Thank you LukeSurl for your review and input on the Draft:Tralian article. While I appreciate your review and reason for declining the article, I must disagree with you on the notability point regarding Tralian. As evidenced by the citations to the USPTO website, an independent secondary source, Tralian has made contributions to the musical and scientific arts with his design patent and his method patent. This advance to the musical arts was recognized by reputable, independent sources, as evidence by references 2, 3, and 4 of the article. Thus, the article meets at least one of the notability requirements from Wikipedia provided here: WP:MUS.
These citations put the Tralian article above many other articles regarding musicians in terms of reputable independent sources. The following articles are just an example of other musician articles that already enjoy a place on Wikipedia that have more questionable levels of notoriety (by Wikipedia standards) than the Tralian article:
8 Legged Monster
Gary M. Anderson
Robert "Kool" Bell
William Thornton Blue
Greg Howard (musician)
Richard McPartland
Thara Memory
Sal Mosca
Vido Musso
Tony Pastor (bandleader)
Teddy Powell
While I recognize that articles should be well sourced regardless of level of other articles, when dealing with the subject of a living person who continues to add to the musical landscape, I believe the Tralian article is worthy of a place on Wikipedia and I respectfully request that you withdraw your position on the article.

I am really grateful for your help
Best wishes
Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 11:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't expecting such a prompt review. Thank you, LukeSurl, for approving Boys Republic (band) article. I've linked the article from other Wikipedia articles concerning Boys Republic:

2014 Idol Star Athletics Championships Dsign Music 2013 Idol Star Olympics Championships All The K-pop MTV World Stage Live in Malaysia List of Universal Music Group artists

Re-added the endorsement section with citations. Added an additional category and new information with citation.

I have a question. Is it okay if I re-add the "members" section (their basic individual profiles) with citation this time? The group members don't have articles on them. It would provide the article with more information like how they came together from different labels to form a group (with prior training and prior projects before their debut) or should I add that in the first paragraph? When you have time, can you look over the article again? Any advice on how to improve it is much appreciated. Thank you very much! BleedLikeMe306 (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! For the members, I see a lot of K-idol bands use tables (see Teen Top for example) giving some basic info (note: data such as weight, height and blood type are, even if you can find a reference, not really appropriate for a Wikipedia article). Alternatively you could write a line or two of text about each band member.

The best improvement you could make to the article right now would be to write some text (rather than just lists) about the band's history. Find a good existing article about a similar band and try to replicate their approach. Happy editing! --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and advice. I'll revisit some similar articles and study them. Once I get everything in order, I'll add the history section with sub-sections: pre-debut, 2013, etc.BleedLikeMe306 (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if this is not the correct place to provide details about copyright and the page - Draft:Herreshoff 12½ (keelboat) As the previous reviewer noted, the copyright issue is understood and a solution is in the works. The author of the quoted section is a colleague who is currently away from his office. He will return next week and promptly add a creative commons license to the material quoted. I anticipate it will be tagged as Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International. If this information needs to be attached to the page in some other manner, please advise. Many thanks for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttrbbr (talk • contribs) 17:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Luke, you have a very nice wikipedia page and profile... congrats!!!

I have a frustrating issue here... I have created the page Miss Multiverse, it was deleted once before about a year ago, i don´t understand why if it has all the right references, no use of promotion, just facts, there are even winners of miss universe that have participated in Miss Multiverse whom have profiles on wikipedia... and its still deleted as if this beauty pageant does not exist.

There are many smaller beauty pageants listed on wikipedia, we are just not able to comprehend why this is happening, it almost feels as if enthusiasts or supporters of other pageants are deleting this one, it takes time to learn how to use wikipedia and frustrating to see someone just come and delete it.

I will appreciate your help enormously, if you would kindly take a look and figure out a solution.

Best regards,

Jose Cuello (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luke, I get the point about criteria 1 but doesn't my article meet criteria 6? I'd welcome your feedback. Sally of Kent (talk) 05:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Your point seems valid. I have resubmitted the draft for a second opinion. I have attached a comment regarding WP:MUSIC#6. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know of a English-speaking single country where soccer is not used and understood. The reason soccer was there in the first place is because most people don’t know what association football is. But having both seems unnecessarily wordy. —Wiki Wikardo 13:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are referring to my edit to Goal kick? Currently only "association football" is the lede there, so I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say it is "unnecessarily wordy".

Association football is well understood (I disagree with your "most people won't know" assumption), is the "proper" name for the sport, and is the title of our article about the sport. As per MOS:COMMONALITY, "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms". "Association football" is widely used in preference to "soccer" or the ambiguous "football" on Wikipedia. If you wish to change how Wikipedia refers to the sport, your best bet would be to can join the discussion at Talk:Association_football/Article_name. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Previously it read “association football (soccer).” I know it’s “proper,” but I do certainly assert that it is less widely understood than soccer, especially among non-sporting types, which is why that word was tacked on. I’m well aware that the article lives at association football but it seems like the name of an article isn’t the same as how it needs to be referred to in every other. For example, IIRC, airplane used to be titled fixed-wing aircraft or something like that—obviously it’s not necessary to employ a long, esoteric phrase to avoid favouring airplane or aeroplane in every article. Likewise, soccer is well-attested in all varieties of English, so, despite the fact that football may be more common, I don’t see the need for a less-immediately-clear disambiguation. —Wiki Wikardo 13:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although if you maintain that association football is a phrase the general public would understand throughout the English-speaking world (try asking a non-football-watching Australian or American what it is), I guess we’re at an impasse. Hopefully, then, you wouldn’t object to me “fixing” your edit. ;) —Wiki Wikardo 14:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/PORN.COM

Hello LukeSurl,

I have edited my submission to include more detail and direct legal analysis from noted first amendment / IP attorneys. I do believe direct quotes from ownership of the site are important in this instance because they establish the mindset and reasoning of the people making these decisions. I also believe the item is far from 'advertorial' at this point. It is establishing distinctions that differentiate one of the world's most often visited websites from others in the same exact category. It does not judge one as better or worse than the other, but does point out important specific differences.

Thanks for your time, - Stewart — Preceding unsigned comment added by StewartTongue (talk • contribs) 15:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the advert-like nature of the wording when I initially reviewed the draft, I was able to do a quick review without having visited the PORN.COM site. For a more thorough review, which isn't just about the wording, it will be necessary for the reviewer to visit PORN.COM. I do not wish to do this, certainly not on my work computer from where I do most of my Wikipedia editing. Your draft is in the queue and will be reviewed in time by someone else. Thank you. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A draft submission that you had previously declined that was promoted to article space over the suggestions of AFC, Kash Gauni, is now up for deletion. As the commentary from AFC is used as a contributing reason for deletion, please feel free to look in and give your thoughts. Hasteur (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Mercury Transformations (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mercury Transformations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My article was rejected I want to know how can I improve it? Dear Luke, can you please suggest me how to improve my article? Mercury Transformations (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC) Mercury Transformations (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)SariyaMercury Transformations (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Your first article. The draft you wrote looks like a directory entry. An article will need to be paragraphs of prose, supported by reliable sources that are independent from the subject. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/June_2014_Backlog_Elimination_Drive#We_need_a_conclusion that merits your consideration Fiddle Faddle 16:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LukeSurl, I would like to submit a translation of the french article on artist Jean Yves Lechevallier:https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Yves_Lechevallier and would like to use the sandbox, Please let me know how to do that without resubmitting the article right away, thank you--DDupard (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DDupard. Go to your sandbox, click the "Start the User:DDupard/sandbox5 page" link and start writing the code. Once you are ready to submit, add the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page. Happy editing! --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you LukeSurl, for your prompt answer..... However I do not see the Start the User: DDupard/ sandbox 5 Page link ; in the sandbox there is only one option : Resubmit. and my interpretation of that is not sandbox,...Euh sorry for not understanding--DDupard (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DDupard: Ah, I forgot that you'd already created a sandbox. You can continue to use that page. Edit as you see fit, saving the page regularly. Your submission will be resubmitted only when you click the "resubmit" button. Alternatively, create Draft:Jean-Yves Lechevallier by clicking that red link and then creating the new draft page. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LukeSurl, Draft:Jean-Yves Lechevallier is now populated, however, I could not understand how to link the page to the Wikimedia-Commons corresponding category. I do not know if you care to review the page...., If you do, your comments would be welcome. And please let me know what the next step is. Thanks a lot.--DDupard (talk) 09:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DDupard. The link to the commons category seems good to me. If you want to put your article in the review queue, please place the code {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. Personally I don't have the time to review it now, but it looks promising and another reviewer should be along in a few days! Cheers, --16:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

OK LukeSurl, Thank you--DDupard (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Morning. I just wanted to ask, why did you remove sourced material from the above article. What you remobved was in the first available source.--Discolover18 (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked again and the hotel cost £50,000 which according to the source is £2.5m in todays money. This was the part you removed.--Discolover18 (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misread the source and didn't see that number, I read the first section, saw the £50,000 number without the conversion and assumed it was a calulation by an editor. Personally I would still prefer not to have that conversion for three reasons:

• "Today's money" is somewhat moveable goal. What year does "today" refer to? Inflation is likely to continue indefinitely meaning that, in theory, that number would have to be regularly updated.
• Calculating inflation over such a long period of time is very inexact, as the goods and services available then and now are not the same.
• Checking the figure with one of these online calculators gave numbers significantly different from £2.5m.

Cheers, --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your reply. You make very valid points. Tbh am very new to wiki. I just seen sourced info being taken out and I was wondering why. However your answer was quality and I never really took notice of any inflation, etc. Thanks again for your reply.--Discolover18 (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the references and made many other corrections. I would like to know which references failed your inspection. I was able to create a wiki link to an article with Dr. Kambin's name in it (Minimally invasive spinal surgery). However, in the article he is listed as Pawiz Kambin, his name is Parviz Kambin. How can I have this corrected. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

jds319Jds319 (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar
	Congratulations, LukeSurl! You're receiving the The Tireless Contributor Barnstar because you reviewed 131 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive in June 2014! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! (t) Josve05a (c) 23:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Explain yourself.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fuhghettaboutit. I'm not sure why the software recorded me making an apparently null edit to the words "Most unexceptional" in the middle of your comment. It was not my intention to change anything there.

Regarding the paragraph I added in that diff, do you have a question about that? I found the copyright date for the ebook in its opening pages, and managed to find the time the "dominion praxis" was added to the article with a little searching of the edit history. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luke, that's not what the diff shows; not a null edit to content already there but you changing my words, "best regards" to "most unexceptional regards". So to be clear, you are saying you did not make that change (which I would consider the most egregious kind of vandalism, changing my words to give the impression I had said something I did not say, and a change that made my edit seem like I was being (weirdly) rude to the Teahouse questioner in my answer)? Hmm. I can think of a way that could have possibly happened. I'm not suite sure how suppression works mechanically, but if there was vandalism in between my edit and yours that was suppressed by oversighters, some artifact of that third party's vandalism could have remained, making it seem like you had made the change.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what has happened here, but I can assure you that I didn't make any intentional edit to your comment. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luke, your response just now provides the answer and pretty conclusively. You have a computer virus and a rather insidious one. Go the the history of your last edit, the one you just made now in response to me. Look at the diff. You changed "best" in my response above to "most unexceptional". I bet if you make any edit to any page that has the word "best" the same thing will happen. In fact, I'll bet if you respond to this post, the "best" in the last sentence, and the three in this paragraph will all be changed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've figured it out... I had chrome add-on called "downworthy". It's not a virus, but it's meant to change wording that you get on clickbait sites to amusing alternatives (so "You Won't Believe" becomes "In All Likelihood, You'll Believe"). I didn't know it could change text boxes (and "best" to "most unexceptional" must be a new feature). I've now removed it and am doing serious vetting of my other add-ons. Hopefully this should fix the issue. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking "best regards" --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once more for luck "Checking. Best regards" --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That should be a thing of the past now. Fuhghettaboutit, and anyone else this has affected, m please accept my sincerest apologies. I hope this can be attributed to my stupidity rather than malice. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Great. Glad this is cleared up. I'm sorry I came off as questioning you. Seeing your edits in the past I found it rather unimaginable that you would have done this on purpose and yet the diff did peg you as having made the edit. Also, the specific edit, finding a polite sign off of mine changed to give the impression to everyone reading that I was being rude was sure to make me see red a bit.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand, I would have done the same. It's fully my fault, I should have never have added a plugin that had such sweeping power. I really hope I haven't unintentionally made any other problematic edits. I'll be scouring my last month's worth of edits now. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Professional foul, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laws of the Game. 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) 09:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• PLLEDNAK (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Tralian ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Thank you LukeSurl for your review and input on the Draft:Tralian article. While I appreciate your review and reason for declining the article, I must disagree with you on the notability point regarding Tralian. As evidenced by the citations to the USPTO website, an independent secondary source, Tralian has made contributions to the musical and scientific arts with his design patent and his method patent. This advance to the musical arts was recognized by reputable, independent sources, as evidence by references 2, 3, and 4 of the article. Thus, the article meets at least one of the notability requirements from Wikipedia provided here: WP:MUS.
These citations put the Tralian article above many other articles regarding musicians in terms of reputable independent sources. The following articles are just an example of other musician articles that already enjoy a place on Wikipedia that have more questionable levels of notoriety (by Wikipedia standards) than the Tralian article:
8 Legged Monster
Gary M. Anderson
Robert "Kool" Bell
William Thornton Blue
Greg Howard (musician)
Richard McPartland
Thara Memory
Sal Mosca
Vido Musso
Tony Pastor (bandleader)
Teddy Powell
While I recognize that articles should be well sourced regardless of level of other articles, when dealing with the subject of a living person who continues to add to the musical landscape, I believe the Tralian article is worthy of a place on Wikipedia and I respectfully request that you withdraw your position on the article.

PLLEDNAK (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PLLEDNAK. As I said in the comment, you would be better reconstructing your article as one or two articles about the Trillo and/or Flutar rather than about Tralian. Articles about real, living persons are - for legal reasons - subject to much tighter standards of verifiability than ordinary articles. As it stands your article has several paragraphs with no inline references, which is problematic when it comes to articles about real people. Most paragraphs are not really about Tralian at all, but rather about the inventions - the article should be about the person, separate drafts can be made for the instruments.

As evidenced by the fact that U.S. patent numbers go up to about 5 million, there are a lot of inventions and inventors out there. Having patents does not automatically mean a person is notable. While you say that the flutar was "recognized" in three trade magazines, it is unclear what "recognized" means in this context. As these are not easily accessible resources (i.e. not online), an AfC reviewer can't see if these mentions are trivial or substantial.

As regards your list of articles, the appropriate essay is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In short, there is probably a lot of stuff on Wikipedia that probably shouldn't be there, and the presence of problematic articles cannot be used as a case for adding a new article. --13:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions on pictures.

Scottishwildcat12 (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LukeSurl. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "sandbox".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|User:Nnewton44/sandbox}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JMHamo:. I didn't create this submission, I only moved it to the Draft space. This system needs a check to make sure the right people are getting notifications. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		A barnstar to you for re-reviewing at least 25 user reviews during the WikiProject Articles for creation June 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks for contributing to the backlog elimination drive! Posted by (t) Josve05a (c) on 08:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation[reply]

• CompleteJoy (talk · contribs)
  • Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Catechesis of the Good Shepherd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for your review! This article is my first submission to Wikipedia, and I am still learning my way through the process. However, I am unclear if my article has been permanently rejected due to time limits on edits. Can I still edit and re-submit this article on Catechesis of the Good Shepherd? CompleteJoy (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC) CompleteJoy (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CompleteJoy:. You may continue to edit this draft. There is no time limit. The deletion notice you may have received occurred because there had been no activity for 6 months and the automatic system assumes that the draft had been abandoned.

I have made a minor edit to reset this timer, your article shouldn't be deleted now for at least another 6 months. It will never be deleted as long as you are actively working on it. Please continue to improve the article, and resubmit when you are ready. Cheers, --LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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