User talk:Primefac/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Can't find an image

A few weeks ago I found a great graphic on Wikipedia showing the distribution of article quality relations. It used circles to show the relative sizes of the different classes (C-class was a gigantic circle compared to the tiny FA- and GA-class circles). Now, for the life of me, I cannot find it, even after searching every possible keyword combination I can think of. Sucks that I came across it by accident earlier! Primefac (talk) 12:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The best I could come up with is this. Huon (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Interesting article, not quite what I was looking for but it looks good. The image I am looking for is really similar to this image. Guess I'll just be stuck making something myself. Thanks, though! Primefac (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Blazedgrating.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Alan Guth

Saw your edit and – dare I say it - recantation. ;) I think the point is that at some point Alan Guth did withdraw a particular technical implementation of inflation, and that needs to be put into context. Indeed, the sources that are being cited (e.g. the Kavli Prize) do in fact put it in context. However, the user in question seems to want to create a special section to support the assertion that Alan Guth "recanted" the entire idea of inflation and no longer promulgates it. (He's also quite good at muddying the waters with links to Wikipedia policy pages that don't actually apply when one looks closely.) So once you have a chance to fully consider the question, I would surely appreciate your participation in this mess. -- SCZenz (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@SCZenz: I agree, the fact that one theory was discarded and a new one put into place does not require an entire section dedicated to it. As you'll no doubt see, I have modified the last few paragraphs to include the actual papers by Guth. Hopefully this will please everybody involved. Primefac (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
@Primefac: Thank you for this nice rewrite. A full rewrite with sources reconsidered and due weight given to each part generally solves these things better than going back and forth about one issue, even though it takes more time at first, and I commend you for the effort. -- SCZenz (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

AfD on Solar Cycles

Hold on a second. If you want to nominate those articles for deletion, that's fine. But, rather than create 20 separate AfD's on these articles, it would be much more efficient to create one bundled nomination. Otherwise, we will have 20 separate discussions about the same topic. Please see WP:BUNDLE for instructions. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 16:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Scottywong - Yes, I just realised that, I'm going to redirect them all now. Whoops. Primefac (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
No problem, thanks. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 17:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my screw-up there. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 13:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Please don't merge the articles or make major changes to them until the AfD discussion has been closed, and a consensus has been attained. See WP:EDITATAFD. I have rolled back your edits. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 18:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Removing AfD template

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Solar cycle 1. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot I NotifyOnline 20:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Response

Thanks so much for your response..I added a citation from the Daily Mail if this helps? Cwhitty83 (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Response from Aloha67

Thank you for answering my question regarding deleting an older version of an image. I appreciate your help. Aloha67 (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Help Me Tag

Thanks for your response; I used the tag because I was unsure how to deal with an article I'm conflicted over. I'll follow your suggestion and make the change. Chrislintott (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan William James Gillespie

I'm not sure why you chose to delete Jonathan Gillespie. He has an entry in Who's Who 2014 and was headmaster of a prestigious school, Lancing College, for eight years. He is also a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. Please can you explain why he should merit 'speedy deletion'? MJT21 (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

MJT21, the article got put up for deletion because the qualities you've listed do not make a person notable. There are a lot of headmasters (one for every school if I'm not mistaken), and a large number of Fellows of the RSA (27000+ based on their website). From the searches I conducted I failed to find any reason either why he stands out from these groups, or how he is notable according to Wikipedia's standards. However, if you strongly feel that he deserves an article, there is a link to the undelete requests at the end of the notice placed on your page. Primefac (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Reginald's Tower link deleted?

Why did you choose to delete the link on the Waterford page to Reginald's Tower. Its a brand new page and has been given a good rating?Nmwalsh (talk) 08:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Nmwalsh, if you look at the article you'll notice that the first instance of Reginald's Tower is a wikilink. The other links were removed in accordance with WP:OVERLINK. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for help re Summersby. Eagleash (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Another beer for you!

Thanks for helping. (Chriswilkins (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC))


Help with edit

Hi could you please check the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arvind_Iyer once and just make any minor changes if required.It seems fine to me.thank you so much for the help.truly appreciated.(Chriswilkins (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC))

Hi Chriswilkins, I'm not sure what you want me to do as the article looks fine to me. Primefac (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Might it be possible for you to add a message or a tag stating that nobody should tinker with it :) I don't know how it is normally done.Many Thanks.(Chriswilkins (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC))
Unfortunately, Chriswilkins, I can't do that - unless the edit is vandalism, anyone at any time is allowed to edit a Wikipedia article provided it is done in good faith. Primefac (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.Will reach out if I have any problems or need your assistance.(Chriswilkins (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)).

AfD Opinion

I've modified the page Murat Pak - what do you think now? I would love it to survive so I'd love to hear your opinions on it's current state.--Gnihton (talk) 07:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

it was fine

it was fine
it wasn't awenswered Daemon64 (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Guillain-Barré Syndrome (Talk)

Thank you for getting back to [[1]] so quickly, I wasn't expecting that kind of speed. My question would be regarding the "secondary sources" provided by User: Medical Rights (Tuum-Est/Ms. Sil). If the article was authored by the subject of the article and the references take us to the website of said author, is it considered a Primary Source? Regards,  Aloha27 talk  17:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Alconbury Weald

I redirected this for now. Bearian (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination

I was wondering if you could let me know why you tagged my page as a candidate for deletion? The project isn't a company in itself and it is a large local residential development. Thanks. Grumpykoala1 (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Grumpykoala1, I nominated it for deletion because the project does not appear to be notable according to Wikipedia's standards. I'm sure it is a very important development and a boon to the local community, but projects like these take place all the time, all over the world, and there wasn't anything I saw to see how this was significantly different than any of the other projects out there. Primefac (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

draft: rusty anderson afternoon

Hi Primefac, thank you so much for the superfast intervention and notification about my draft on Rusty Anderson Afternoon. I really appreciate the constructive advice. I deleted the Facebook reference already and gonna do some more research to revise these problems according to your advice :)Jena fuller (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi again, I am trying to revise this but I'm unclear about what you mean about referencing URLs. Do you mean addition of exact title, publishers and publication dates of the website? also, I found some radio and youtube video interviews that have some of the same content I discuss in the article(#1 song, custom guitar release), so you think those would be more neutral references? I see the article got tagged for dubious neutrality so I appreciate any advice you have ☺ Jena fuller (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jena fuller. First off, you are correct about the URLs - they should have the title, publisher, and other relevant information. If you use the "Cite" tool in the edit bar, it offers a dropdown "Template" menu where you can cite websites (without having to type all of the code manually). See WP:REFB for more information on citing URLs, or stop by the IRC help channel and someone will help you in person. Second, radio and youtube sources are discouraged, so try and find other sources to verify your information. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Charlotte Devaney

hi there

Charlotte Devaney is a hollywood credited actress

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lose_Friends_%26_Alienate_People_(film) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455538/fullcredits

she has had a page for 6 years, why has it suddenly been deleted?

as well as international dj and producer, she has recently released singles with snoop dogg and fatman scoop . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cilla1987 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 4 November 2014

Cilla1987, first off the Deletion discussion looked at those issues, and came to the decision that she was still not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. The article was only recently deleted because it was only recently found to be an invalid article. It was created before there was a Draft process, meaning that anyone could write an article of any quality. The fact that she released singles with famous artists does not mean that she is automatically famous as well - notability is determined by how much third-party coverage a person receives (such as newspapers, magazines, legitimate websites, etc). Primefac (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Charlotte Devaney was A CREDITED actress in a huge hollywood film, she is now the only actress in the cast and crew list who dosnt have a wiki page and im not saying just because she has done tracks with "famous" artists as you say its makes her massivly famous, she is a well know DJ worldwide, who is verified on social media https://www.facebook.com/OfficialCharlotteDevaney?ref=hl
and also founded the well know and ledgendary narni shakers http://www.narnishakers.com/ Primefac
i am a massive fan and think its disgusting you have deleted her page !
as well as many other things
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2549518/Actress-lapdancers-cleared-kidnapping-nightclub-boss-42-000-Cheltenham-Festival-debt.html
http://news.sky.com/story/1204329/lapdancers-cleared-of-cheltenham-boss-kidnap Primefac —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cilla1987 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 4 November 2014
also her new single has been played loads on radio 1, kiss fm , capital xtra and more you guys should seriously re-consider Primefac —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cilla1987 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 4 November 2014
please also see these articles
http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/fd1bc90e-69c6-47dc-a266-35a768c2a426
https://itunes.apple.com/gb/artist/charlotte-devaney/id302297134
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3014849/
http://www.flavourmag.co.uk/watch-charlotte-devaney-flip-it-ft-snoop-dogg-charlottedevaney/
http://sbtv.co.uk/2014/08/charlotte-devaney-featuring-fatman-scoop-and-lady-leshurr-bass-dunk-music-video/
http://www.anotherworldfestival.co.uk/acts/charlotte-devaney/
http://newleasemusic.wordpress.com/2014/08/15/song-of-the-day-bass-dunk-charlotte-devaney-ft-fatman-scoop-lady-leshurr/
http://sbtv.co.uk/2014/08/charlotte-devaney-featuring-fatman-scoop-and-lady-leshurr-bass-dunk-music-video/
http://www.muzu.tv/charlotte-devaney/bass-dunk-behind-the-scenes-ft-fatman-scoop-and-lady-leshurr-music-video/2301103/
http://www.flavourmag.co.uk/charlotte-devaney-bass-dunk/
http://www.whatsgoodonline.co.uk/music/charlotte-devaney-featuring-fatman-scoop-lady-leshurr-bass-dunk/
http://www.bitchyonline.com/charlotte-devaney-featuring-fatman-scoop-and-lady-leshurr-bass-dunk/
http://www.officiallyurban.com/charlotte-devaney-taps-lady-leshurr-fatman-scoop-bass-dunk-video/
Primefac —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cilla1987 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 4 November 2014
Cella1987, first off you do not have to ping me EVERY time you leave me a comment (especially when it's on my own talk page). Second, as Huon stated on your own talk page, please use the four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments so that it will let us know who made them. Since Huon has added much more information regarding Devaney's article deletion on your own talk page, please continue the conversation there instead of on this page. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:Real Madrid C.F. 2014–15 season Statistics

Hello Primefac. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Real Madrid C.F. 2014–15 season Statistics, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Jackmcbarn, I would argue that a page about Madrid's season stats (which are already contained on the main 2014-15 season page) would fall under CSD A10, however it wasn't being offered as an option when I put in the CSD (hence why I put a custom rationale). Primefac (talk) 11:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
A10 only applies to articles in mainspace, not to drafts. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher Robert Hallpike

Hello Primefac. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher Robert Hallpike, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: R2 only applies when the source page is in the main namespace. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

rejected article- Draft:Section on Psychoanalytic and Psychodynamic Psychology, Canadian Psychological Association --Am I on the right track yet?

Thanks for reviewing my article but sorry you had to reject it. I have started adding a few citations and an external link. Can you let me know if I am getting any closer to acceptance by adding these things? If so, I will proceed in this vein. Otherwise, I am seeking further guidance. PhilPsych (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
I refer to your kind review of my draft "Articles for creation: Chronology of fiction set in Vatican City". I replied in my Talk page. For your convenience, my reply is reproduced herewith: You must be kidding me, Primefac ! The article ITSELF is a LIST of SOURCES, for crying out loud ! Joe Gatt (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hi fellow Wikipedian! I do not know if you are automatically alerted when I reply to you on my Talk page, so here is another manual alert just in case. :-)

Joe Gatt (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Shekhar Chatterjee

Hi Primefac,

Thank for your review and clean-up for [[2]]. I agree with all your editions made to the article. The article is neat then before. Kindly move it to the mainspace. I value Wikipedia as a resource. Thanks again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjoy64 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 12 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello Primefac. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

22:20:37, 21 November 2014 review of submission by Pradeep Kanthan


Pkan 22:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look. Will work on foot note references. Any suggestions?

Pradeep Kanthan, in general facts need to be referenced. For example, "Professor Apte is a founding member and Past President of the Australasian Pancreatic Club" needs to be referenced. It is especially important for Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) that ALL facts are referenced to avoid potential issues. If you need any help, feel free to stop by the IRC channel again. Primefac (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aedes Deorum Penatium (November 24)

I really do not agree with your tone or your arbitrary decision. Such unprofessional editorial feedback discourages me from contributing further to a site like Wikipedia.Torquatus (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Torquatus, you are more than welcome to disagree with my tone and my decision, but both have been made and I make no apologies. In my mind (and the minds of a few colleagues with whom I discussed this draft), a Wikipedia article should be as clear as possible. For example - "Varro mentions the scalae deum Penatium" - what is it? It will not be hard for someone such as yourself (who I assume are well acquainted with such phrases) to add ", meaning X" or a similar one-sentence add-on to make the paragraph more clear. The excess amounts of Latin do nothing more than confuse a reader.
Unfortunately, there is a limited amount of time and space with which to leave feedback, and thus sometimes I come across as brusque or uncaring. I honestly wish I could accept every draft I come across, but the vast majority need improvement in one way or another and I can't write an essay for every single one.
As a final note, I'm guessing that you're going to keep editing Wikipedia, given that you've been here making contributions since 2012, and I hope you keep at it! A little bit of cheek from me shouldn't ruffle your feathers too much ;-)
If you would like to discuss the article further I am happy to offer my thoughts, or you can stop by IRC and have a chat with a helper. Primefac (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Request on 11:05:02, 26 November 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Johnsmith0033


You have just rejected my piece why? It was originally rejected as I did not put all my references on I am new to this system.. I placed all the references on and you reject why? I placed all my references on! There were no changes needed to the main part just my references which were all placed on.. Please help and guide

Johnsmith0033 (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Johnsmith0033, Wikipedia references need to be in-line with the text, much like an academic journal, so that facts can be easily verified from the listed references. I would highly suggest checking out the references for beginners page for more info on inline citations and referencing. Second (and possibly because of the first point), you have not demonstrated notability as requested by MatthewVanitas in their comment on the draft. I will not re-write their comment because it is summed up quite well. Should you need any further assistance, please stop by the IRC channel and an experienced editor will help you with your draft. Good luck in getting your article approved! Primefac (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Articles for creation: Nilppu Samaram (Standing Protest) (November 17)

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

Dude,

dont be so proud to remove the article, i dont have other soft copies, I've deleted all of them. Pls copy paste the same and share me again. It was quite a laborious task to draft that much.

Unbelievable !! Removed in 2 minutes !

Who gives the authority for that without reading ?

Almithra (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Almithra, the text is still there for the moment, go to the History and copy the old draft. However, if all you do is re-paste it into a new Draft it'll simply be deleted again. Primefac (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I am not new here, pls. Will rephrase and publish again. Pls share me the tool. I need to validate the tool myself and suggest improvements on the tool.
Almithra (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Prime Fac,
Now its gone, just curious. I have to start from scratch again, correct ?
Good.
Almithra (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Almithra, you are correct, the draft has been deleted so you will have to start again. As a reminder (if you still want to write the article), you should not directly copy and paste from other sources onto Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Jan Frank

4th Dec 2014 Dear Primefac, I posted the article on artist Jan Frank in June and heard back from 'Arthur goes shopping' that it needed more citations and so I added more links to magazine articles. I heard back on 21 August that it was awaiting its next review. See below. Many thanks Adrian Dannatt

Comment: This is borderline, and you may be able to clarify that Frank does actually meet one or more of the criteria in Wikipedia:CREATIVE. However, at present, almost all of the sources cited only have passing mentions of Frank, not the significant coverage that would be required; and I cannot see an immediately obvious pass of the CREATIVE guideline as a way round that. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Just to add to my other comment; one or two more inline citations to reliable independent sources like the blouinartinfo source (assuming that is indeed both independent and reliable for this topic) should in my opinion be enough to push this topic over into clearly notable by Wikipedia's standards. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Adrian, Draft:Jan Frank is awaiting its next review and has not been rejected again. I can see you added three sources since it was last declined. I will wait for another reviewer to review it, as it is generally best for the same reviewer not to do each review. Apologies that the article creation process is not as easy as it could or should be! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Adrian Dannatt (talk) 11:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Adrian Dannatt, your draft about Jan Frank was rejected on 3 October. You still need to improve this draft before it can be accepted. The reason I could not find the draft initially was because you edited the page anonymously. Primefac (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Alcohol abuse in Ireland

Hello Primefac,

Thanks for the review of our page and for giving us feedback on what should we fix.

I would like to let you know that we will re-write the page now in a more encyclopedic manner, and hopefully you could have a look at it before we submit it again...


Thanks :)


Kind regards

Arman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.244.23.3 (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Denial of Publication for Article on Aliki Barnstone

hi Primefac,

You just denied publication of an article I created on Alike Barnstone, providing the reason that "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia."

The 9 citations for this article verify the publications of this author, and include references to well know authors who have reviewed and commented on the writings.

Also included is the University Of Missouri English Department Faculty listing that validates the claims of awards and honors given to this author.

Many of the Interviews, Reviews, & Feature provide links, which also have a significant amount of information and validation of the value of this author. Also, these do not require citations since they already are 3rd party to the author, and their importance in the literary world defines the value of their interest in the author.

As you can see there has been interest over a very long period of time and it has been consistent and persistent.

So, I am wondering if you saw the 9 citations provided with this article, and if yes, if you accessed them and read the content, and whether you did access and read the Interviews and Reviews? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uranoz (talk • contribs) 22:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Uranoz, I did indeed see the 9 citations, and as I commented on the draft itself, 8 of the 9 citations are simply references to her books (which do nothing more than show she did in fact write those books). Rather than simply listing all of the interviews and reviews of her work, why not use THEM as references to improve the article? Wikipedia is not a link dump - these news stories should be written about in the body of the page itself, not just posted so that people have to troll through links to find more information. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance.. Primefac (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Robert J Emery

It appears you deleted an article for Robert J Emery due to "copyrighted information." I don't believe it had any copyrighted information (I wrote it myself), but I wanted to review the article to be completely sure. However, the article is now completely gone and unavailable for editing. I do not have another copy. Please advise. Thx. Scottcmu (talk) 03:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Most of the content was copy-pasted from here, with "Bob" changed into "Emery" once. Much of the remainder was copy-pasted from here. One lone sentence might have been original content, or maybe I just didn't find the source it was copy-pasted from. Huon (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Resubmission of David Grizzle entry

Thank you for your review, Primefac. I have added many more citations/references to validate all statements/summaries as reported by other independent sources. I look forward to your feedback/review.

Thanks, Btrswtcreative (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft:St._Luke's_Hospital_(Chesterfield,_Missouri)

Hi Primefac,

Thank you for reviewing this submission. I had tried to clean up some of the references as that was mentioned by the previous reviewer. I have been trying to get assistance with this post and do not understand why it is being rejected. It has almost the same types of information as other hospitals which have been accepted. Is there any guidance or recommendations you could make to improve the chances of being accepted? Feel free to make any edits you think should be made. Thanks for your help.

rodrigna05 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodrigna05 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Rodrigna05, the main reason why I rejected your draft is that you actually removed references after the draft was rejected, when the original reviewer was looking for more references. Notability is determined by what third-party sources say about the hospital, and what you have currently is good, but a few more would be helpful. The 2013 Statistics section should have at least one reference so that it doesn't appear like you've simply made up the facts. Personally, though, those sorts of statistics are rather fluid and might not be relevant past the date when they were collected. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. I'm always happy to give more feedback as well. Primefac (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

National Centre for Excellence

What Is your problem.????????????? You don't need to delete 3/4 th of the page of National Centre for Excellence . You can delete the Student's council section if u wish to but why other sections ??????? ply revert it. Rahulmdinesh (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

National Centre for Excellence

Hey now what ? I Have removed the student's council section in the article National Centre for Excellence but you are still reverting the changes ! Why are you doing this as at the time when got accepted as an article it wasn't in this condition. Rahulmdinesh (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Marchioness8 (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)hi...i can not understand what was copyrighted??Marchioness8 (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Thanks for accepting my Salem article.

As you can see/probably tell, this is my first article and I would greatly appreciate any help or advice on improving it, especially with a view to improving it's grade. Cymrogogoch (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Review of: James_Saunders,_British_Composer

Thanks for looking through the text. The comment says there are 'a lot of fact that are unreferenced in the text'. Can we just check which facts in particular need referencing? In particular:

The section about Saunders' music contains verifiable links to other sources so should be cited strongly enough. If not, please advise. It's worth noting that Saunders is listed in Grove Music/Oxford Music Online, so it shouldn't be too problematic to evidence notability.

We could do with progressing this as soon as possible please, so if you could let us know specifically what needs updating it woiuld be appreciated. Thanks again for your time in looking at this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.223.214 (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The "quick and dirty" answer to your question is this: if you can't source it, don't include it. However, some thoughts:
  • The festivals - an exhaustive list of festivals isn't needed, if you can find a reference for one or two you can just say "festivals such as XXX and YYY."
  • Boswil (and other bits) - there's nothing wrong with adding a statement and then adding {{citation needed}} after it. Someone might be able to source the information. However these should be kept to a minimum (see the quick and dirty answer).
Your article is a good one, I think that with a few more sources this stands a very good shot at being accepted. Primefac (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

2.98.223.214 (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC) OK, great, thanks. I guess when I see other articles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Walshe for example) and there are no citations I just wonder about editorial consistency. I'll see what I can do with evidencing these performances and remove ones I can't source, then resubmit. Thanks again for the constructive feedback - very much appreciated.

There's a good article here that talks about how one bad article doesn't justify another. However, should you see these sorts of bad articles, let someone know so they can be flagged for deletion (which is what I'll be doing for the Walshe article). Primefac (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

2.98.223.214 (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Sorry, didn't want to land her in it as all of that work is absolutely verifiable. OK, so I've added a load of references for each of the performances now. How does that look? Thanks again

Refs looks good. While it's not critical for acceptance of the article, I would suggest formatting the bare URLs to proper wiki {{cite web}} style (which can be done with the "Cite" dropdown menu in the edit bar. WP:REFB has more information on website formatting. Primefac (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

2.98.223.214 (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Sorry, one more question - can we change the page title to 'James Saunders (composer) to match the other entries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Saunders

When and if it gets accepted, the reviewer will change the title. Primefac (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

2.98.223.214 (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Lovely, thanks. OK, I've reformatted those and resubmitted. If you get a chance to have a look/approve that would be great, but appreciate there's a long queue...Thanks again.

Since I gave a fair amount of advice for improving the draft, I think I'll leave it for someone else to review (avoid conflicts of interest and whatnot). Good luck! Primefac (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

2.98.223.214 (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Of course. Thanks again,

Draft:Anvaya

Following your suggestion I have revised this draft. Any further suggestion for me to act upon?. Thanks.Aditya soni (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

17:57:16, 22 December 2014 review of submission by Dunstan6QL


Dunstan6QL (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. Thank you for looking at my attempt to create an entry for the glass artist Yorgos Papadopoulos, but I'm afraid I'm at a complete loss as to how to prove him notable given that I've listed some journalists' articles who do consider him notable. How are they just name drops when they are writing about the excellence and originality of his work? Dominic Lutyens in London Magazine and Nicole Swengley in Bespokeperson/ How To Spend It are very respected in their field of design/ interiors writing. So what do I leave in what do I take out? I guess I shouldn't give Yorgos's own publication as a citation? Perhaps if I write less description - will that help? I am very unclear if I should repeat text from the journalists' writing, so that then it wouldn't be a name drop? However, then won't it be some kind of copyright issue by using their exact words? Please if you could clarify. Thanks Dunstan6Ql Dunstan6QL (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Dunstan6QL, the generic rejection notice is rather vague, which is why I included my primary rejection reason as an additional comment below the main notice. There are a ton of artists in the world, and so Wikipedia has developed a set of criteria for determining what makes one notable (since every artist, at some point, will have their work written about). This list can be found at WP:ARTIST. If Papadopoulos has met any of these criteria and it is shown in the draft, then it stands a much better chance of being accepted. Primefac (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

10:39:22, 25 December 2014 review of submission by Marilyn Stablein


Added 10 new citations Marilyn Stablein (talk) 10:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

20:37:57, 25 December 2014 review of submission by Marilyn Stablein


Marilyn Stablein (talk) 20:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Primefac Thanks for the suggestions and for reading my submission! I pared down the entire submission and cited everything. Hope this works this time. I'm amazed by the scope, breadth, volunteerism and of course the relevance of Wikipedia! Cheers, MarilynMarilyn Stablein (talk) 20:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Awarded to Primefac, for helping & enlightening users on IRC channel.  !dea4u  05:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Invitation

You've been invited to be part of WikiProject Cosmology

Hello. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been analyzed carefully and you're among the few chosen to have a first access to a new project. I hope you can contribute to it by expanding the main page and later start editing the articles in its scope. Make sure to check out the Talk page for more information! Cheers

Tetra quark (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

20:00:20, 30 December 2014 review of submission by C&C at Media Minefield


Hi Primefac --

Thank you for reviewing my submission!

After my first submission was rejected for not being encyclopedic enough, I spoke to a live chat help editor (Dragonfly6-7) to get advice on what to delete and what to keep in. Per the live chat editor's suggestions, the submission was stripped down to simply facts and dates about the company, and there are no descriptive phrases about the national store or its founders. All of the data and facts are supported with legitimate news sources. Can you please give me an example of what is considered "advertisement" language in the current submission?

Thank you for suggesting that I put additional reference sources outside of Minneapolis. I do have those and am happy to include them. However, is there a minimum of the number of out-of-state / national sources which should be included?

Any suggestions would be greately appreciated.

Thank you! Christina (C&C at Media Minefield)

C&C at Media Minefield (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost

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

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

Wikiproject template

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

TatanyaGolding, it's not vital that they be filled in. Every page on Wikipedia is assigned a rank, basically an indicator of how good an article it is. Most of the time one can simply look at an article to determine if it's a decent article, but when you get towards the high end rankings become more important. There are various WikiProjects (Chemistry, Physics, etc) who keep an eye on the topics they're interested in. There are some very active projects, and some not-so-active, but in general they're the ones that rank an article. Primefac (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, get it. Do you have to apply for it to be ranked by the project ? It's hard for me to tell what's good enough with these topics - I've looked for featured content in solid state chemistry but the only article I could find is Lead (II) nitrate - not really sure whether I should use it as a model as it is comprehensive but not very in depth ! ~Tatanya — Preceding unsigned comment added by TatanyaGolding (talk • contribs) 11:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
TatanyaGolding, you don't necessarily have to join a project to rank an article, though throwing around ranks willy-nilly isn't the best of ideas (i.e. you should probably have a fair amount of experience with the ranking system before ranking articles). However, if you're keen on working on chemical articles, I'd suggest joining WP Chem just so you have a place to ask questions from people who have been around for a while.
By the way, it's best to sign your comments with ~~~~, as it will add your signature at the end of the message. Primefac (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hospitals in Mexico, Colombia, Brazil

Dear Primefac:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft:Edward E. Boccia, Artist

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

Thanks for patrolling my page

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

Tetra quark, just add <center>...</center>, with the table in place of the ellipses. Primefac (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I tried that but it breaks the table. I think I know how to do it now, thanks. Tetra quark (don't be shy) 20:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

"Worklist"

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

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

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

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

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

A cookie for you!

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

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

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

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

Gamergate notification

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

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

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

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

How to put titles of reference articles in Reference section

Hello:

Greetings.

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

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

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

Thank you so much for your kind help.

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

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

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

Please re-check

Primefac

@Primefac:

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

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

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

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

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

@Primefac:

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

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

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


Kapampangan Ku Pagmaragul Ku (KKPK) International Inc.

Good day Sir;

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

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

thanks and best regards

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

Good day Sir;

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

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

thanks and best regards

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

Question about notability

Hi there, how are you?

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Arjan van Geel The Netherlands

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

Arjanvangeel, looking at WP:MUSICBIO, the only criteria F.O.D. even comes close to meeting is #1, and it (currently) fails because there are not enough independent reliable sources. Blogs are not reliable, and sites such as the record label are not independent. I know that demonstrating notability for small groups (be they punk, goth, emo, etc) can be difficult, but I think you've just about done it. A few more reliable sources and your article should be accepted. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
PrimefacThank you for your quick reply! I've asked the band if they can help with some additional external/reliable sources (tv shows, radio stations, etc.). Thanks again.Arjanvangeel 21:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Primefac, hello again. I don't know if this is the way to communicate with you (sorry if it is not), but I've added various extra external srouces to the article, to increase notability. Are you the one reviewing the updated article? Let me know if this works. Thanks again for your time and cheers from the Netherlands. Arjanvangeel 11:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

rv

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

Tetra quark, I would argue that the discussion was not finished, but I agree that Ariane started making it personal. However, you should not have removed their posts as they were not entirely defamatory. Primefac (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Fine, leave it there. But do you mind to archive it now? I've had enough of all that discussion because of one single member.
Although I'm younger than most of other editors (I'm 19) and my first language isn't english, I consider myself a mature and comprehensible person when it comes to wikipedia editing. However, just like everybody else, I have my flaws. I totally lose posture when dealing with persistent, childish users. I have this bad habit of lowering myself to their level. You gotta agree that arianewiki is being annoying and insistent, when he is pretty mych the only one against the changes. I really hate to get into fights Tetra quark (don't be shy) 19:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Tetra quark, I honestly do not think that discussion needs to be archived. Discussion archival is for mergers and move proposals and deletion discussions, not the talk page of a WikiProject. Primefac (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Fine then. I just hope you understand me. One person can't try to make everyone else bow to his opinion Tetra quark (don't be shy) 19:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Tetra quark, I completely do. I think the problem with this particular circumstance is that you didn't hold to the standard operating procedure of Wikipedia, which is to give any discussion at least three days, if not a week, so that all interested can participate. I know you're super-keen on helping out (and that makes me happy), but as they say, there is no deadline, and that enthusiasm obviously rubbed some people the wrong way. Primefac (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
WARNING: :Tetra quark This issue is under WP:DRN, and it unfair and improper to escalate disputes like this. Drumming up support like this against another user, made worse but doing it in Primefac page. If individuals have an issue, take it up with an administrator not me. As for your improper use of archievetop, it has already been referred to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Clearly you used it to provoke me, by trying it while I was actually writing my response. You made the changes mid-discussion clearly avoid proper scrutiny.
Also, please stop accusing me of "when he is pretty mych the only one against the changes.", is a deliberate falsehood. The issue is abusing AWB and not allowing for consensus.
Please let the procedures follow its natural machinations, else your words will send up end up being used against you.
(Apologies to Primefac to have to state this here.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, this is absolute deliberate falsehood saying Tetra quark: "One person can't try to make everyone else bow to his opinion." Withdraw it or this will escalate even further. Arianewiki1 (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Arianewiki1, you seem to be taking this a little far. Reporting to DRN/ANI is fine, but making a report at RfD for an issue that is entirely outside of their jurisdiction just makes you look bad. Take a minute, calm down, and then let's all deal with this like mature individuals.
Additionally, Tetra and I were simply discussing what had transpired, and until you entered the conversation I felt things were calm and rational. Primefac (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually the truth is this. He claims, "One person can't try to make everyone else bow to his opinion.", but the truth is, he didn't allow my (or others) opinion, because he changed it anyway with out allowing time too even give an opinion. As for the procedures, I have followed it perfectly, and have stated in a balanced case.
As for the RfD , it was he had closed the discussion to avoid scrutiny, likely to trap me in a edit war. Also treating people like they are not in the room is plainly rude. Really, if you were "simply discussing what had transpired", then talk truthfully, and not full of rhetoric and false statement! Arianewiki1 (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Arianewiki1, RfD is for deleted pages, not content disputes on Talk pages. It specifically says that at the top of the RfD page. As for the remainder of your comment, I have read over my statements from earlier and I do not mention you vaguely (rather, I do so directly by name). Everything after that was simply a discussion about policy. Primefac (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Primefac. This guy needs to chill out a little and stop writing those long angry messages Tetra quark (don't be shy) 20:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Tetra quark, you need to stop poking the bear ;) Primefac (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Haha correct. That's a really bad habit I have and I'm trying to get rid of it
Regarding your reply above, I agree that yes: Maaybe I should have waited a little longer. The thing is that it seemed to be a pretty simple change to me. I'm a fairly new member afterall, so sooner or later I'll get the gist of this place Tetra quark (don't be shy) 20:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Tetra quark, I know, and that might be why it seems like we're being overly hard on you. But everyone makes mistakes (including me), but if you're learning from them that's more important in the long run. Primefac (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
One thing I've learned here is you can get consensus in under 16 hours, and everyone thinks that's perfectly AOK. It was also a brilliant trick to get me to try and edit the difficult Metallicity page, distracting me from the true game. (I'll make my severe changes on this page now, because on the Talk:Metallicity about "Any disagreement in doing this?" at 09:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC) (3 days ago). No disagreement, so I'm free to change it as I want!. Thanks, guys!
But what cheese me off is this statement by Tetra quark in reply to Primefac, saying "And no, I'm not changing anything inside quotes, file links, templates, refs, link targets, and so on. I really may have capitalized the word "sun" inside a quote accidentally." at 04:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC). Yet this was after the whole change was done and dusted. My reply, the next one, was thinking this was still open to debate. Oh silly me.
Yet to finish, Primefac, says; "Second, @Tetra quark:, you waited a grand total of 20 hours before deciding that consensus was raised; we're one of the more active WikiProjects, but seriously, give us some time to discuss!" But that is now all AOK, breaking the guiding rules, but that principle does apply to some. So, deception is OK, now? Pity. Arianewiki1 (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Arianewiki1, you've lost the high ground. The sarcasm isn't warranted (or necessary, since you know what you're saying is false), so unless you have something constructive to add to this particular discussion kindly refrain from posting further. Primefac (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

AfD

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

Deadbeef, thank you, when I closed it I selected the Speedy option but for some reason it did not save properly. Not sure, but it might have had something to do with the mid-AfD move of the original page. Primefac (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Huh, that's weird. I've never had the speedy box unchecked for me, but I've also never closed a moved AfD target. Nevermind then! Deadbeef 23:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

AFD

Hello thank you for keeping my edit but Occult has deleted it again. He says it is ban violation but I did not comment on military. Topic is on something else this article uses word military two times. My debate is something different Occult is pro keep of this crystal ball topic. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 12:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

TheSawTooth, your comments have been re-added and Occult has been warned not to remove them again. Primefac (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Primefac. I will not discuss ban topic I am a careful user now. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Stochastic Empirical Loading and Dilution Model

Greetings Primefac:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PROD/CSD

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

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

Transformer Utilization factor AfC

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

The Brass Action

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

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

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

Thank you so much for your help!

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

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


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

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


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


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

RJHB, it has been resubmitted properly, and it is looking better. Primefac (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

17:27:01, 23 January 2015 review of submission by 24.251.187.168


Hello,

Please advise. Edits and changes can be made to the language and the citations in this post. However, I'm questioning the Denial based on "lack of Notability" Tieman H. Dippel's books are the only Western Philosophy accepted by the Central Party School of China. The man is also a major influencer in Texas Business and Politics--heading the State Chamber of Commerce and sitting on boards of many of the nation's biggest companies (Blue Cross Blue Shield). True, his books may not be New York Times Bestsellers because of the complex nature of the content, but they are read and endorsed by the World's most prominent leaders (hence the feeling of 'name-dropping') Please advise as to the the definition of Notability, and how I could satisfy requirements.

24.251.187.168 (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

ConscienceGlobal, your draft was deleted because it relied too heavily on primary sources. A draft must include sources that are independent of the subject; books written by Dippel do not fall into that category. The other reason your draft was rejected is because of a large amount of puffery, which should me minimised. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

15:09:32, 25 January 2015 review of submission by Research83


Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your feedback on my article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jeroen_C.J.M._van_den_Bergh) . Could I please ask for a few clarifications?

1. You say: “This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article.” Could you please indicate the most important cases where the required formal tone is missing, as I have tried to apply the formal tone everywhere and don’t know where it is currently still failing.

2. You say: “Entries should … refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources.” I thought that after several revisions all that is there now in the article was sufficiently supported. Can you perhaps indicate the most important cases where further reference to other sources is needed?

3. You say: ”Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms, that are designed to promote or show-off the subject.” I understand that in previous versions some terms were possibly too strong and I deleted or replaced them. But I sincerely had the impression that in this version the tone is very modest and neutral allover. Can you give examples of where I use terms that are definitely too strong.

4. You say that the statement "His work has received more than 9800 citations in Google Scholar" is unnecessary, but it merely reports a hard fact that is supported by a weblink, and it is moreover concerns a very good indicator of someone’s impact (that is moreover highly correlated with other indicators like generated by Web of Scienc/SCI or Scopus which are, however, more difficult to support with simple weblinks). What is wrong with mentioning it?

5. You say: references to his CV are completely unnecessary. I mentioned in earlier versions many more references but deleted most of these. The proof of the pudding in in the eating: the concrete, primary output of a scientist is publications. Wikipedia items on artists, writers or actors refer also to their primary output. In fact, if I check various of such items I see mostly complete lists - of books by writers, or films by actors. So it seems you are applying different standards to different groups of professionals then, not? I must also say that the items about colleague scientists in Wikipedia strike me as generally among the weakest and least informative in Wikipedia. One learns very little from these. That cannot be the intention of Wikipedia. Can you perhaps mention a few Wikipedia entries on scientists that give a good idea of what you see as a both informative and neutral.

6. Please, don’t get me wrong. I fully accept that one cannot mention hundreds of publications. I already deleted the list of my books (16 in total), and the majority of references from previous versions. I mention four central topics of my research and want to support these with my most important or representative publications. Do you really want me to delete all the 24 remaining references to my work in the current draft? Please note that this is only a small part of my more than 160 journal articles (i.e. less than 15%) or more than 300 publications in total (including books and book chapters) (i.e. less than 10%). Don’t you think that for readers it is interesting to know where to find the central ideas of a scientist? If you accept that I maintain some references, how many would your recommend then for each (of the four) topics?

Many thanks for the time and attention given to my draft.

Kind regards, Jeroen van den Bergh


Research83 (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Research83, let me start by saying the decline notice is a standard message, and that not all of the points raised in the default message are necessarily true for your particular article. I used that template because I felt that was what most appropriately described the issues I was seeing in the draft. Google Scholar might be useful for getting numbers, but that's all they are. It means that his research is notable, but not necessarily the author himself. As for the CV - anyone can lie on their CV. I'm not saying his CV is false, but if we took everyone at their word then we would have a lot of completely inaccurate information on our hands. Don't get me wrong, this draft is close to being acceptable, but these are the main issues which I noticed when reviewing it that are keeping it from being accepted. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

09:04:23, 27 January 2015 review of submission by 171.96.177.40


You have a lot of great sources, however they are either from his sports clubs or simply mentioning that he has won/done something. None of these demonstrate the notability of Mooney; for that you will need independent sources. Primefac (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Biography of Liam Mooney - Asking for a Re-Review Playing professional rugby over 60 times in the English premiership as well as playing for the Barbarians I believe is notable (the evidence is factual and on the stats). It should meet your criteria for notability. Also the Telegraph source for Liam Mooney scoring the winning try against the Springbok should be notable enough. It was also mentioned in the Straits Times as below so notable?

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1309&dat=20001130&id=NANPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cSEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1556,2087134

171.96.177.40 (talk) 09:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Your article was declined because the sources, while verifying the facts found in the article, do not meet the general notability guidelines or the rugby union guidelines. In particular, your sources do not provide non-trivial coverage of Mooney. Once you find a few of them, the draft will meet GNG and be acceptable for the Article space. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

How to Keep https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samidh_mukerjee Page in WikiPedia ? How to Save it from Deletion ?

Dear Sir,

Kindly inform me that How to Keep https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samidh_mukerjee this Page in WikiPedia ? How to Save it from Deletion ?

How can I save this page from Deletion ?

What are necessary changes I have to do to keep this page / article in WikiPedia ?

After getting your warning message I made several changes in the WikiPedia Page.

Kindly help me to keep this page in WikiPedia.

Thanks & Regards.

Amitbhb12 (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Request on 20:13:10, 28 January 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Musicross


Could you please indicate why and where the existing footnotes and references are not sufficient or good? I have already added footnotes and references according to the instructions of the previous reviewer and I m wondering if the problem lays on the fact that many of them are in Greek. What do you advise me to do?


Musicross (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Order of Australia

Thanks! (Of course, the IP editor is not being a nuisance now ... ) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

(P.S. How does one make a request for page protection? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC))
Pdfpdf, if you're using Twinkle, just use the "RPP" option in the dropdown. Otherwise, you'll have to go to WP:RPP and follow the directions. Primefac (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. (Appreciated). Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, Thank you for reviewing my article about alkylation of saturated cyclic amines. I am agree with your comment: that I have written that article in a scientific language and I will correct the style. I am a scientist, and to my knowledge WP is the first place where to start searching scientific information and I am really excited about that website as it was in help for my scientific work. Now WP is fully integrated not only into general public, but also in a scientific community. Still, I am not sure that I can explain it in a simple way, but the concept of C-H functionalization is too broad nowadays, and functionalization of cyclic amines via C-H activation approach cannot be integrated into applications part of the C-H bond functionalization article because, I am afraid that in this way it will simply confuse other scientists.

Thank you, I will update the article according to your suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DASCA Project (talk • contribs) 15:42, 31 January 2015‎ (UTC)

Draft:Siyaram Silk Mills, Ltd

Hello, P. The article at the time of your mass revert back to Draft had extensive references from traditional media that demonstated unequivocal substantial exposition in the sourcing. The article was not perfect, nor is it now, but Wikipedia policy is clear, unless (of course) you can explain otherwise. After I work on it some more I will carefully consider re-advancing the article back to mainspace, even though I obviously have concerns about reversal again. According to the guidelines, it should NOT be necessary that I personally complete this level of work before advancing to mainspace - this is abundantly clear in the guideline criteria, but you can of course present your opinion (although that really isn't the core issue as I see it). I would therefore appreciate learning of any specific concern you now have concerning this article being placed to mainspace, focusing on this individual article's encyclopedic content as it presently stands, as per policy. If there is some exact thing(s) you can point to, I will be pleased consider your input, and make the suggested amendment(s), up to a reasonable level of engagement. FeatherPluma (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I have reformatted the Draft. As a courtesy, I will hold off advancing the article to mainspace for a few days, although the initiating editor is naturally expressing bewilderment by the revert experience. (I presume you somehow see that as my issue. The absence of any explanation to said editor must have been a bit jarring. I have extended brief but supportive outreach.) In order to move forward with content edits rather than too much talk page analysis, I will take it if there is no pertinent response about the article after a few days that you have no encyclopedic issue. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
UPDATE - the article was advanced to mainspace upon attaining consensus approval.
You can stand down. FeatherPluma (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Zencap

Hello, P. The article at the time of your revert back to Draft had references with substantial sourcing from Tagesspiegel, Der Spiegel, and Handelsblatt. These are all well-regarded, well-recognized, edited, high circulation classic media. It also has a reference from Información. According to guidelines, this level of sourcing would seem to meet WP:N, nor were there legitimate pressing concerns about advertisement tone, or spoofery, or copyvio etc etc. The article was not perfect but Wikipedia policy is quite clear that that is not required, so that's not the point. After I work on it some more I will carefully consider re-advancing the article back to mainspace, so I would appreciate learning of any specific concern you have, focusing on the individual article's encyclopedic content, as per policy. If there is something you can point to, I will consider your input, and make the suggested amendment(s) up to a reasonable level of engagement. FeatherPluma (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

FeatherPluma, I find responding to your comments, with all of their added emphasis, very difficult, so instead I will tell you why I did what I did and you can feel free to make any assumptions you would like afterward. One of your recently approved drafts was brought to my attention, and upon realising that it was not yet ready for the article space I sent it back to the draft space. We have had an influx of new reviewers in the last week, and thinking that you might be one of them I looked at your recent contributions. I was surprised at the fact that you had approved 20/32 drafts you had reviewed over the previous three days. After finding four of the first five drafts I checked to be sub-standard, I decided to return them all to the draft space and deal with the fallout later. I do realise there were a few drafts that were perfectly acceptable (and, as you've since emphasised in various places, been re-accepted), but I decided it was better to return a small set of good drafts (which would be accepted by another reviewer) than to have a large number of sub-standard drafts which would be quickly deleted. Kikichugirl and I did manage to get through a few of these drafts and accept them ourselves, and I see that the remainder have since been looked at. I realise nuking all of the articles was not the best way to proceed, nor was failing to inform the draft creators that their draft was back up for review, and I take full responsibility for that, but I make no apologies. If approached with this situation again, I would handle it differently, but at the time I felt I was taking the correct course of action. Hopefully the next time our paths cross it will be under better circumstances. Primefac (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
All of what you say is already quite evident, and you might have saved yourself time by assuming I grasp the fundamentals. I apologize for my mistakes - I had an off day. The call to arms to get the backlog addressed got me caught up in a whirlwind. Your pointed linguistic decision "not to apologize" is your prerogative, although I can see that you are doing your best despite the rhetoric, so I accept your functional apology. FeatherPluma (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

20:24:05, 31 January 2015 review of submission by Victhur69


Victhur69 (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


Thanks so much primefac for giving me pointers. The name of the author appears on the Africa39 Wikipedia article. My point is this, can you assist me with proper citation and referencing? I'm sure the article has the ability to be approved if I get it right. I'll be most grateful if you can offer me assistance with the article. Thanks again for your review. Victhur69 (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Victhur69. You are more than welcome to use the references from the Africa39 article, but you cannot actually reference the Wiki page itself. The main issue with your references is that they link to the stories she has written. This doesn't actually give us any information about her, just that she wrote some stories. References should talk about her in depth (as opposed to simply saying "she wrote a book"). If you find some of these references your draft will be in much better shape. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Interlude (Interactive Video)

Hello, and thank you for taking the time to review Interlude's page, Draft:Interlude (Interactive Video). I just have some questions about why the page was rejected. After the previous rejection for similar reasons, I went back and edited the document, adding references from what I believed to be reliable secondary sources. Now, after the page has been rejected again for unreliable sources, I would love more information on where these occurred. I feel that I used sources that were unbiased and showcased the company from well known and reputable sources. Please let me know if you have more insight to help me get the article to a place where it can be accepted. Deebs90 (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2015 (EST)

Hi Deebs90, the main issue I found with this draft is that the sources, while perfectly valid for verifying the facts found in the text, do not actually talk about Interlude. I know this can be difficult with computer software (or their related companies) but there should be something out there, especially if it's been used in such a wide array of places. As a small note, make sure you watch out for promotional language - it's not an article trying to sell Interlude, it's there to talk about what makes it notable. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

AFC Approved : Purna Wildlife Sanctuary

Thank you very much for reviewing and accepting article on Purna Wildlife Sanctuary. -- YN Desai Discuss 05:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

AFC accepted

Primefac sahib, I thank you for having accepted my AFCs. Regards.Aditya soni (talk) 08:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Keith Hill Luthier

Primefac,

Thanks for your prompt to continuing editing.

The Draft in question which began life as Keith Richard Hill was originally written by John Rutledge. It was his first attempt to post anything on Wikipedia. He asked me to take it over when his original submission was declined. Indeed, his draft was a bit too promotional. However, I rewrote the text attempting to be as accurate factually and brief yet complete as possible in describing the accomplishments in the various areas of expertise. I suggest that you remove the offending text and either post it or delete it as I am no longer able to understand the somewhat subjective nature of how the editors at Wikipedia form their judgements. I was able to obliged MatthewVanitas in all his criticisms. But your comments bring me to a halt. I have looked at a host of already published entries of biographical nature and found many of them as far more promotional, improperly cited, and poorly written. So I can no longer proceed with this entry.

Thank you,

Pictagoras — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.223.162.19 (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Pictagoras and/or Keith R Hill, the one huge issue with the "fixes" that were made to the draft was that the references did not actually discuss Hill. Almost all of the sources were links to other luthiers, random musicians, etc. In an article about Hill, we don't need to know that person B exists (though if you find a source mentioning both of them, obviously that's good). There is nothing subjective about my decline rationale - after removing completely unnecessary references, there were not enough sources to verify what has been written (which are the BLP rules). While I could remove everything that does not meet the criteria, that would result in a lot of your time and effort wasted. If Hill is as notable as it appears, there should be a wealth of sources available. However, if you really would prefer to abandon the draft, I will see about doing some copyedit to salvage what is left. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Keith Hill Luthier

Thank you, Primefac,

You are right. Now that I understand the rationale, it is not subjective. To an ignoramus like me, it did so until you explained it. It still doesn't explain why there are Wikipedia Biographical entries that are taken lock, stock and barrel from a personal website, yet doing that appears to be declineable. Perhaps there is some unfathomable rule that allows that to happen...like personal preference or bias. Not that you had anything to do with it. But I have found such entries of folks in this field that Hill is in. I will let you know if I have to abandon the entry, so you can salvage anything from it.

Thanks again,

Pictagoras — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.223.162.19 (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

We have a phrase at Wikipedia called "other stuff exists," which basically means that just because there is a bad article on Wikipedia, it doesn't mean that you should create another one. There are loads of articles created before the AfC process was in place, and we're doing our best to find them and either improve or delete them. As for primary references - they can be used, but only for uncontroversial material and should only be used infrequently. If you find any bad articles, feel free to tag them for deletion or let someone like me know (easiest if you stop by the IRC channel). Primefac (talk) 11:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Request on 17:59:00, 4 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by HungryMann78


Hello. I just wanted to get more information on an article I am trying to create: Chopourian v. Catholic Healthcare West. It was rejected because it "included copyrighted information." I'm just trying to figure out what portion is considered copyrighted. Thank you.

HungryMann78 (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

HungryMann78, almost the entire draft was copied directly from another site, with only minor alterations in verbiage. Usually I try to just remove copied information and keep the rest intact, but the violation so so vast that it cannot be salvaged in its current state. Primefac (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

08:23:21, 5 February 2015 review of submission by JOHN LANE (ATHLETE)


JOHN LANE (ATHLETE) (talk) 08:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me, I have need waiting for approval since you declined first submission nearly 2 months go. I have provided what he wanted. He mentioned nothing about in line citations and footnotes.

When does this merry go round stop. When you have decided something else is required after a next submission and so on

You are messing with peoples lives here.

John Lane, the biographies of living persons are held to a much higher standard than any other type of article specifically because the person is alive. Also, when Cloudz declined your draft, there were no references whatsoever, so how could they mention a lack of inline citations? I'm not sure how "writing a good draft" is "messing with people's lives," since I'm pretty sure no one's livelihoods (or actual lives) are impacted by the presence or absence of a Wikipedia article. I know it can be frustrating, but if we allowed any old article to be submitted, without verification, people could say anything about anybody (which would be bad). The rules are in place not only to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, but also to ensure that people's names aren't being slandered.
On the subject of references, you will need more independent reliable sources that discuss Lane himself. They're all valid, but the interviews, press releases, and stats logs do not demonstrate notability. The best references are the ones that discuss Lane himself and are not from him or those who sponsor him. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 09:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Camellia Posoncuy

Dear Primefac,

Thank you for reviewing my submission on Dr Camellia Posoncuy's article. We have already added the footnote citations as requested. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aljolar (talk • contribs) 11:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Request on 15:01:20, 5 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by John Conte Jr


To who it may concern, Hello, how are you? I received your message about why the article I sent for a review was rejected. I am unsure about which citations in particular were not cited properly. If you could elaborate on which ones specifically need to be changed, I will be sure to fix those citations and resend the article for review. Thank you for your time.

John Conte Jr (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

John Conte Jr, the reason I marked your draft as not having inline citations is because, technically speaking, you don't have any references. While I commend you on your effort to catalogue and link to every other page's references, you actually need to provide those references on the draft itself. Since you have them already linked, you know which references to use, so all you have to do is replace the wikilinks with the reference code from the individual pages. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Primefac/Archive_1&oldid=1144230546"