Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

I think we should put a section about Brunei too as many hotspots also been detected in Malaysia, plus I found some haze news ([1] [2] in Brunei. Whats your opinion? :) — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 10:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I will start writing it. :) — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 10:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done + If you can open this link for the PSI readings on Brunei. I can't open it from Malaysia. — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 11:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

And thanks for the barnstar! :) — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 07:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Heheh, you probably might be interested in this. If you haven't heard about it. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I blocked the range. Technically it should have come after doing a checkuser to see if we'd have to grant any legit users IPBE's, but it's only for a week. We'll see how it goes. Daniel Case (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thank you for your warm regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshDieter (talk • contribs) 23:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arctic, perhaps you can participate on this discussion. — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 07:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, now I'm updating the current haze situation on Southern Thailand. Perhaps you can help me too. :) — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 16:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You still didn't sleep? :P — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 17:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, hahaha, that's me. :P

Oh, by the way, hope you can help me to check the section that I just finish if there's any grammar error or anything else to be fix. :) — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 17:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Arctic, plus if you found the PSI readings for Thailand don't forget to tell me. Goodnight too. :) — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 18:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your postings to WP:RFPP. Bearian (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: Thinking ShoeMaker and Technical-13 were me. That was silly Happy editing and your trust is greatly appreciated. WorldTraveller101^BreaksFixes 17:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

And you've got a whale in return. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 17:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

With the trust, I'd like for you to be another one of my go-to guys when I'm in a conflict I'm unsure of? Thanks and happy editing. WorldTraveller101^BreaksFixes 17:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure. You can come to me on anything, but no guarantee that I can answer everything. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 17:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Surely. I just find that you are a trusted user. WorldTraveller101^BreaksFixes 17:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You have some really nice userboxes, but it is very long. Do you want scrolling userboxes? If yes, leave me a talkback message and I'll give it to you. If not, that's fine. Happy edits. WorldTraveller101^BreaksFixes 21:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Arctic. I have posted a reply to your comments on my user page, and also a message on WorldTraveller101's talk page. I will restrain myself and say no more. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Reopening. I'm notifying you because you have reverted the removal of white space, which according to an administrator is an "obnoxious" action you have done. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

??? I don't see anything there that involves me. Could you enlighten me? Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 11:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

You were one of the two editors who reverted Special:Contributions/91.10.19.237 on multiple articles, e.g. [3] [4]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually what I wrote above is slightly wrong. You were one of the two who reverted his removal of whitespaces, the other one being BilCat. There were at least two additional editors who reverted the IP's removals of empty sections (ChrisHodgesUK and A.amitkumar). However, the issue of empty sections is not currently being discussed at ANI. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not forgetting it. But still busy with the haze article like you and also my Kota Kinabalu good article nominations on Vietnam Wiki. I'm also always checking it everyday if there's a problem there on ms.wiki but not so active on creating article or patrolling anything at this moment. :) — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 18:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, never realise that I would become the second biggest contributor there. But can you tell me where did you get the information? :P — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 18:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Sorry, I didn't see you replied on the Malay Wiki section. — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 16:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

:)

By the way, now I'm waiting Oliverlyc maps. — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 16:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Also didn't see he online today. — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 16:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, just heard it today when you update it. Haha, lazy to update "panjang-panjang" lorh. :P — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 15:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh no. :@ — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 16:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arctic Kangaroo, I was just wondering how frequent you make a report to AIV? Hz. tiang 04:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

No definite interval. Basically every session of vandal patrolling that I do, I will make at least a few reports to AIV. And mind you, even if it's just 15 minutes to half an hour, you can definitely make at least more than 2 reports. Cheers. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 04:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hz. tiang 05:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 08:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I would imagine that you get quite a few edits and attempted edits on the page, and you probably have sent me an automated message. I can understand your caution.

The sentence regarding Heidegger seemed to suggest that it was an accepted fact that Nietzsche was a "tragic nihilist". It's not an accepted fact at all. I'm not even sure that Heidegger thought that, but I can look into it.

I understand there are definite procedures that need to be followed, especially on pages such as the Leo Strauss page. I'll be back some other time and see if I can introduce something appropriate (and well cited). I'm sleepy. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacca17 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Arctic Kangaroo

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Oliver, I am not too interested in editing templates, so perhaps I won't be using the feature. At the moment, I prefer the markup editor as I don't really like VisualEditor, and this preference is likely to remain. But at least, thanks for keeping the markup editor as an option. Not to worry, I will test VisualEditor again when it becomes the default. Cheers. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 05:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Awesome! Looking forward to your feedback :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
39		Air pollution in British Columbia (talk)						Add sources
866		Final Destination 3 (talk)						Add sources
5,454		The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (talk)						Add sources
5		Spanish exonyms (talk)						Add sources
522		Johan Djourou (talk)						Add sources
14		The Adventures of Superman (BBC Radio series) (talk)						Add sources
5		Mohd Khairul Izuan Rosli (talk)						Cleanup
49		Greg Cunningham (talk)						Cleanup
41		1998–99 in English football (talk)						Cleanup
432		Justice League Heroes (talk)						Expand
9		PLUS FC (talk)						Expand
18		Hop Harrigan (serial) (talk)						Expand
435		Hollywoodland (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
1,936		Arjen Robben (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
466		Superboy (TV series) (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
14		Phoenix from the Flames (talk)						Merge
4		Hwa Chong Institution High School Band (talk)						Merge
14		Deep Six (Marvel Comics) (talk)						Merge
52		2008–09 in English football (talk)						Wikify
963		Superman vs. The Elite (talk)						Wikify
136		History of Liverpool F.C. (talk)						Wikify
1		Francisco Michea (talk)						Orphan
1		2011 in UEFA (talk)						Orphan
26		Brian Ortega (talk)						Orphan
11		Melaka TMFC (talk)						Stub
4		Josef Pöttinger (talk)						Stub
6		Cino Tortorella (talk)						Stub
7		John Franchi (talk)						Stub
346		Hiroshi Kiyotake (talk)						Stub
46		FC Bayern Munich (women) (talk)						Stub

We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:

Views/Day

Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.

Quality

Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:

Content

Is more content needed?

Headings

Does this article have an appropriate section structure?

Images

Is the number of illustrative images about right?

Links

Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?

Sources

For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arctic Kangaroo,

I'm totally puzzled by the reasons you gave for rejecting this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation:/Miriam Battista. Miriam Battista is definitely " 'worthy of notice' – that is, 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded'." It's true that her moment of national fame was short, but it was intense, and she continued to be noticed in the press as an adult actress. Also, the fact that she received a news obit (not paid for by the family) in the New York Times should in itself attest to her notability, since the obit was published so many years after her heyday. For comparison, please look at the article for Gladys Hulette. I certainly think that Battista rises to at least the same level of notability.

As far as verifiable references are concerned, I truly thought I had over-referenced if anything! There are references to Charles Donald Fox's book Famous Film Folk, Photoplay, Variety, The New Yorker, the New York Times, the Internet Broadway Database, and Internet Movie Database - are these not considered reliable, verifiable sources? If the problem is that I used too many references to privately held materials, I apologize for that, but I thought that the information they included was interesting and enlightening. I guess that raises a basic question for me: would Wikipedia prefer that information from privately held materials be omitted, even if it sheds light on the subject? If the answer is "Yes," I'm afraid that Wikipedia is missing out on a gold mine of material.

I had been considering trying to get in touch with Wikipedia editors who are working on WikiProject Biography, as well as those involved in WikiProject Film before submitting this article for review, but as a newbie I wasn't sure how to do that. Now that the article has been rejected, I would very much like to get feedback directly from anyone involved in those two projects, as well as more feedback from you. Perhaps you can show me how to connect with those projects.

Thanks in advance for any further light you can shed on your decision and for any help you can give me. --Ailemadrah (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me create the above article. Is there any degree of control one can exercise on readers making arbitrary changes (after the editors finish with the cleaning up)? I am the this lady's son and have a personal interest in seeing that the contents remain accurate.

Pushan a (talk) 08:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Sarvis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi AK. Thank you for the quick response on the submission. I am wondering if I can get more clarification on details of submission decline status. I will be more than happy to provide more sources, but was hoping you could advise me on what specific areas/sentences require more sources. Again, thank you for your quick response. More than happy to comply and provide more resources for approval. Thank you for your time and consideration. Christiangadams (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I also find that your article sounds quite a bit like an advertisement, and the person seems non-notable. I don't mean to hurt you, but these are basically two of the requirements of Wikipedia articles. Perhaps you may want to address those as well. Back to the point, I notice that many paragraphs are unsourced. Unless the references are for a combination of paragraphs, I suggest that it is best to make sure every paragraph, especially those with information that might be controversial/doubtful, contains sources. Thanks. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 15:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

AK - Thank you for the reply. I will be sure to find/get more references. I feel the notable part is subjective. Mr. Boich is notable in the coal/energy industry. Tried taking out anything that sounded like an advertisement and just include what he or his company has done from a historical perspective. Thank you again for your response.

Christiangadams (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Grevillea mucronulata has been expanded to sufficient size now - cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I am wondering why the article I write was declined. [5] The subject is an academic historian, author of numerous widely-cited books, and the founding editor of a well-regarded academic journal. Excuse my perplexity, but I had thought that this was the sort of person, an academic of some repute in a specific field, about whom Wikipedia articles are written.(Truegood (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC))

There are things that aren't backed by the web like where he went to college I mean am I supposed to call his universities and high schools and get transcripts and maybe a phone interview about his years at their institution? maybe actually travel to the schools so see the documentation of his years there? This is maddening. The page already exists in Hebrew, all of his professional work is backed by the JPost, Globes, Israel's leading economic newspaper, The Government Ministry, our cable news networks and sites, and our online wires. The WIRESSS. How is that not enough? Every aspect of his journalistic career is backed by an article or link to a publication or by our very own government website. I can't back every single thing. I am a good person all I wanted was to make someone's life better and this has just become a saga. I am going crazy because of this. Why wouldn't you want more information to your website. Every Justin Bieber song has its own Wikipedia page and this wont be put online. An actual human being? I am just too sad. I cantEliaBerger (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Uh...I'm not talking about his school. The paragraphs like those about his early career, and current career whatever are unsourced. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 11:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me :). Younlo9098 (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for the feedback!

you stated that "previous decline reason not solved yet, or I would have accepted this" on the page.

I did follow exactly what they told me ie: edited the section down to one sentence.

Is there something else I could do

Thanks again for your time.

...

Okay, I re-read the criticism, and realised there was more I could do.

I have now merged the ArtSchool Palestine section into the Life and Career section and added a 2nd reference.

I hope this solves the issue.

Best Chaosandvoid (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

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

I have been away for a while, but I saw your answer for my 19 June 2013 question. Thanks.

DevynCJohnson (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

why my page was declined?

The reason is stated on the article's AfC page. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 07:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello I noticed that you had rejected my submission in the grounds of verifiable sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Geevarghese_Mar_Philoxenos The person was born in 1897 in India, and i have exhausted all known avenues of searching for references on the net. While there is not much written on him, avaialable on the net,the fact remains that he existed, started and ran a lot of educational institutions, and served the people. He is revered by the people who know of him, and a lot has been written about him. Please assist by telling me what other sources can be used or how I can get this approved.

Mentabolism (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, you may want to take a look at WP:RS. If you have any other questions, you can ask me or at the Teahouse. Cheers. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 09:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Arctic Kangaroo, Thank you for your feedback on the draft of the article I wrote on Eddy Merckx Cycles. I will edit the article in the way you suggested. I assume the main problem was that I had an interview with the subject of the article ? I could upload that interview and put it online, so it can be verified? Or should I just delete the source all together? I've been preparing to make a first article on Wikipedia since a few months, and I'm really eager to get started. Thanks for your help in making this effort succeed! Best, Peter Petervanham (talk) 04:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not too sure whether the interview will be considered reliable or not. What about asking at the Teahouse? Cheers. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 05:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, am doing it right now! In the mean while, are there other edits I should make? I feel like I've otherwise referred to neutral and verifiable sources, like magazine articles and books. I've also linked to many other Wikipedia entries. Was the sourcing of my own interview the main problem? Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petervanham (talk • contribs) 05:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, you could ask about the interview at the Teahouse. My reason for rejecting it was because some of the sources are not that reliable. I'm not sure if there are any more changes that need to be made, as I usually certify the sources as reliable first before moving on to read and review the article. Let's go step-by-step, solve the source issue first before I or other reviewers see if there is more work to be done. Cheers. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 05:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Artic, thanks for your swift responses! I've deleted all reference to the interview, as I'm awaiting a response from the Teahouse. I've also edited a few other things in the text, to give it a more neutral tone. I hope this makes it OK! Thanks for your help, it's so useful for me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petervanham (talk • contribs) 06:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem. If there's anything else, you can ask me, or the Teahouse. FYI, I'm also a host at TH, so if I happen to pass by your question, I may just answer it. But the best place to get my answer is still my talk page. Cheers. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 06:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, it's OK to include non-English sources, just make a note at the side and it should be fine. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 06:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arctic, Thanks, I'll be siging as of now! I guess you're reviewing my post now, looking forward to see if it's approved! I'm off to sleep now, talk soon! Petervanham (talk) 06:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Peter, I can't review your article unless you place that box (the one that was on the page before I reviewed it).
✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 07:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, done! Petervanham (talk) 07:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arctic, I read your comment: Isn't the CyclingArchives thingy a forum? After this, I think I still have some issues to highlight, but as mentioned, I will go one-by-one. Cheers. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC) -- the answer is No, it is not a forum. It is a "wikipedia of cycling", an archive of all results, teams, and riders that have ever ridden in the peloton. Their information is extremely accurate, and used by many people as an encyclopedia. They do have a forum, but this is separate from their encyclopedia, just as this talk page is separate from the actual wikipedia.

Could you let me know what other problems there are? I'd like to fix the problems, but I feel like we're losing a lot of time if you're going to go one-by-one, asking me to resubmit every time, then asking a question about one source, then let me respond, then let me resubmit, etc etc. Couldn't you just list the issues there are? Then I can adjust them all at once. Thanks! Petervanham (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Arctic, Thanks for your approval! I will keep on working on the page to improve its grade. Will you review its grade or will somebody else? For one thing, I've started giving the page 'parents', as it is said it's on 'orphan' right now. Thanks a lot for your help, was a great learning process!

Petervanham (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. For the grade reviewing, I can help you with that. You may want to try improving it further to even GA or FA status. Also, I hope you continue contributing to Wikipedia even after you are done with this article. There are many ways that you can contribute. Do spend some time to read through the links on the welcome template at the top of your talk page as well. Cheers. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 16:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Where is the link? :P

Huh, so glad that I found the correct colour for the Singapore football crest. *_* — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 10:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hm, great. But I'm not so interested in reviewing. Nevermind then. By the way, Arctic? Do you have Facebook? It's easy to discuss anything if you have that. :) — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 15:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Hotspot count for last 30 days as of 5 July 2013 (2013 SEA haze).jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi AK. I saw your decline of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michelle Knotek and was wondering if you can clarify a little for me: you declined the AfC submission on the basis of it being "not suitable for Wikipedia" and "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". However, we have an entire guideline that addresses how and when criminals in cases like this are suited for Wikipedia coverage: WP:PERP. The AfC submission does a poor job of elucidating the "well-documented historic event" part of WP:PERP, but speaking from a position of having some expertise in the subject area, I can say that the media the submission lists as having covered the case indicate that the notability is fairly likely to be there. That doesn't make an article that doesn't explain the level of notability ready for mainspace, but neither is such an article simply "unsuited for wikipedia". I think it would be helpful to the author of the article if you could explain why you feel the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia, or, if that was just sort of a kludgey reason you picked from the drop-down, if you could provide him some detail about how you think the article needs to improve before it could be sent live. RRRRRYYYYYAAAAANNNNN‎ has been working for quite a while on improving his article writing in this subject area, and he continues to use AfC to do it so that his work can be reviewed, so I'd like to see him given a bit more guidance from AfC reviewers on how to compose an article that's up to snuff. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I have reopened the AfC submission for review by someone who knows better. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that works as well, but if you're willing, I still think it would be useful if you gave the author some feedback about what led you to feel it wasn't ready for mainspace to begin with. It would help him (I hope) nail down where the weak points in his articles are. At any rate, thanks for listening to my blathering! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Nah, that wasn't even blathering. Anyway, the only reason for the decline was "newspaper", so I will let it be. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Arctic Kangaroo,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/North-West_College

You recently reviewed my submission to wikipedia for the North-West College article. I am not sure how to adequately cite my references, as I have gotten rejected numerous times trying to use the North-West College website as a reference. The problem with this submission is that there are no other ways of referencing the school's history or programs without using their website. There are no other sources I can find regarding this information. I find it quite ridiculous that a competitor school can have a published article with LESS references and more dead links than we have valid references.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Career_College

If you could please enlighten me on what I am doing wrong, your help would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you! - Brenden — Preceding unsigned comment added by Successedu (talk • contribs) 17:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Generally, sources on Wikipedia have to be independent. That is, if you talk about Company A, you are generally encouraged not to use non-independent sources (eg. Company A's website). But if you really can't find any other sources, perhaps we can consider. Cheers. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 02:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I am sorry to report that I have looked and can not find any type of other reputable source. I have linked every other type of possible reference into the page, but the locations and programs (which seem pretty important to me) are nowhere to be found except for the school's own website. I understand what it means to use independent sources, however this is a .edu website.. so that must have some validity to it? If not, I don't really know where to go from here.

Your help is greatly appreciated, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Successedu (talk • contribs) 02:36, 7 July 2013‎ (UTC)

Then see if there's anything else to improve (article or references), if not, you can resubmit it for review. BTW, please sign your posts on talk pages using ~~~~. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 02:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, I will review it and resubmit it. Sorry, I am still new to Wikipedia.Successedu (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Dude, no need to apologise. All experienced editors/administrators were once a noob here, including me. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 02:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Haha, now it was rejected for sounding like an advertisement? I thought I removed everything that was not neutral.. This is very difficult lol.Successedu (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Just take it as a learning process. To be successful editor here, this are just some of the basics. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 03:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to know for what reason you have rejected the above article, and pls just not advise in general but in specific for I believe I have submitted Reliable sources...if any one of these sources is not "reliable" pls indicate so as to alter or remove Yani papadimos (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It's me, 70.181.68.226! I made an account! :D --HAWK ^{drop me a line}_{see what I do} 21:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Artic Kangaroo. Your advice on revising a new article on author Benner would be useful and welcome. (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David G. Benner — text and references posted via Article Wizard 29 June; evaluated 1 July 2013.) I can see various ways to adjust the text and its list of references and will watch my talk page for your comments. That’ll help guide the revisions. Thanks. JaneFaber (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Let me give a better link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/David_G._Benner Your critique was that the “submission is unsourced or contains only unreliable sources.” Hmm. The research was sourced from published accounts, some academic and some not, and the text was written on the basis of those two dozen inline references. Stronger and weaker references, I suppose, and maybe too many. Could I ask you to suggest which of the references could be considered strong enough, and reliable? That will be useful when I’m reworking the piece. Thanks. Will watch my talk page. JaneFaber (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arctic Kangaroo. I saw that you have recently rejected the page I'm doing, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anthony_Del_Col, on the basis that it did not contain sufficient reliable sources. Am I not using enough sources, or are the sources I'm using unreliable? If the latter, which sources are the specific sources in question? Thanks, Srz92 (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to new articles i was submitting at AFC. I am an experienced wikipedia editor but subject to an arbitration ruling that prevents me from creating articles in mainspace directly, for one year. Weird but true ruling, not all bad as it also keeps some monkeys off my back. Anyhow, thanks for your prompt action on a bunch of submissions today. I am done now tho! Cheers, --doncram 03:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments: Article motor is ON. New messages explaining. --PhoenixFire contribs 05:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Added the link to one of the DYKs I reviewed yesterday. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to figure out why the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Rayid_Ghani was rejected. As far as I can tell, the sources that are being used are reliable, independent, and from the mainstream media. It would be very helpful if you could give me specific feedback so i can improve the article and make it adhere to the wikipedia standards. Any help would be appreciated. thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.151.130.153 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I find that some of the sources used there are not that reliable. I just looked through one of them, it looks quite like a blog (if I'm not wrong). ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 02:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how to cite the actual book so I cited the blog that the author started with the same name as the book. The book is http://www.amazon.com/The-Numerati-Stephen-Baker/dp/B003TO6G20. Should i cite the amazon page? thanks for the feedback.

Thanks!

50.151.130.153 (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You should cite the book itself, not Amazon. Amazon is an unreliable source as it does not provide any info at all. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 05:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Just modified the reference and resubmitted. Thanks for the feedback. 50.151.130.153 (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

As reviewing administrator with considerable experience in articles on academic people , let me explain the problem.

1. .First of all, I apologize for the uninformative messages you have been receiving--they are general form messages, and it should have been explained to you in the first place just what the problem is, but this depends on the experience and knowledge of the person responding.
2. The problem is not primarily lack of inline citations, or lack of references from third party sources,though there are a few sentence s that do need such sources. Rather , it's the overall tone of the article, which is supposed to be that of an encyclopedia article, not a CV.
3. A further question is that some of the wording was copied from the published CV. As I'll explain below, this is not acceptable.
4. The first question is notability --our term for whether an article is appropriate. The guide for your case is [[WP:PROF] , a guideline , with criteria that can be met with verifiable references from official reliable sources. You meet one of the criteria, with the distinguished emeritus professorship from HEC. You almost certainly meet the requirement for being an expert in your field as shown by books and publications, but to prove this would require some m0re information about them: for the articles, the number of citation, for the book, reviews or other indications of their importance. Here's our standard way to write an academic bio:

First, give the basic information--the source should be the CV-- birthplace and date, degrees, previous positions. If there are published books, list them in formal bibliographic style. List all reviews ofd the books that you can find, as footnote. If you want to say something is the most widely used text, you will need a specific reference for it. In a field dependent on journal articles, list the 3 or 4 most influential articles, getting citation figures from Scopus or Web of Science or Google Scholar, or some other appropriate source.Do not try to include every paper. Do not include conference presentations, book chapters, and other minor published work. Such a list needs to be frequently updated, and belongs in the CV, not an encyclopedia.

Include major national level offices and awards, but not minor ones. Be sure to list editorships (but not mere editorial board membership) --we consider it very important, and you should add it to the articles for the relevant journals also, with a link to the bio.

If there are any notable students who would qualify for Wikipedia bios, include them.

It is not necessary to cite the basic information in detail to other than the official CV. However, give any actual references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. For any part you quote directly from a published bio, include quotation marks and a reference.

Pay particular attention to the way we make links to other Wikipedia articles. Avoid WP:Peacock terms: do not use words of praise, or state that the person is important: the contents of the article will show it.

Include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the subject, or to prospective students--that sort of content is considered promotional. Keep in mind that the goal of an encyclopedia is to say things in a concise manner, which is not the style of press releases or web sites, or CVs, which are usually more expansive.

And be certain never to use material copied from other sources unless it is in the public domain, or released to us under a free license Even when it might be possible to get permission, there is generally no point in doing so--a person's web site or CV is usually unsuitable for WP, because it is usually written to some degree as a press release, praising rather than describing the subject and containing material we would not include, such as a full list of every minor publication. It is therefore always better and much easier to rewrite. In doing this, remember to also also Close paraphrase. Rewrite from scratch, changing not just the words, but the arrangement into sentences and the sequence of ideas.

If I can help you with any of this, let me know. When ready for review, please let me know on my talkpage, and I will re-review it. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

A relief to have this quite specific advice to supplement the style guide. Will heed it. JaneFaber (talk) 06:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I just had an article rejected because of insufficient reference (I think)? I was wondering what would make it considered to have sufficient (and appropriate) references, or whether I referenced incorrectly. I read the two articles referred, but still wasn't sure. Is it because the references are mainly back to the official society page? This is my first time creating a wikipage, so if you can point out some of the specifics that would be great. Thank you for your time. Swleun2 (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC) swleun2

Dear Arctic Kangaroo,

Firstly, Thank you for the rapid response in a decision on my proposed wiki page. I can definitely understand the reasoning of declining the page however as a member of the team that creates these roms, i feel that my page was more of an informative page than anything. I am trying to get the information out to the people that would use it and with the big name of wikipedia behind it i would be able to reach more people. While we do have our own website, the majority of people that are looking for help dont come to the source and end up damaging their device. My goal was to create a page where they can get all of the information they would need from one location, and with wikipedia as the location they wouldnt have to look far.

I do have more information to put on the page but with it taking a week to get up i was trying to speed up the process and get the page out there where the rest of the team can add and take away to their liking. Please let me know how i am erring.

Thank you,

Cookie1203

Hm...Wikipedia is not for advertising. Even if you are trying to, you've got to write it in a neutral tone. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 01:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

isnt advertising and informing pretty close? i was trying to get the information out there so the people that would need it can have it. and im not sure how much more neutral i can make the tone. i was stating the facts

Hi Arctic Kangaroo. I realise that your comments on WT's talk page are with the very best of intentions, but it might be a good idea now to leave the rest to the admins. Such cases sometimes also attract the attention of other younger or less experienced users who simply prolong the issue with a risk of the page becoming more like a blog or a social networking site. Take care, and happy editing! :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Arctic Kangaroo Would you be able to assist me by telling me what I am missing here. Im a newbie, and I still don't get what I am doing wrong. I have provided references, where people have written about the subject of the article. Also links to recent commemoration ceremonies have been attached. I have seen articles being approved for fewer references... So please tell me what exactly it is that you were looking for when you rejected this article, and how I can provide those. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Geevarghese_Mar_Philoxenos Thanks Mentabolism (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello AK: Regarding your rejections of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Epiphany Eyewear Please talk with me to help me with editing this article for submission "Epiphany Eyewear." Seems you rejected it just a few minutes ago. I have listed notable cites from The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Huffington Post, Venture Beat, and many more. I listed many External References which personally, I believe is a long list which can be edited down some. But I believe I need help in understanding why the article was rejected and what I can do to fix it so it is accepted. Thank you for your help. 301man (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, all sources should be placed within one section, References, using the {{Reflist}} template. As such, all sources should be relavant to the information in the article, and placed beside the corresponding text in the article. The sources looked at will be those in the References section. In the References section alone, there are some non-independent sources already. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 02:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi AK: Oh!!! Thank you so very much for the feedback. I will definitely rework it. This is very helpful information. 301man (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi AK: I'm resubmitting the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Epiphany Eyewear. Will you please take another look at it and tell me if I did what you asked. Thank you, 301man (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arctic Kangaroo,

Please could you explain QPQ at DYK for me?

Thanks, Matty.007 12:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

If a DYK self-nominator has more than 5 DYK credits (those "thank you" templates given to us on our talk pages), he/she will be required to review another user's DYK nom before he nominates his own hook from an article he has created. Did I do anything wrong with this QPQ thing? ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You could also do the QPQ after nominating. Just add it in when you're done. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you did it OK, I was just curious (being new to this DYK process). Matty.007 13:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arctic Kangaroo, I'm hoping you can let me know what is missing on the "Joseph Deitch" Article for Creation, which I am trying to take live (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Joseph_Deitch). I have already reached out to the live help, and was advised that they did not see anything wrong with the post, and that as such I should reach back out to you.

I see that the listed problem is not establishing notability, however I have tagged about 30 secondary sources in the article, and the subject in question is founder of a Billion dollar company, which has a wikipedia page in existence (and has been listed as a top-25 industry visionary by the top industry magazine).

Any help you can provide in letting me know what I should change would be much appreciated!

Thanks Funionsyeh (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)funionsyeh

Sorry about that, Funionsyeh. Please blame it on my inexperience. I found a few sources unreliable, especially the FB one. But never mind, submit it to me again, I or other reviewers can review it again. Sorry once again for the trouble. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Prabash.Akmeemana 14:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear sir.. Kindly do the reference footnote for the above mentioned article. I tried a lot..but I was not able to do that. Please help me. REgards Rajasekharn ParameswaranRajasekharan Parameswaran (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

- but evidently you missed the posting. I realise that your comments on Worms's talk page are with the very best of intentions, but it might be a good idea now to leave the rest to the admins. Dragging other stuff into a meeting between admins while they're working isn't helping. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about it. :( ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Erm, right now I think you're just adding more oxygen to the fire... I echo Kudpungs advice to stay away from the drama, but about BMW, I don't really think that's a concern, like many admins he was getting tiresome of WT101, I was too.. He just has a strict personality which is perfectly normal. Prabash.Akmeemana 15:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Strict is one thing, and yes, it's perfectly alright. But that occasional incivility comes too often that I need to feedback to him. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No you don't. He's old enough and ugly enough to know what he's doing, and if he doesn't there are others who will tell him - like Worm or me for instance. If you knew how exasperating this kind of work can be for admins, you'll understand why you need to cut them some slack. Remember too, nearly all the admins are adults, and situations like these sometimes make us feel we're working in a grade school. Did you never see a teacher get angry sometimes? If it wasn't for Bwilkins, I might have chucked my tools in a long time ago, and I'm one of the oldest and thickest skinned admins around here ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks enormously for the barnstar - it's really appreciated, even by a miserable old codger like me! Did you know that most of the ones I get come from our younger users? Food for thought. Take it easy, and don't let us grind you down ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Hello, Thanks for your review on my article. I reviewed once more and i'm pretty sure all my cited references were reliable sources, was there something in particular i did wrong? Maybe you can assist me with this matter.

Thanks. Dave.

EllisIsland5 (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The article Mark Lavery has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This page clearly fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mikemor92 (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arctic Kangaroo, thanks so much for reviewing my submission to AfC and for taking it live! If you don't mind, I have a quick follow-up request: would you be able to add a wikilink to the new Michael Chasen article from the Blackboard Inc. article? I'd make the edit myself, but I have a conflict of interest here and would rather not edit any live articles. If you can help, I'd be very grateful. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm wondering why you declined the article I recently submitted, "Adam Helms." It had previously been rejected because exhibitions lacked citation; I added links to the relevant venues for each exhibition. I'm not sure how else to cite, this seems standard and sufficient.

Thanks, Alex Passive Recreation (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
53		POSBank (talk)						Add sources
15		Material consideration (talk)						Add sources
24		Ultras Malaya (supporter group) (talk)						Add sources
70		Singapore Lions (talk)						Add sources
10		Terry Phillips (talk)						Add sources
4		Johann Wilhelm Petersen (talk)						Add sources
7		Italian Society for Military History (talk)						Cleanup
10		2010 in Malaysia (talk)						Cleanup
7		House of Abrantes (talk)						Cleanup
14		Nigel Clark (talk)						Expand
968		Esteghlal F.C. (talk)						Expand
123		Boosting (machine learning) (talk)						Expand
1,864		Arjen Robben (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
63		Rupert Stadler (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
24		Tribal Gathering (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
70		Eagle, Alaska (talk)						Merge
17		Burgos CF (I) (talk)						Merge
3		Prince Bishopric of Paderborn (talk)						Merge
306		Diego Alves (talk)						Wikify
4		The Bangladesh Today (talk)						Wikify
124		History of Liverpool F.C. (talk)						Wikify
1		2011 in UEFA (talk)						Orphan
3		2012 KL Cup (talk)						Orphan
46		Brian Ortega (talk)						Orphan
9		FAM Football Awards (talk)						Stub
14		Farrar, Missouri (talk)						Stub
595		Hiroshi Kiyotake (talk)						Stub
78		Indra Putra Mahayuddin (talk)						Stub
12		Proton FC (talk)						Stub
7		Cino Tortorella (talk)						Stub

We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:

Views/Day

Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.

Quality

Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:

Content

Is more content needed?

Headings

Does this article have an appropriate section structure?

Images

Is the number of illustrative images about right?

Links

Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?

Sources

For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Arctic Kangaroo (neat name!), for your comments on my article on Romulus Linney's play, "Childe Byron." Your note on notability (or lack thereof) makes sense, as a reader may well wonder why a single play from such a prolific author might deserve a separate entry. In revising the piece, I'll aim to establish three special points about this play. One was already touched on--the free speech controversy in Virginia that was triggered by the play's premiere. I'll strengthen a second point -- that "Byron" is one of the most regularly revived plays of the late 20th century, especially popular in universities.

I'll try to make the third point more prominent when I resubmit the piece--that the drama was identified by Linney as an unusually personal play, semi-autobiographical we might say, as he wrote it as an estranged father trying to make contact with his own daughter, a parallel with Byron's imagined feelings. Linney's daughter turned out to be the famous actress Laura Linney who actually played the role of Byron's daughter when she was a student at Brown, a fact that I think lends a special "family connection" to the play.

I will also aim to use fewer internet sources and more print magazine and newspapers next time. I do appreciate your notes-- and thank you once again.

KFFOWLER (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Arctic Kangaroo,

I used as template in writing the Flavius_C._Killebrew article this similar article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Garrison

Please let it go public.

Thanks,

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.228.172 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that, I usually don't accept stub articles. But if you want, you can put it up for review again and let another reviewer review it. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 02:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Arctic, I don't mean to intrude, but well-written and sourced stub articles are perfectly acceptable for mainspace. See Atlantic Salmon Conservation Foundation, a very well written, descriptive, and reliably sourced stub article. I've made the same mistake a couple of times, but you have to get over that initial "it's too short" cringe. Good stub articles can be seeds of collaborations, so always try to put relevant WikiProject headers on the talk page (very easy if you're using the script). Thanks, theonesean 00:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

In the future, could you try to be more specific with your reviews than just saying "More sources please"? This doesn't tell the user that they need to be reliable, and it doesn't tell them which sections are lacking. Thanks. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Arctic, believe me, I'm really not stalking your page. This is the reason I originally came to your page before I got caught up in the stub debate. An example of this undescriptive brevity can be found in duplicate on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ben Schwartz. You declined this article twice in a row, providing the following decline reasons:

• Some of the sources not reliable.

and

• There is an unsourced section.

Which sources are unreliable? Be specific! Is it the MoneyWatch.com one, or Reuters, or perhaps another? The author has no idea! What section is unsourced? What in the section needs to be sourced? Nobody knows! Yes, it's a backlog elimination drive, but please please please realize our number one goal is to provide quality content to Wikipedia. Detailed decline reasons help editors improve their articles. Improved articles help build Wikipedia. Please take the time to detail your reasoning, perhaps even in a comment. You're a good reviewer doing great things, but please take the time to help our newbies. Thanks, theonesean 00:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

@Theonesean: Hi there, thanks for the note. I have been trying to do the best in my reviews, and giving as best reasons as possible. But maybe I'm still quite inexperienced in this thing, so any guidance and advice is appreciated. Cheers. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 13:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for being so receptive. You've been doing a really great job so far, so keep it up. You're awesome, theonesean 20:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Why did you decline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/TerraTrike.

Every fact there is a referenced/cited fact. It is a unbiased description of the company. What exactly makes you say it is an advertisement? It is a notable business as proven by the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muellerj307 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this "advertisement"-or-not thing changes from editor to editor. It depends on how the reviewer feels about the article when reading it. I find that the way you write the front part of the article is rather promotional. I'm not sure how other reviewers think though. Try improving the article and put it up for review again. I/Other editors will take a look at it again. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

There were several stories today about Jay-Z glorifying "the most heinous murderer in DC history" in one of his new songs. I went to Wikipedia to find out more about the murderer, Wayne Perry, but could not find an article on him. There is a wealth of information about Mr. Perry online, so I found it very odd that there was no Wikipedia article. So I wrote one. Is there a reason the article was rejected? Does it need more information? Lacking subjectivity? More citations? More proof of notoriety? Thanks in advance for your input.

Patpend (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Patpend

Hello Arctic Kangaroo Most of my information comes from 1 single source which is an autobiography. Have some questions which I hope you can answer: a)Does an autobiography count as a reliable source b)where the whole paragraph is being cited from one reference, Will moving the references to the end of the paragraph help?

Thanks Mentabolism (talk) 13:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

a) Depends on what it is.

b) Yes.

✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 13:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Arctic Kangaroo thank you! Mentabolism (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

		The Articles for Creation barnstar
		For your valuable assistance in reviewing and guiding writers of new articles! Mentabolism (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Doleschallia bisaltide bisaltide (Autumn Leaf) - male, January 2013, Singapore.jpg

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Doleschallia bisaltide bisaltide (Autumn Leaf) - male, January 2013, Singapore.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 14:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. We're organizing an office hours session with the Teahouse to bring in mentors from across the wiki to try out Snuggle and discuss it's potential to support mentorship broadly. The Snuggle team would appreciate it if you would come and participate in the discussion. We'll be having it in #wikimedia-office ^connect on Wed. July 17th @ 1600 UTC. See the agenda for more info. --EpochFail^{(talk • work)}, Technical 13 (talk), TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi AK. Could you please consider extending a courtesty to User talk:DaveMcDonald and reply to his questions above? I realise that AfC has backlogs, but those backlogs are so old that nothing is more important than offering a few personal explanations to an editor who believes himself to be creating an article in good faith. Cheers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Is this article ok to be submitted? 71.180.91.32 (talk) 05:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Has he played at least 1 full season in the Arena Football League? ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 05:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, He has played games in the Arena Football League. 71.180.91.32 (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Should be OK, in my opinion. You can try and give it a go at AfC, if I happen to see it and review it, it should pass. But I'm not sure about the other reviewers though. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 01:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions and taking the time to answer my questions. 71.180.91.32 (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Arctic Kangaroo. My name is Dave McDonald and I just published an article on Cuzie.com that was rejected. You cited that it looked like an advertisement. The thing is, I don't work for Cuzie in any way. I just found the site through my friend and quickly received a job offer after using the site. I was extremely happy with this and thought that I should create a page dedicated to the site because I feel it is an important one. I am a very recent Wikipedia account holder (I basically made my account to publish that Cuzie article), and maybe I did some things wrong. I thought I was writing about it in a neutral way. Could you help me? Thank you, Arctic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveMcDonald (talk • contribs) 16:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dave, even if you don't work for them, you may still have accidentally written it like an advertisement. Don't worry, I have come across many of these "advertisements" which the editor has absolutely no intention of writing it like such. However, I find that you use many peacock terms in your article, and the tone is rather promotional. Cheers. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, sorry for taking your time to read this Section, but I have to explain about the comment you stated regarding Source 1, a source from ASCII Media Works. as unreliable. It is actually a publishing company in Japan that covers the pop culture of Japan, including Vocaloid Music. The interview is in Japanese and it took placed on June 6, 2012. Furthermore, the time interval between my submission for the article, and the time you reviewed the article was 6 minutes, so I might have assumed that you took a general view through the source. Most of the apparently reliable sources that I can find are in Japanese, since there are not many reliable sources in English. I didn't mean to sound offensive at all, but I'm just asking for a suggestion if you could guide me regarding Japanese sources. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 06:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I thought the source looked rather unreilable. Put the article up for review again and I will reassess it. Cheers. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 07:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I've expanded the article, just to a point that the article is efficiently adequate and re-submitted it for another review. Thank you for reconsidering on the article and reviewing it again.--(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Please could you do what editor Techatology would not do i.e. indicate which of my references you consider unreliable. I will then know how to proceed. Many thanks.FGrahamR (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reviewing my page. I wonder if you can help though. I spent the day on the live help re-writing my article and was told that it no longer read like an advert and that the links were good (using CNN, Guardian Newspaper...). I then resubmitted the article and you failed it for the same reasons. Can you point out exactly what you mean, or give an example. Just confused as i keep failing for the same reason, yet the guys in the live chat say it should be ok. Thanks for your help. MikeMichaelleach (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi AK. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I am beginning to be concerned about the accuracy of your reviewing. In one instance you responded to a user's question by stating that your review may have been due to a lack of your experience. A quick review of some of your rejections demonstrates - at least to me - that some submissions could easily have been accepted. I have not reviewed articles that you have accepted. While we must be on our mettle to decline articles that are obviously unsuitable, we must avoid being too harsh on articles that are short, or simply need some formatting or additional sources - our mission should be to encourage new users to contribute; a rejection of an article that has been created in good faith will always be perceived as bitey. In spite of the recent backlog drive, accuracy rather than speed of review is required. Please take a moment to consider these points, and if you need any help or advice, my talk page is always open :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
2		REACHSingapore (talk)						Add sources
2		Kuala Lumpur FA season 2012 (talk)						Add sources
6		Spanish exonyms (talk)						Add sources
8		Terry Phillips (talk)						Add sources
17		Ultras Malaya (supporter group) (talk)						Add sources
7		Safirul Sulaiman (talk)						Add sources
5		George C. Prendergast (talk)						Cleanup
268		Diego Alves (talk)						Cleanup
19		Confederation of German Trade Unions (talk)						Cleanup
7		2010 Malaysia Cup (talk)						Expand
887		Esteghlal F.C. (talk)						Expand
29		S. Kunanlan (talk)						Expand
2,547		Arjen Robben (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
4,037		Nintendo (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
6,578		José Mourinho (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
3		Hwa Chong Institution High School Band (talk)						Merge
227		Wearable technology (talk)						Merge
14		Deep Six (Marvel Comics) (talk)						Merge
43		ANGEL Learning (talk)						Wikify
54		Guillem Balagué (talk)						Wikify
55		2008–09 in English football (talk)						Wikify
1		2011 in UEFA (talk)						Orphan
3		2012 KL Cup (talk)						Orphan
36		Brian Ortega (talk)						Orphan
16		Material consideration (talk)						Stub
1		Saint Mary's Township, Perry County, Missouri (talk)						Stub
478		Hiroshi Kiyotake (talk)						Stub
6		FAM Football Awards (talk)						Stub
0		Seventy-Six, Missouri (talk)						Stub
44		Indra Putra Mahayuddin (talk)						Stub

We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:

Views/Day

Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.

Quality

Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:

Content

Is more content needed?

Headings

Does this article have an appropriate section structure?

Images

Is the number of illustrative images about right?

Links

Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?

Sources

For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations Joseph 08:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arctic Kangaroo,

I'm working an article creation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Tierra_Design_(Singapore) I'd like to seek for your advice to help me improve the article. You have commented that the article sounds like an ad, and declined it twice. Indeed, i have carefully studied the article of other firms like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WOHA (In fact, those pages sounds exactly like an advertisement, but they were approved. For WOHA, it was basically a copy-and-paste from the company website).

Moreover, I have consulted Wiki online Help chat. Following their advices, I have removed all flowery spots. All the description about the projects, if any, was quoted from sources and it was not my subjective comment.

Please advise me on this, so that i can improve the page. Thanks and have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohdarren (talk • contribs) 09:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I find that the commentaries make the article sound like an advertisement. But that's IMO, other reviewers may have a different opinion about it. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 09:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I submitted an article by the name of "Carlos Moedas", a well known politician in Portugal.However, the article was rejected on grounds of "Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified" - can you please let me know what information needs reliable sources to be verified.

Proenca07 (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I actually meant that the article needed more sources as large chunks of text was unsourced. But no such template was available, that was the closest. Good luck on improving your article! ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 10:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Re this message you left on my talk page, you have notified the wrong person. I did not submit that article or create it. I merely formatted the references. The person you need to notify is Darkmania Productions (talk · contribs). -- Voceditenore (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

 Notified --✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arctic Kangaroo! I've tried to create a new article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Theological_College_of_Central_Africa, but am struggling to find suitable sources to cite; there isn't a great deal I can find in the way of news or specific books, etc. I'm just wondering what options are available to me, so that I can hopefully get the article accepted? Many thanks for your help! Tracey datasalon (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Arctic Kangaroo,

I was wondering why my article was declined? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Renana_Peres The article contains reliable references. Some other sources remain because most of the important information about the studies and researches come from the scholar herself. I had gone over many wiki articles of academic scholar and did not find even one that didn't contain sources which consist of material published the scholar or her research team. Still, I have provided several reliable and authentic sources. What other corrections should be done in terms of the references? I would greatly appreciate it if you could point out the problematic refrences. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docki2013 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Arctic Kangaroo I stumbled across the proposed article on Renana Peres and was left flabbergasted that here an article is put through proper quality assessment criteria, whereas elsewhere pages are being added willy-nilly. I would appreciate if you could spare a minute to have a look at an article recently created that I proposed for deletion just so I can see what someone with your level of assessment makes of it. You can find the article [[6]]. I should add that a lot of work has been added since it was nominated for deletion. I would be most grateful. Best regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Congratulated......Just 4 ur contributions !:) Joseph 03:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is discussion for deletion of some squads. Please attention!hoising (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Arctic Kangaroo; hope you had a decent weekend :). We've got a pile of patches, some of which went out on Monday, some yesterday:

• If you insert wikitext such as links or section headers, you get a notice in the top right corner (over the save button). It doesn't go away until click, though once dismissed you don't get another one that edit. (49820)
• If your edit token expires, VE fetches a new one for you so you can save. (50424)
• If the page is empty of content but does have something non-content (like a category or an HTML comment), VE no longer crashes on load - (50289)
• sub tags are no longer removed ((49873)
• If you type at the end of links, they now extend
• Templates now only take a single click to insert
• Clear annotations clears links (50461)
• The link inspector stays open when you click to another item (50895)
• Typing after multi-byte characters no longer creats pawn icons (51140)
• Resizing thumbnails that have a default size set now works (50645)
• References made by tag:ref now display properly (bugzilla:50978)
• The VE is integrated with the spam blacklist (50826)
• Feedbacl link goes to the right language (bugzilla:47730)

There are a lot more improvements coming, but that's it for Monday and Tuesday. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I do not think that the non-free and copyrighted picture of him should be used. Since he is still alive, it must be assumed that a free photo of him exists somewhere and therefore the "historical portrait" rationale is invalid and not relevant here. It is only when he dies then you can argue that a free alternative is not available. If you have no objections I will tag it for deletion. Sorry and cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 15:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if can find one, but I will try to when I have time. I was trying to find one proper portrait, complete with PAP uniform. BTW, RI rejected, will need to try appeal through _ _ _ _ results if good enough. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Well the article must make do without a picture then. You could stalk him and take one, as an alternative. :P That's sad to hear. Good luck. :) ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, Can I request as the coordinator of the drive that you take a few days off and calm down, specifically concerning various comments made about you're declines on the drives talk page. I can see why you are keen; I had similar problems when I first started at AFC. Also, can I suggest that you leave any submissions you have reviewed once to someone else to re-review, which may also prevent future troubles. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Someone should be studying ~ haha ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

@Bonkers The Clown: Can I suggest effectively an WP:IBAN between you and AK for a while; Basically, you leave each other alone, and stop comments like the above to try and bait. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Since when were we in a conflict! This is indeed a true comment made in good fun, right AK? I think you misinterpreted, Mdann52. We are united as one, remember. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"United as one" is in fact part of the problem - the two of you appear to be operating as a "tag team" to push each others' drive "scores" up. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I mean as Singaporeans in spirit, yeah. How would that work? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we are Singaporeans, but never once did I say we were "united" in this drive. I remember that I only said that 2 of us topped the table at first, but no longer now. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Well.. I see the IP already stop doing vandalism at this moment. I already put it on my watchlist, perhaps he can do some useful things other than doing a vandalism. — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 15:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, btw, the most biggest vandalism there are mostly about politic related articles. Since I and Aplikasi work there, there already too many users been blocked. They usually would never stop and always create a new sock account even if we block them. — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 15:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi I just edited Nitzan Chen's page. four paragraphs about his books his schools his early tv career and volunteer work were not footnoted so I backed them up by facts. please confirm this site. I have been working on this for over two months. its not fair to put someone through this distress. I was asked to do this and I have postponed so many things to get this done. And you aren't letting it be approved. I cant keep backing every other word. Its not fair.

I am asking you to accept this and not decline it again. This has become outrageous and I can't keep adding more references. This is hyperbolic the demands you keep sending me back with.

{EliaBerger (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)}

Hi Arctic Kangaroo and many thanks for your review and comments.

I would be happy to add a source the Chains section, would sourcing the operator of the hotel with a clear overview of the hotel properties be sufficient or would it need to be an external source?

Thanks again for taking the time to look at the article

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tchhh (talk • contribs) 08:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi there,

So you are working on the article on Josephine Oniyama that I try to get approved. You criticize that the sources I gave are not reliable enough. can you be more specific about that? Which ones exactly do you mean?

Kind regards,

Konrad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solar Management Ltd (talk • contribs) 16:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Artic Kangaroo

You just recently reviewed two of my contributions. Thank you for your efforts.

I can't think of any way of getting Wikipedia to accept these entries. Each time they are reviewed by different people, I am hit by this issue of independent verification. I think I have made good efforts to address these points but I need help:

a) John Elliott has a Chair at MIT named after him and a major international award named after him. His work are cited by the textbooks in the area. I have referenced all of these claims. I have also referenced a biography of him from the National Academy of Engineering that supports all of these claims. SO AS IT STANDS, RECOGNOTION FROM MIT, THE AIST, TEXTBOOKS AND THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING is not enough for Wikipedia.

HOW MANY PROFESSORS AT MIT HAVE CHAIRS AT MIT NAMED AFTER THEM ??????????? (i.e what do you have to do !!!!!)

Could you please quite precisely tell me what you are looking for ? Steelmaking is a not a field that has many historical biographies written and Wikipedia is very weak in this area. Elliott is a legendary figure in the field (i.e. his work is used alround the world by thousands of engineers and scientist), so if he can't be listed in Wikipedia, I am aghast. Please tell me what I can do ? I'm sorry if I come across as hectoring you but I really have run out of ideas.

b) The AIST exists. It really has got 16,000 members in 70 countries. It really does run a major international conference every year. Of course, people don't often write about Professional societies, so its hards to find independent verification. I did in the last edit, provide a thesis that describes the society and an Australian National Library listing of the societies books. I actually modeled the page on the TMS page (a very similar society), so once again I feel that the Wikipedia is playing unnecessarily hard on verification of the article .....

Could you show me how to do it ...... I would be so happy for you to correct these artciles, if you understand the magic links that you are looking for.

But I have a question to ask you: Do you really doubt the information provided about the AIST ?

I look forward to your response.

Regards Geoff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffbrooks62 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Koh Poh Koon.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you are entitled to know I asked about you at User talk:Ritchie333#your opinion please.... Geo Swan (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:The hacked website of Eu Yan Sang on 27 June 2013.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Chrisman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Wright (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:COMPETENCE problem with Arctic Kangaroo on AfC. Thank you. —Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi there - Thanks for your comments! I was wondering if you could be more specific as to what information or resources in my article aren't verifiable. Thank you so much!

Hoyle1 (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
7		Number One (magazine) (talk)						Add sources
3,335		Massive open online course (talk)						Add sources
481		Medical billing (United States) (talk)						Add sources
35		Sakshi (media group) (talk)						Add sources
25		Malaysia women's national football team (talk)						Add sources
26		Imaging technology (talk)						Add sources
1,244		Where no man has gone before (talk)						Cleanup
1		Hyderabad Samachara (talk)						Cleanup
40		1998–99 in English football (talk)						Cleanup
154		13 (talk)						Expand
4		Big News (film) (talk)						Expand
4		2003 Malaysia Premier 1 League (talk)						Expand
63		T Venkattram Reddy (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
391		Korean American (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
10		Thumpamon (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
14		Tripura (Telugu author) (talk)						Merge
2,987		New Mexico (talk)						Merge
323		Bane in other media (talk)						Merge
69		Frank Nouble (talk)						Wikify
317		Chuck Feeney (talk)						Wikify
2		Brokers Exchange (talk)						Wikify
2		Samuel Chandanappally (talk)						Orphan
1		Anil CS Rao (talk)						Orphan
5		Andhra Pradesh (magazine) (talk)						Orphan
39		Mahali Jasuli (talk)						Stub
3		Farrar, Missouri (talk)						Stub
3		Uniontown, Missouri (talk)						Stub
3		Brewer, Missouri (talk)						Stub
45		Sakshi TV (talk)						Stub
6		Malaysian Rugby Union (talk)						Stub

We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:

Views/Day

Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.

Quality

Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:

Content

Is more content needed?

Headings

Does this article have an appropriate section structure?

Images

Is the number of illustrative images about right?

Links

Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?

Sources

For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)