Force Base, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Defense (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) 11:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Loring Commerce Centre

Hello! Your submission of Loring Commerce Centre at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! – Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Greetings from Chennai

Hi Kevin, thanks for your encouraging "talk" on my first English Wiki Article "Harini Ravi". Step by step I find solutions that may cause any novice to stumble at :-) Currently I am preparing the second article .. and its still waiting to be reviewed at the backlogged page..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/n.m._nampoothiri

Pls have a look at it.. and the reference coding problem is solved for I learnt the

  1. ^ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2004.html
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28academics%29#Criteria

Tnq (Bilingual2000)

Nomination of MMM-2011 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article MMM-2011 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MMM-2011 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. Monty845 02:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Backstage at the Smithsonian Libraries

Backstage at the Smithsonian Libraries is part of Wikipedia Loves Libraries 2012, the second annual continent-wide campaign to bring Wikipedia and libraries together with on-site events. Running this fall through October and November, libraries (and archives) will open their doors to help build a lasting relationship with their local Wikipedian community.

Organized by Wikimedia DC, this event will take place on October 12, 2012, and will include new editor training, a "backstage pass" tour of the National Museum of Natural History, and an edit-a-thon. Everyone is welcome to attend!

Kirill [talk] 18:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yaroslav the Wise Law Academy

Dear Ktr101!

I am writing to you as an official representative of the National University Yaroslav the Wise Law Academy of Ukraine. This article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/National_University_%22Yaroslav_the_Wise_Law_Academy_of_Ukraine%22) has been created based on information from the University's official website, and there are no other external links in English that qualify as reliable sources.

The old article about the University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Yaroslav_Mudryi_Law_Academy_of_Ukraine) is clearly out of date, based only on two irrelevant external links and should be replaced (because of the wrong name).

Please accept the current edit of the article. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InSp!Re (talk • contribs) 05:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You will have to paste the material there, as we cannot overwrite page histories like that. Good luck! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, but isn't it possible to rename the old article? InSp!Re (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but then you have two articles stating the same thing. It is best if you just paste the material on that page at this point, as moving it is the last thing you want to be doing in a situation like this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Done it. Now, could you please be so kind to fix it's name? Thanks in advance InSp!Re (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, two weeks have passed, but still no answer... InSp!Re (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about this. I'm hesitant to put quotes in an article's title as it would make the title appear to be suspect. If you could show me an reliable article in English that says this, I will move it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

AfC submissions

Hello, I simply wanted to notify you that I had not forgotten Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Out of Albania: A True Account of a WWII Underground Rescue Mission and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vahe Vahian and had intentions to continue. I was going to edit them yesterday (September 12, 2012) when I realised that the AfC reviewing buttons have had troubles recently. As soon as the AfC reviewing buttons are working again, I plan to decline both submissions due to insufficient sources to establish notability. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Loring Military Heritage Center

Hello! Your submission of Loring Military Heritage Center at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Secretlondon (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wolfe's Pond Parkway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richmond Parkway (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) 11:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user

Hi Ktr101. I'm leaving you this message because you have previously been involved as an adopter with Wikipedia's Adopt-a-user program. A clean-up of this program is currently underway, and as part of the process I am trying to find out who is and isn't still interested in remaining an adopter.

If you would prefer not to be part of the adoption program anymore, you need do nothing; when the overhaul of the project is completed your name will be removed from the list of active adopters. However, if you have current adoptees, an active adoption school or an interest in adopting in the near future, then please let us know by signing here.

If you want to remain in the project and can currently take on more adoptees, there is a serious backlog at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user; it would be enormously helpful if you could take on one or two of the users there. Please do keep an eye on the project for upcoming changes, we could use your opinions and your help! Yunshui 雲‍水 09:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ktr101. Thanks for agreeing to stay on at Adopt-a-user. I've recently updated the list of adopters and I have included you, per your original comments on that page and your comments at User:Yunshui/Overhaul/Adopters staying on. You can see your new profile at the list of adopters. Why not update your profile with an image and maybe have another look at your description? You can also include a list of any adoptees you currently have. If you are also willing to mentor problematic users, possibly as part of a conditional unblock, please include "mentorship=yes" in your profile. Thanks again for all your help. WormTT(talk) 13:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joe Moakley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stephen Lynch (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) 15:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

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 2559 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk.

Do you have what it takes?
  1. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
  2. Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
  3. Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
  4. 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 WP:AFCH!

News

Good article nominee AFCH script improvements
  • 1.16 to 1.17
    • Batman still works!

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation. If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.
Happy reviewing! TheSpecialUser TSU

Jay McCafferty

Hi, I am curious as to why you feel that the McCafferty article is not ready for the main space. The notability guidelines ask for "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" and six solid sources from art reviews, newspapers and galleries are given. Please give more detail about what you feel is lacking. Thank you Span (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Currently, I feel like the article is borderline, but I'm leaning towards him not being notable. The only article which I believe helps cement his status is the Times one, but I am still iffy on the rest of them. I would suggest resubmitting it again to see what another reviewer thinks, and go from there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Surely the guidelines just ask for "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Span (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, but there is also a difference between art gallery and Los Angeles Times links (partly because the gallery might consider someone more notable than the Times would). Regardless, if you could find some more news articles which mention him, I think you should be good to go. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't see art gallery links in my references. To be clear: the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and the J P Getty Museum, to mention two strong copy points, are strong American collections with works by notable artists. Further, key art magazines, cited, are not linked online. I think any person knowledgeable about the California art world would see this differently. What is your level of knowledge about art and art collections and art publications? The articles cited are professional and respected publications, more so than the LA Times, some may think. Further, the collections are significant. Shall I go through and justify the collections and fine art publications point-by-point? I do see areas for improvement, but the references are solid.
I added another LA Times review. I think all these sources can be counted and reliable, multiple and strong. Span (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ktr101/Archive_5&oldid=1192699972"