Hi! Thanks for reviewing my submission for a new article on Frank Bencriscutto. Could you take a look at it again? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Frank_Bencriscutto — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darb02 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi there,

You recently rejected the article I created on Daniel Tunnard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Daniel_Tunnard I was surprised because I read and followed all the rules in the creation of this article. Can you please explain to me where he fails the following criteria?

Basic Criteria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO

Articles require significant coverage:

1 - a cited reference must be about the subject All the newspaper articles I put in as references are about Daniel Tunnard and his work as an author.

2 -in reliable sources Almost all the sources are major newspapers here in Buenos Aires. Maybe it's because they are in Spanish that they weren't recognized, but "Pagina 12" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A1gina/12 , "La Nacion" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Nacion and "La Razon" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Raz%C3%B3n_(Buenos_Aires) are major news outlets.

3 - that are independent of the subject. The articles in Pagina 12 and La Nacion were not written by Tunnard and are wholly about him and his work and are thus independent of his work. The articles in the paper La Razon were written by him but prove his credence as a published author.

Additional Criteria

He is a published author and thus a Creative Professional — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blmurch (talk • contribs) 18:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

[1] - Just being a published author is not enough to establish notability. (Wish it was! I've published two books.) There has to be more to it than that, such as getting an award or being on a best-seller list to make you notable.

Most of the references, as you noted, were written by the subject which is not an independent third-party. The articles in Pagina 12 and in La Nacion are essentially interviews which are not necessarily independent. I've asked the other reviewers to take a look and see what the consensus is on there being enough to establish notability. I'll let you know what I get back.

The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk)

Thank you for your prompt answer - much appreciated. It's a bit confusing the "notoriety requirements" as for example this actor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Weston-Jones hasn't won any awards or been the equivalent of a best seller and yet he's got a page. Seems like a bit of a double standard in popular culture.

Blmurch (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

That article is a stub and flagged for reference help, but I understand! The fact he has had three roles, one as the lead, on a fairly major network is what gets him the notability in this case. The problem today with authors and musicians is that anyone can self-publish. Articles that consist mostly of interview answers are borderline when it comes to independent. No fact checking, just accepting the words of the interviewee. A couple of additional references would go a long way. Anyone in one of the major papers do a critical review on the book? Has the book been referenced in another publication? I'm afraid my Spanish isn't good enough to do a substantial search to assist.

In another direction, you might want to consider submitting on Spanish Wikipedia as well. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk)

I understand, but this is not a self-published book. It is published under the Argentine wing of Random House. As the book has just come out, it hasn't yet been referenced in another publication yet, but the article in La Nacion while mostly an interview is a critical review in the introductory paragraphs. I will see about starting a Spanish version of this page, it's just that my Spanish isn't as good as my English as I'm an american expat living in Buenos Aires. :D Blmurch (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You are perfectly correct that all state legislators are notable, but we need some reliable documentation that they have been a legislature. The source you are using [2] does not seems sufficient. It gives no indication at all for the source of the data, and lists the people under whatever might be known, in some cases just the place they were born, or their occupation, without ewven giving their birth years or the years of their service. This is not enough.

Though I have not deleted these articles, I think it would be a good idea to stop creating them in their current extremely bare form, and to give some more information about the ones that you have created, before creating more. I have consistently supported the creation of minimal stubs, these are subminimal. (I haven't checked yet to see if that web p. is perhaps regarded as reliable, but even if it is, some idea of chronology would seems essential.).

The information is easy enough to find -- see this example search page and the result. I notice it gives the full names, and the articles should be moved accordingly.

Though this is a request, and I invite your comment, if you can't convince me it's justified, I might want to go further if you continue. DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I get a real mixed bag on these! Some think it's great (see the top comment on this page) and others don't like it at all. But about a dozen of them have been expanded by others already. The first time I marked one for deletion (or perhaps it was rejecting a submission?) I got an earful about it. With the plethora of red links on some of the pages such as Members of the California State Legislature it would seem better to have a stub than nothing at all.

As for the reference I am using, Alex Vassar worked for the California Senate for five years and is the editor of the web site you reference above Join California. And as I work through these, I often encounter pages I've already created, so additional info is added, and I can add the reference to existing pages for the more notable. Give me a year and these will all look better. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It does look as if the page you're using is a sort of index to the database site. Even so, I do not think the way you are referencing is safe. For comparison: in the case of some of the geo stubs, some of the sources used proved less reliable than they should have been; for the taxonomic stubs, some of the sources used were obsolete. In each case, the people doing it were told not to continue without someone else verifying. Since the database exists, you can make them better immediately. I don't think it should take a year. I think it should take you a day or two to add the information that's on that site to the existing articles, and it won't slow you down much to do it for the further ones in daily batches--not doing extensive searching, but using what's on the main site from which this was apparently abstracted. I understand the problem, but when it's this easy to do better you should do it. I'm asking User:Kudpung for comments--he does a lot of work with this sort of article also. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

I took in consideration the comments you left behind and made the necessary changes. I was wondering if you could review my article again for submission? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dkstinso/sandbox

Thank you

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkstinso (talk • contribs) 12:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC) 

Hi, Aggie80. I see that you have signed up for the backlog drive. Be sure to check out the drive talk page above. Happy reviewing! —Anne Delong (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Barani Institute of Information Technology Ikramafzal (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)I verify that the content in this page is my own work and is not copy pasted from any source. If you think that the content is copied from anywhere, please let me know.Please help me in improving my article.Thanks for your concern and reviews.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Barani_institute_of_information_technology&action=edit&redlink=1Ikramafzal (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Johnny Marvin, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Aggie80,

I recognize I am at Wiki "Fish Camp" If I read your comments correctly, I hope my article errors do not rise to a wiki felony or a wiki tort. Let’s fix the article errors is my best foot forward and I hope to work with you and correct any “wiki infractions” and possibly through further explanation and edits come to a final positive review for approval and acceptance of my article. I would like to work with you concerning inclusion or edit of language, words and tone which may be in a grey area, in terms of legality and ethics of Wikipedia. Gig ‘em….. Rcnet1 (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcnet1 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Good day

I submitted a page for Dr. Barnaby B. Barratt, which you declined with the reason being that he is not a notable person. May I kindly point out that Dr Barratt's colleagues Mark Solms, Andrew Samuels, Lewis Aron and Philip Bromberg all have Wikipedia pages, why should Dr. Barratt be excluded?

May I also point out that Dr. Barratt's resume, education and achievements are no less than those of his colleagues. I would content that Dr. Barratt within his field is indeed a notable person. His field being that of Psychoanalysis where Dr. Barratt has authored ground-breaking books on the subject. [3] Such work includes forward thinking topics such as Somatic Psychology and Bodymind Therapy. [4] One may see how readers have rated Dr. Barratt's books very highly, with an average of four out of five stars achieved. [5] His books are also available on Amazon.com [6] Dr. Barratt, with his Harvard background, is also involved in cutting-edge distance learning initiatives. [7] These initiatives enable learners to have access to study material and to help the poorer members of communities to also be able to engage in advanced study.

In addition, his books are available on Barnes & Noble. [8] He has been involved with the prestigious University of Michigan [9] and is involved with the 2013 Sexual Freedom Summit [10] which is controversial to some, yet is a vital talking point in today's modern society with the challenges we face and in this regard Dr. Barratt is a notable person being at the forefront of such wave-making thinking.

In conclusion, it is clear to me that Dr. Barrat is a notable person in this area just mentioned. Yet he is also notable in the general area of Psychoanalyis, where his cross-linkage of theories has the ability to make real change to the lives of people and to help people in a positive manner. At the very least, Dr. Barratt's influence is no less than that of his colleagues, who all have Wikipedia pages.

Thus I kindly request you to reconsider the submission of Dr. Barratt's Wikipedia page.

Thanking you.

Scubesscubes (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

He may very well be a notable person. But it cannot be seen in the article submitted. All of the references listed are Wikilinks to other articles in Wikipedia. Two of the articles you mention above have serious citation and reference issues as well. Please read the comments I left. People at the Teahouse can assist you in properly formatting the references, learn how to create the Wikilinks and show the appropriate notability. And notability cannot be obtained through colleagues. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, okay. I understand now. Thanks for advising me. I see now your editorial comments. I will now attempt to fix the wikilinks and add sources and notations as you pointed out. Including books and further reading material as you mentioned in your edits. Please bear with me as I am new and I will get this right. Much thanks. Scubesscubes (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Good day. I have worked on this page regarding Wikilinks and regarding proper citation and reference. I have also added a paragraph on notability ie regarding his standing. Please advise if suitable. Thank you. Scubesscubes (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, You recently updated the 'Rob Dyke' page to 'Robert Dyke' and I do not feel as though this is a valid update. He is known as 'Rob Dyke' commercially. Isn't changing 'Rob to Robert' like changing 'Tim Allen to Timothy Allen'?

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

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandycross (talk • contribs) 19:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Aggie80,

I just received your message saying that my page "Richard Ford (Music Editor)" was reviewed and is now live at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ford_(Composer)

However, the page that was made live was erroneously renamed "Richard Ford (Composer)" and that is not true. Can this be changed? It is entirely inaccurate and I don't know why it was changed.

Update: I moved the article back to "Richard Ford (Music Editor)" but now it is redirecting from "Richard Ford (Composer)." How do you delete "Richard Ford (Composer)"? I need that removed so that there is no confusion an dso that the URL for "Richard Ford (Music Editor)" is correct (it currently shows up as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ford_(Composer)

Thanks,

Ravelpart (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the redirect and asked for the page(composer) to be deleted. Congrats on getting the article published!The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Not much point moving a sandbox tagged with {{db-self}}! See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help_desk#Review of User:4MEPSinnFein/sandbox Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

When I started the move it hadn't been tagged yet! The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Aggie80,

We (NES Financial) are trying to get a page on our General Counsel, Kelly Alton, published, but you said it was rejected due to copyrighted content.

What are you referring to? Is it her bio?

Her bio that is on the NES Financial page was written by us (same company/account) so we should be able to use it without there being a problem.

Can you please review the page again.

Thank you,

NES Financial — Preceding unsigned comment added by NESFCorp (talk • contribs) 17:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want to use copyright content, even what you may have created, a common license has to be provided with permission to use it. See Donation of Copyright Material Of course, there is a bigger issue of WP:COI, which I'm sure the General Counsel can explain. There is a reason that individuals can't create pages for themselves or closely related entities. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk)

That makes sense. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NESFCorp (talk • contribs) 18:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Aggie80 - you rejected the piece. It's my very first time using Wiki and I have to say I'm completely and utterly confused by it. Any help you can give (in idiot speak for I feel like one!) would be really appreciated Many thanks Chris (Glosmuse) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glosmuse (talk • contribs) 14:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

We all started off that way! Check out the Teahouse, I think you'll find a link on your talk page. There are lots of Q&A that can help learn the formatting. The other thing the Festival needs is additional sources from third parties, newspapers or the like. Take a look at Telluride Bluegrass Festival for an example of formatting. You can select the Edit this page tab and see how they formatted things.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Completely confused - made lots of changes, continualy pressed save changes button and then preview and now cannot find any of the changes I've made. Is there not an obvious draft section on wiki that shows you the latest version. Sorry but this is driving me crazy!

Hello,

Thank you for reviewing the wiki Marina Del Rey Toronto.

Im confused as to the "Notability" component.

I have found examples of similiar condominium residences that dont appear ( IMHO) to have notable components. Please see Residences_of_College_Park . I could be missing something. Im on the steep Authoring WIKI learning curve.

My goal is to give representation to Marina Del Rey and it does have notable components ss winner of the 1989 Urban Development Institute Residential Award of Excellence for Best Designed Community in Toronto.

Thank you

Summerinwinter (talk) 10:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't use other articles as examples unless they have a rating associated with them, which means they have been reviewed against the Wikipedia criteria, they may not be appropriate either. The article referenced is classified as a stub, meaning it barely meets the requirements for Wikipedia and covers numerous structures not necessarily related to each other by anything other than location. The Del Rey article needs a great deal of formatting help in the references. See WP:CHEAT for some help with that and the Teahouse can provide some assistance as well. And do make sure that there isn't an issue with WP:COI.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

See WP:PROF, "Criteria" (my bold):

Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. ...

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE)."

Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• I hadn't realized it is in article space already Maria Grazia Spillantini. No point in keeping the review around. Johnbod (talk) 02:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Tickford Vehicle Engineering is separately run from European operations, based in and operated specifically for Australia. Ford Tickford Experience was a major rebranding and restructure. I feel at least the Tickford Vehicle Engineering page should be separate form the Tickford page, although to compromise the Ford Tickford Experience could be merged in with the Tickford Vehicle Engineering page, I was the original author for the FTE page as well.Space alligator (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my article. But I cant understand which type of citation do you require. Only ones I can find are the ones which are directly associated with the Church. I have somehow added some more links please review again. ScitDei^talk 07:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

That is the problem, they are all directly related to the church. You need to find articles in newspapers, magazines and on the web about the church that weren't written by the church. Otherwise there is no indication that it is important to the community and society at large.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I have added some references now. How is it now? ScitDei^talk 12:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. Did you read the three page article on Buddy Deppenschmidt that I submitted? It is entirely factual, relevant and well written. I got the biographical information directly from Buddy and the various references I cited. I have a BFA from Cornell University and an MFA from the University of Pennsylvania. What I submitted greatly improves the existing stub and advances the knowledge of musical history. Please tell me what to do to move forward with this. Thank you, Marjorie Danciger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marjorieagent (talk • contribs) 15:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You placed a post about remembering sandboxes and asked for it to be reviewed. That is what I reviewed. If you wish to improve the article on Buddy Deppenschmidt, by all means do so. Note that interviews and original research are not appropriate sources for Wikipedia. It helps if posts are signed by placing the four tilde ~ marks at the end of your post.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, I thought that was a test for my own use. I sent a note and the Buddy Deppenschmidt three page article and photo yesterday. Will you please let me know if you received it? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marjorieagent (talk • contribs) 14:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I've added a few more weak refs. I think it could actually be suitable for the mainspace now. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Janet Bennion. Done. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi:

I received your comments, but am still not clear about how this article can be edited and accepted. What do you mean by "adequate reliable sources"? Could you please be more specific? Are the following sources adequate:

Maquat-lab web site for publications and awards http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/labs/maquat-lab/

http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/labs/Maquat-Lab/news/

See also

http://www.rochester.edu/currents/V38/N12/Maquat.html

http://www.nasonline.org/member-directory/members/20022342.html

In this ASCB Newsletter, on pages 15-17, is a piece about Lynne Maquat

http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/neuroscience/_shared/news/326/ASCB%20Profile-March-2010.pdf

Please advise if additional reliable sources are required.

Thanks,

Yi-Tao Yu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yitaoyu (talk • contribs) 15:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Aggie80,

Thank you for your feedback on the page I submitted for consideration. I have a few questions, however. Firstly, I apologise for the citations that were lacking in the resubmission. I spent two hours adding citations, but for some reason, they were not saved. I will try again with this.

I am a little puzzled by the comments around notability. I draw your attention to the fact that an article already exists on Nicaso in the Italian-language version of Wikipedia. If he is considered notable in one language, why would he not be notable in another? Also, Nicaso's work, though it began in Italy, has for the most part been carried out in the USA, Canada and on a global scale, so I don't think his appeal is merely regional. I also believe he could be considered notable under the following criteria for academics:

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. 3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE). 5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon). 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breadandjamandsugar (talk • contribs) 10:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Aggie80,

Thanks for immediate review of my article. I just remove the promotion of religion, but i think promotion of belief that God created the universe is acceptable, while others will stick to scientific fact, i respect them a lot. I made very little correction, and the topic of big bang wave were added. Most of my article are very new maybe even to you, but some others are in general knowledge that no need to list for footnotes. I am requesting you to keep this article even without publishing in Wiki for our future use, and if want to help complete, addendum of footnotes, and rewrite for the correct encyclopedia format this article, please do so.

Thank you and more power to you, God Bless You

Danny

Danny123oyet (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Aggie80 - Thank you very much for reviewing my submission so promptly. You noted, "No third party sources to establish notability. All sources directly related to subject." The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

To document notability, I included 10 external media sources discussing the work of the organization, including ConsumerReports.org, Fox Business, the New York Post and others. However, I included all of these in a stand-alone section of media coverage. Should I have instead integrated them into the earlier discussion of the organization's work, rather than just include the organization's own sourcing? Would that address the criticism you made?

As I ask this aloud, the answer seems to scream at me, "YES!" But please forgive me for asking what might seem a dumb question; I'm new at this. Thank you again for your consideration. RayPellecchia (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, Can you tell me why on the "Martine Fougeron" article it is said that this article is an orphan and has no other articles linked to it? It actually has several of them, links to existing wiki article or external url. Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marjol80 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Orphan means there is no other page that points to it.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok! Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marjol80 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

How can I improve it? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AudioMaster (talk • contribs) 11:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The first step is to show that anybody other than the subject knows it even exists. A single mention on a list is not sufficient. Third party, independent and neutral sources to show notability are required. Take a look at the notability requirements in the links in the pink boxes for understanding what is required. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Aggie80

Thank you for the very quick reaction to my post

However I don't understand your comment, I quote "Book was released today. No indication of notability, no sources. Probably WP:TOOSOON"

Not counting the e-ARC which has been available on Baen's web site since July, the book has been on sale since 1st of october. There are already 17 customer reviews on Amazon at this address :

http://www.amazon.com/Treecat-Wars-Kingdom-David-Weber/dp/1451639333/ref=sr_1_1_title_1_har?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1382542717&sr=1-1&keywords=treecat+wars

Is it better if I add this reference in the article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YvesP26 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Please review the requirements for a book to be considered notable. Please review WP:NBOOK for the requirements. If you can provide references to establish that the book meets the criteria, then re-work and re-submit. The date is minor, I saw the date in the pull of the Baen web site at the bottom. The fact it was released this month would indicate that there hasn't been time for it to hit best-seller lists or win awards or other items that might help it meet the criteria. Amazon reviews are not good references to use. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok I agree that this book does not comply yet with the WP:NBOOK requirements, David Weber Honorverse being well-known and selling a lot, but not really "academic". However a lot of books which already have an article do not comply either. And the idea to make this article came to me because I saw that Fire Season the preceding book in this series has an article with an infobox which references to the future book Treecat Wars, but in red, and the same in the Honorverse Reference. The article was not there logically because the book was not yet officially out but now that it is I wanted to make Wikipedia more consistent...But it's not a big problem. We'll wait and see. Thanks again for your reaction time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YvesP26 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I received a message from you that my submission was declined because there were too many wikipedia cites. I followed exactly some of the other articles that are already accepted on Wikipedia. These citings were not used to verify Dr. Paul Ruffin, but to described what or who the particular item or person is that was spoken of. It has been the hardest thing to get this person accepted on Wikipedia. (Vruffin (talk) 00:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC))

The proper use of a wikilink does not create a reference entry. Having them show up in the reflist hides any good references that might be there. Visit the Teahouse to get some help with learning the formatting and cleaning things up. There may also be a WP:COI based on the submitter and the subject's names. Also, use the three tilde symbols to sign posts, it will allow me to reply without having to research through hundreds of entries to find you.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm sending this right. I'm not really very proficient in using Wikipedia. I used three tildes instead of four. I hope that's what you meant. I see what you were trying to tell me about the citings. I have gone through the document and tried to clean it up. Before I attempt to resubmit it, I wanted you to look at it and let me know whatever else I may need to fix. Also, I would like to add a free photo, but I can't quite understand what I was reading about putting in images. Thank you very much. (talk))

Vruffin (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm challenging you to get to 1000 reviews and 200 re-reviews by the end of the drive. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

We'll see. I have a fairly busy weekend ahead of me, and work tends to get in the way!The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the reason for the rejection. I am open to any suggestions on how I can improve the article about Frances. There's not much written about her except her biography, Meet it, Greet it, and Defeat it! The Biography of Frances E. Williams by Anna Christian and the articles cited. When she died, her ashes were scattered in Mexico.

Sulamama (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Sulamama

There are no in line citations. Check the Teahouse for help in how to use the existing references to support the article. Specific articles in the LA Times should be used rather than a general search page. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response and guidelines you provided to make the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Toni_Will%C3%A9_(Artist)fit for Wiki's approval. I appreciate it very much. I working on them and i do hope i get them right this time. Thank you so much. Cynthiapinto123 (talk) 06:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Aggie80,

thank you for reviewing my article about EMS. You rejected publication based on lack of reliable sources and also on basis of missing notability. The submission has previously been rejected with the same argument (reliable sources). As a consequence I added one but which seems to be insufficient. I read through the guidelines again and checked Wiki- entries of similar societies with the consequence that I am a bit lost what to do now; I could increase the number of external links by including nationals societies (although there will not necessarily be a link to EMS at these sites); with respect to notability I could mention that EMS has currently more than 5500 members...Would you be so kind to indicate in which direction I can improve my submisssion? Thank´s very much in advance! With best regards, Christian Nucleus11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It really is pretty simple. If there is only a single independent source out there talking about the organization, it isn't considered notable. I find it hard to believe that the organization is not discussed in books and articles associated with the profession. They need to be third parties, such as news organizations, medical journals and scientific papers. You need to avoid press releases from the organization itself. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Aggie

Where do i get the independent sources from. its really hard to find. what does chart time mean? the dates i've already mentioned.please help. im really trying hard. Aggie another thing i don't have details of the owner of the image of Toni Wille. is there a problem. will it be rejected. please refer to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Toni_Wille_at_Niedersachsen_Oldies_at_Emslandhallen2013.jpg thanks so much Cynthiapinto123 (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

How do you know that the music was at those spots on the chart on those dates? You probably looked at the charts. So provide the link to the appropriate chart, they are usually available online someplace. Independent sources would be newspaper or magazine articles about the band or person. Yes, the picture will be rejected unless permission is obtained. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Aggie I've done that already. I've provided the link. could you please have a look at the chart once again. thanksCynthiapinto123 (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Aggie80,

I have recently added more links to the article to indeed show that it has been mentioned in a few independent sources, which are of themselves notable (e.g. University of Cambridge, Cavalry and Guards Club). I have been looking at charities for which HRH Prince Michael of Kent GCVO is a Patron - this being one of the newest - hence my request to have it added to Wikipedia.

Kind regards,

ctfn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctfn (talk • contribs) 13:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for your reviews of Theory of Change and Center for Theory of Change. I would like to understand exactly what more we need to add to the entry for it to be accepted. My understanding is I havent demonstrated that 'Theory of Change' it is sufficiently notable and significant and widely referenced concept and practice? I know it is notable, and thus and would much appreciate if you could specify what additions I need to make so that the page is accepted.

I much appreciate your help.

JamesEleberthon (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You seem convinced that they are notable, but does anyone else? What sources such as books, newspaper and magazine articles are there to support their existence and that they are considered important. Without being able to cite third party sources that support the theory and the organization, there isn't enough notability. Good luck! The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. There are many books, journal articles and magazine articles that affirm the notability and popularity of the idea and practice of 'theory of change'. It is a widely used term, and thus why I thought it was important to provide a well-documented definition, history and currently landscape of it. I included 15 citations/references in the entry, along with this following extensive list of resources pasted below.

Is what I need to do to have it accepted include more inline citations? Could you please let me know where specifically? Many thanks.

Austin, J. and Bartunek, J. (2004) Theories and Practice of Organization Development. Handbook of Psychology, Vol.12 309-332. Chen, H.T., Rossi, P.H. Chen, H.T., & Rossi, P.H. (1980) ‘The multi-goal, theory-driven approach to evaluation: A model linking basic and applied social science’ in Social Forces , 59, 106-122. Chen, H.T., S. Mathison, Chen, H.T. (2005) ‘Theory-driven evaluation’ in S. Mathison (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Evaluation (pp. 415-419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Clark, H. (2004) Deciding the Scope of a Theory of Change. New York: ActKnowledge monograph. Clark, H. and Taplin, D. (2012) Theory of Change Basics: A Primer on Theory of Change. New York: Actknowledge Collins, E. and Clark, H (2013) Supporting Young People to Make Change Happen: A Review of Theories of Change. ActKnowledge and Oxfam Australia. Connell, J, Kubisch, A, Schorr, L, and Weiss, C. (Eds.) (1997): Voices from the field: New approaches to evaluating community initiative’. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute. Coryn Chris, Lindsay Noakes, Carl Westine and Daniela Schroter (2011). A Systematic Review of Theory-Driven Evaluation Practice from 1990 to 2009. American Journal of Evaluation 32 (2) 199-226. Cox, B. (2011) Campaigning for International Justice: Learning Lessons (1991-2011) Where Next? (2011-2015). Earl, S., Carden, F., and Smutylo, T. (2001). Outcome mapping: Building learning and reflection into development programs. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. Funnell, S. and Rogers, P. (2011). Purposeful Program Theory: Effective Use of Theories of Change and Logic Models. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Grantcraft (2006). Mapping Change: Using a Theory of Change To Guide Planning and Evaluation. Jackson, E. (2013) Interrogating the theory of change: evaluating impact investing where it matters most. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 3:2, 95-110. James, C. (2011) Theory of Change Review: A report commissioned by Comic Relief. London: Comic Relief. Kubisch, A. (1997) Voices from the field: Learning from the early work of comprehensive community initiatives. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute. Organizational Research Services (2004). Theory of Change: A Practical Tool For Action, Results and Learning Prepared for the Annie Casey Foundation. http://www.aecf.org/upload/publicationfiles/cc2977k440.pdf Patrizi, P. and Quinn Patton, M. (Eds.) 2010. Evaluating Strategy. New Directions for Evaluation 128 (Winter). Stachowiak, Sarah (2010) Pathways for Change: 6 Theories about How Policy Change Happens. Organisational Research Services, Seattle. Stein, D. and Valters, C. (2012) Understanding Theory of Change in International Development. London: The Justice and Security Research Programme, London School of Economics. Taplin, D, Clark, H, Collins, E and Colby, D. (2013) Technical Papers: A Series of Papers to support Development of Theories of Change Based on Practice in the Field. New York: Actknowledge and The Rockefeller Foundation. Vogel, Isabel (2012) Review of the Use of ‘Theory of Change’ in International Development. UK Department of International Development. DFID, London. Weiss, C. (1998) Have We Learned Anything New About the Use of Evaluation?, American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 19, No. I, 1998, pp. 21-33. Weiss, C. (1995). Nothing as Practical as Good Theory: Exploring Theory-Based Evaluation for Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families in Connell, J, Kubisch, A, Schorr, L, and Weiss, C. (Eds.) ‘New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives’. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute. Eleberthon (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Some of your files may be unfree. See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 November 1#OTRS pending since June. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Aggie, Thank you for your clarification, I now understand that it needed to be completely neutralized - and only a brief summary about the organization is given, and all media articles that supported the view were removed to make it neutral - - please review my article again, thank you. I have saved my changes.

JanineLG (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Aggie80. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 02:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I know this message wasn't directed at you, but you were bought up, so I thought I'd leave a talkback. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 02:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Before I resubmit this article to you, would you please let review it for anything that may not meet wiki standards? The wikipedia environment is very difficult for me to comprehend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Paul_Ruffin,_Ph.D. Vruffin (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Aggie80,

Thank you for your comments on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Eye_Company

I am completely new to Wikipedia and am on a steep learning curve. I find the terms and technical detail of Wikipedia very difficult to understand. I will continue working on the Eye Company piece, as I continue to believe that they are a notable company. Hopefully a revised submission, addressing the points you raise, might be accepted.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Glasseslover

Glasseslover (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

This link will help WP:CHEAT. The article needs in-line citations to establish notability. And make sure you understand WP:COI and what it means to your submission.

The information that was submitted in the article is the Bio of our (National Indian Gaming Commission, federal government website) Acting Chairman Jonodev Chaudhuri. I also have to create one for our Associate Commissioner Daniel Little. How can I do this without the pages being deleted? The bio's are located on our website at this location: http://www.nigc.gov/About_Us/Commissioners.aspx TripleMMM1441 (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You have to create something that is not a violation of copyright, it has to be an original work and must demonstrate that the individual meets the notability requirements of WP:BIO And make sure there isn't a WP:COIThe Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk)

Dear Aggie80, I have recently figured out that there is nο article about "Monsieur Doumani" which is a popular band not only in Cyprus but also well known in Europe. After I noticed that there has been a rejected article in wikipedia because of referencing deficiencies, I tried to make some corrections and I am kindly asking you to review the new version and revert. The article might be under expansion. I hope it will be added to wikipedia after the improvements in referencing.

Thank you. Best Regards Kdemetriou (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Aggie

I've added an image to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_(song. please refer to my article on Toni Wille (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toni_Will%C3%A9) to which this page has links. The new image was uploaded on wikipedia itself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mississippi_Single_(Vinyl_Cover)_from_Pussycat.jpg#file Will this image be approved? Please let me know. If not what could i do to have it approved? Thanks Cynthiapinto123 (talk) 05:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

	The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar
	Congratulations, Aggie80! You're receiving The Golden Wiki Award and CRM because you reviewed 1096 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! --Mdann52talk to me! 19:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		And you helped re-review articles too; Keep up the good work --Mdann52talk to me! 19:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I've added two references that celebrate Mabel's work, by Robin Irvine and another by three historians of biochemistry in "JBC Classics." Unfortunately, although my mother's work is widely known by anyone that has taken a class that covers cell membrane biochemistry, she was not written about very much since she wasn't awarded a Nobel Prize (my parents were nominated, however). Unfortunately, the 1996 symposium in my parents' honor in Wisconsin is undocumented, as far as I can tell - there are no proceedings. I've only been able to find individual talks on scientists' websites.

So, I hope this update suffices to satisfy the "Golden Rule", as my mother's work is truly significant in biochemistry and she deserves a spot in Wikipedia. By the way, Bob Michell, who wrote her biography in The Biochemist and continues to do research in this area, has reviewed this submission, made some edits, and approved it. I've asked him if he knows of any secondary sources lauding my mother's achievements, but I doubt he'll find any that I haven't found. I'll update if he does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammyjava (talk • contribs) 12:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone will take a look once it is re-submitted. Some of the language could be modified to be more neutral and less 'talksy.' Things like 'she was happy.' There is unfortunately the issue of WP:COI, so take a good look at that.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Aggie/Ukulele. Yeah, I figured the COI may be an issue, and I can certainly boil it down to simply a presentation of accomplishments, but I felt the stuff about her illness and being blacklisted actually made it a more interesting bio to people that aren't specifically interested in the history of biochemistry. I appreciate the tips, we'll see what happens. Sammyjava (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, Aggie. I'll work on it some more, and tone down the personal aspect, although I'd hope that I could keep some interesting historical tidbits like the fact that she was blacklisted from entry into the US due to a brief leftist stint in college. But I'll make it shorter and more accomplishments focused. Sammyjava (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Flea Market Music, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frank Chapman, Jr., a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Aggie80 I had submitted an article on Shinobu Ichiyanagi. You were cited as the editor who declined the article. I placed several messages on your talk with questions and a request for help understanding your basis for decline. For some reason you decided not to respond to my questions and my request for help on the submission. I have been waiting for a long time for your assistance with understanding your specific reasons. I may be wrong but I thought the wiki process was based on communicating with the editor assigned to the submission. I have noticed, watched, and read your talk and your willingness to respond to other article submission writers. Can you please explain your decision not to respond to my talk requests? Thank you for your time on this. Rcnet1 (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I had referred this to the Teahouse to get assistance with tone and removal of the fluff words, to reword it to make it more neutral in tone and more in line with an article. I even pointed out an example of a specific items that had no place in the article. There has been no effort to make any changes to the article at this point. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Aggie80:

WikiProject AFC is holding a two month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from December 1st, 2013 – January 31st, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1800 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to ask for some clarifaction on exactly why my subject Troy Ladd was not found "notable"? Per the link provided he tops the list of "notable people"

Creative professionals

WP:CREATIVE

Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

1.The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. (YES)
2.The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. (YES)
3.The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. (YES)
4.The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. (YES)

Troy Ladd is indeed a well-known "creative professional" and is 4 out of 4 of the above requirements. I listed multiple pages of both book and magazine articles noting his creative work in his field. He is not just a builder, but a creative innovator as stated in the multiple articles. If it's just a matter of how I have listed the material please let me know. Thank you for your assistance. This was my first first article and have worked very hard ot meet the requirements. Thank you, Jim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hhrfan (talk • contribs) 22:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mhallett44/sandbox.

The last time I submitted this content it was approved but I was told I could not be published due to my username. Now I have a new username and it appears something else is wrong now, what?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhallett44 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Why is this company notable? There are numerous claims that could make it so (largest importer of fruit products, etc.) but who says? The claims need to be backed up by third party references unrelated to the subject. I take it you are related to the company in some way and WP:COI is one obvious problem. And look at other articles from similar companies, this isn't even close in formatting.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it. I have the man's unpublished autobiography here http://www.bluerv.com/autobiography/unedited.htm . That's not an adequate citation?

What do I need to do? I have a ton more material available including some very unique photos such as Slim with Wiley Post and Winnie Mae in the golden age. I'd like to publish this material where people might actually see it.

Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluerv (talk • contribs) 04:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

An unpublished autobiography is certainly not considered a credible, neutral source for information. You need to find other sources of information that make him a notable individual. Having met a whole bunch of notable people doesn't make someone notable, it isn't something that rubs off. Myself, I'd buff up the existing web site with all the information and submit it to the search engines. If people are looking for it, they will find it! The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Umm. There is this fellow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Scott_Rice. I'd say he's notable for being a leader of that organization. Doesn't that make previous leaders and founding members of that org notable? Bios are somewhat similar except Gen. Rice had the benefit of more than a 9th grade education (a lot more). Difference is mainly that they didn't have Wikipedia or digital imaging in 1927 or even 1945. I do have papers to back up the basic facts; commendations, discharges, photos etc., not that they would be particularly controversial. Do you think I should contact the editor of the above page and request a sub-page with a list of previous leaders? Then slim would be noted, at least, or even officially notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.146.17 (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Please tell why it is being rejected, can u tell me please what to fix :

Al Saad General Contracting Company, established in 1983, is a well known construction company in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and operates as well in Lebanon, and Qatar. Its has various Project Categories: Commercial Public Buildings Marine & Dredging Works Power Plants Industrial Housing Hotels & Resorts Military Palaces Schools Residential Interiors & Finishes Roads Specialties: Project Management, Engineering, Power Plants, Construction, Marine & Dredging works, Commercial, Hotel & Resorts, Palaces, Schools, Residential, Roads, Interiors & Finishes, Housing, Military, Industrial, Public Buildings, MEP Headquarters: Bin Commercial Center P.O. Box 13028 Jeddah, 21493 Saudi Arabia Website: http://www.alsaad.com.sa Industry: Construction Type: Privately Held Company Size: 5001-10,000 employees — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alsaadgeneralinfo (talk • contribs) 08:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

You say that it is well known, but don't provide any references to back it up. A single link to the company's own web site is not sufficient. Independent, unrelated third party sources need to be provided. See WP:REF for what references are acceptable. And putting in an entry one one's own company is also a a problem, as explained on WP:COI. And it has been submitted twice, chose one of the submissions and work on it. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 12:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)