Welcome to my talk page, feel free to leave me a message! Unfortunately, I have duties that pull my attention away from Wikipedia, such as school. So if you leave me a message, don't expect a hurried response. Sorry for any inconveniences this may cause!

(Note: If you're here to respond to a message I left somewhere, leave me a {{talkback}}. If you're here to contact me, go ahead and leave your message down below)

Hi CharmlessCoin,

How can I improve my submission in order to get your approval? Thanks.

TC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tc1819 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the big issues is that your references barely mention the subject, and talk more about secret societies in Yale instead of a specific one. Take a look at WP:NOTE, and WP:ORG to get more information on this. CharmlessCoin (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there CharmlessCoin,

thanks for reviewing my article. Am I right in thinking therefore that if I take out the IMDB and Wordpress references, then you will OK the article for creation?

Yours,

Paul K PaukiPKK (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)PaukiPKK[reply]

First of all, thanks for your contributions! If you remove the IMDB and Wordpress references, your article would certainly be better off. However, most of your references seem to talk mainly about something else, or only mention Davis in passing. Remember that to count as a reference, the source needs to cover your subject in depth. Take a look at WP:BIO for a little more information on sources for people. And I'm sorry if my decline reason was a little brisk, I was in a slight rush after I reviewed your article. I do hope this helps, and feel free to ask me any questions you may have! CharmlessCoin (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CharmlessCoin,

my main point to Nolever, a previous reviewer, was that, as the main show that Bernadette co-wrote [Game One] has a page on Wikipedia and her co-writer, Andrew Davies [no relation] has a page on wikipedia, I felt this was enough to make her worth of inclusion on Wikipedia. But this was not the case or was not enough to make her significant, it was argued. So I trawled the web for references to her (and of course most references to her are since the web really took off - which was over half a decade AFTER Game On was on TV!) - this is why there are so many references to IMDB etc. Without going to my local library and finding some old newspaper reviews, it's difficult to find references for her. So then, another reviewer, Cerebellum, suggested the next step was tofind articles & references that established her as the co-writer of Game On - hence the plethora of articles about other people that "only mention her in passing" (but do show she was involved in the success of the other people's projects!). I think that when her new comedy show comes out in November on BBC3, her significance may be definitively established - so this may be the best way to resolve things: to wait till there are some more articles. (I had thought the report on the Guardian Television festival would show her significance, but as this is Wordpress, I guess it doesn't.) Which brings me back to the 'what if there aren't any in-depth enough articles, because her big[gest] moment was 20 years ago, before the web appeared?' Surely the lack of articles should disbar her from appearing on Wikipedia, especially as (I would say) her relation to definitely-significant entries on wiki, does make her significant?! Yours, Paul K PaukiPKK (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)PaukiPKK[reply]

Hi CharmlessCoin - since I wrote the above, about an hour ago, I have found an new interview with Bernadette on the BBC website, about her new comedy Some Girls, but it also refers to Game On too, so I have added a reference to that (and a quote from the interview). I have also taken out the IMDB and Wordpress refs. How does it look now? PaukiPKK (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)PaukiPKK[reply]

After reviewing the Davies article, and the interview the added, I believe Davis qualifies as notable. There are still some things you could work on though, mainly just the writing and structure of the article. You can look at WP:MOS and various other places to get info on that. Thanks for writing the article, I hope it goes live soon! CharmlessCoin (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CC (please forgive the abbreviation) - thanks for your comments again - I will have a look at the WP:MOS page (I had a quick look but realised I would need a longer look!) - I'll try to incorporate the relevant ones from there before I submit. I will also carry on adding to the page in future if / when anything else turns up - I am sure it will be reviewed in a proper newsaper next week, once episode 1 has aired. Btw, I went to University with Bernadette - that's how I know it's true! (although it was another mutual Uni-mate who added that bit!) - tho of course proving it is a bit harder, eh? (Scanned in Degree certificate?) :-) PaukiPKK (talk) 10:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)PaukiPKK[reply]

Oh yeah, the Manual of Style can be quite the read. But you'll get the hang of it in no time. That's a pretty good idea. I'm sure more sources will pop after the show's been on for a little while. Be sure to add them in when you find them. I'm glad I could help, and feel free to ask anymore questions you may have. Thanks for your contributions! :-) CharmlessCoin (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CC - I think the main changes I needed to make were to add Italics to TV or film titles (and therefore the change the title I had emboldened to italics. The bit about sections was interesting (I hadn't picked that up before), but I don't think my article needs sections (yet?). I must admit, reading the bit about what is needed for creative articles, does make me think that it's harder to be recognised for being creative than it is for, say, being a footballer - it seems any Average Joe who played for a 2nd division football team can get in Wikipedia, whereas if you actually create something, it's a lot harder (probably because there's a lot more media coverage of football). Ditto most (pop and rock music) bands and band members seem to get in! Anyway, that's my own personal rant over! Was there any other obvious style issues you noticed? PaukiPKK (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)PaukiPKK[reply]

One thing about sports players, is that most leagues usually keep records. And they don't need coverage from a lot of sources, I believe just being in a notable enough league gives notability for sports players. So it can seem a little easier for them to get in than others such as artists, where they have to have secondary sources. I didn't really notice anything major, the article seems well written enough. I just thought it would be helpful for you to read the manual, if you expand on your article a little bit, or run into something confusing later on editing something else. CharmlessCoin (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CC - righto! thanks for everything - do I just resubmit it then? or do you pass it? or something else...? PK. PaukiPKK (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)PaukiPKK[reply]

Well you can work on it until you think it's ready, then resubmit it. Either I, or some other reviewer, will give it a look over. Hopefully it'll pass, but don't be discouraged if it doesn't! CharmlessCoin (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for reviewing the Bombs And Bottles article I am attempting to submit. I was wondering if you could give me a few examples of lines or phrases that I should take out? I understand that some of what I wrote might sound a littler personal and I am changing it around, but it would be great to hear from you about specific examples on what I should be changing. I am very new to this and find this all to be pretty confusing, so your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Michaelgr43 (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)michaelgr43[reply]

I'm happy to help, I know it can all be confusing at first. First off, thanks for your efforts, we all appreciate them. Now, as to what lines could be removed, let's start with "dance-y, synth-based and layered feel." While this may be said in the reference, it's outside of quotes. This gives the impression that you're stating your opinion, instead of quoting a source. "He enjoys experimenting ... which in turn means that his music is constantly evolving." For starters, it's a common practice that after you introduce your subject, you simply refer to them by their last name, not by a pronoun such as he, she, etc. etc. To say that the music is "constantly evolving," is expressing an opinion, not stating a fact, or quoting a source The biggest line that I can see, is, "It is about a night out on the town and having a good time ... to the end of the night after the club." None of this is in quotes, so it's once again expressing your opinion on the subject. This is especially tricky in music, since the meaning of music can be interpreted many ways. Even if you were to fix these issues, it's still preferred that you focus on just the facts of a subject, instead of stating opinions or using "peacock" terms. You can read about this at WP:PEACOCK. Don't think that you should just slap quotations on everything and call it a day, though. As the example in WP:PEACOCK shows, you should instead attempt to replace them with facts that establish notability. A good idea would be to find reviews of the subject's work, and create a "Reception" section for each piece of work. This would show that multiple secondary sources noted your subject, and invested time into it. You can find more information at WP:MUSIC for notability on musicians. Hope I helped, feel free to ask any questions you have! CharmlessCoin (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This helped a lot and I really appreciate the feedback. I went ahead made sure the quotes were added to the appropriate parts, and I put in some reception/actual reviews the music got rather than what I had bfore. I am unfortunately still running into some problems though, for some reason the Music Style and Records/EP's sections have meshed together and I do not know how to separate them like they were before. Also, the line where I talk about his GammaMax EP being released is not showing up, and I'm not sure why. Can you help me get this resolved? Thanks Michaelgr43 (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)michaelgr43[reply]

Happy to help. I'll take a look at the formatting in just a minute and let you know what I find! CharmlessCoin (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added an additional source for her information. Since the first source is an official university webpage, is it still deemed a personal webpage? Please review my changes -- I really appreciate your help! Thank you! Samara levine (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're starting to get it, but perhaps reading up on a few things could assist you in writing the article. To be deemed notable enough, academics must meet at least one of the criteria from WP:ACADEMIC. Which according to your article, it could be argued that Parker appears to meet this guide line: "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." But at the same time, other than her own webpage, you have nothing to back this claim up with. Try to find some references besides from her that she was elected a governing member of the Charles Darwin Foundation. Maybe the foundation maintains a list of members? Or maybe there was some article that focused on her appointment directly? As for the reference you added, it only mentions her in passing, and even then among a list of similar people. That's another guideline that we have, the coverage in secondary sources must have depth. Take a look at WP:BIO, and specifically, WP:BASIC. As she is an academic, perhaps she has published papers or works that have been referenced by other sources? That would also deem her worthy of inclusion. I hope this helps, let me know if you have any more questions. I'll do my best to answer them, or find someone who can. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! CharmlessCoin (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia G. Parker does meet WP:PROF#Criteria #5: she is a named chair (Des Lee professor) at University of Missouri, St. Louis. But we do need "secondary sources"; that is typically coverage in newspapers (including the campus newspaper) or magazines. Here, for example, is secondary-source coverage of one of her awards. We allow some basic information to be pulled from a bio posted at a University site, but an article cannot be based just on that. Also, an article will be higher-quality if it uses information from sources not related to the subject (third-party sources). Churn and change (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CC, The purpose of WP:PROF is to be an alternative to the GNG, not an additional requirement, and this has been accepted at essentially all AfDs. She fully meets the requirements of WP:PROF: Not just the named professorship, but Fellow AAAS, which is much more than mere membership and has always been considered sufficient distinction for Wikipedia . It would however be good to add a list of her most cited published papers with their citation figures--its appropriate content. (You are correct that if we wished to be pedantic about the GNG we could consider that the necessary sources are the references in peer-reviewed journals to her published works by qualified experts. Before we had WP:PROF, that was how I sometimes argued it, but we no longer use it this way. The reason we don't is that it is much too inclusive-- almost everyone who had published two or three papers would then be notable, and this would go so far as to include most assistant professors at research universities,and every associate professor anywhere--but people at these ranks are rarely held notable at AFD. I have therefore accepted the article. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CharmlessCoin,

Thanks for reviewing my article.

Before writing this article I read carefully wiki-policies and particularly checked with the following companies and categories, which I strongly recommend to read.

Medical equipment manufacturers - 75 companies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Medical_equipment_manufacturers and Abraxis, Aethlon Medical, +200 Medical company stubs. Most of those companies have significant advertisements and some lack references at all.

Accordingly, I have to disagree with the general statement about lack of references or advertisements.

In addition, please see that there are plenty of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the company. Please see the range of External Links as well. If you enter "imexco general" in Google you'll receive a remarkable response (1240), most of them relevant links. Definitely a NOTABLE company.

As we have mutual interests that wikipedia will be clean from advertisements, please help me to make this article comply with the needed policy. Please be specific as this article is after careful revisions.

Thanks

Yesikan (talk) 11:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)^[1][reply]

Other than just a few lines, the article is basically fine. For example, "Imexco's objective is to develop, produce and market innovative technology intense products that improve quality of life and allow patients to leave the hospital earlier, thus lowering total health care costs." This line has no inline citation, so it seems as though you're either expressing your opinion, or attempting to show the company in a positive light. Keep in mind that you should avoid peacock words, and focus only on the facts. See WP:PEACOCK for more, in case you missed that guide line. Also, the section "Pain Management" lacks citations. Wikipedia doesn't count as a reliable source, so attempt to find a reference from some other source. Other than these small issues, the article was pretty good. Thanks for your contributions, and please do resubmit after fixing those issues! CharmlessCoin (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CharmlessCoin,

Please see the revised article where I have added 8 independent reliable references as per your recommendation in the two sections as you have indicated.

Please make the necessary modifications so that the article will appear properly in Wikipedia

Thank you for your help

Yesikan (talk) 06:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)^[2][reply]

You'll have to resubmit it. Generally I don't review articles that I've helped people with, as to avoid bias. Someone else will happily take a look at it. Thanks for yuor contributions! CharmlessCoin (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused..."someone else" may request additional modifications...this is an endless loop...I thought that after your review and my modifications we are done. Can you explain the process? Will they see your comments and my modifications? Yesikan (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happily! When you first submitted your article, you sent it to a place called Articles for Creation. There, we review articles submitted, to see if they're worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Anyone can review them, and I happened to be the one who reviewed yours this time. Since your article was declined, it was taken out of Articles for Creation. After you've worked on it, you may resubmit it to Articles for Creation. Then, another editor will review your article again, to see if it's up to standards this time. And yes, other editors will see me comments, as well as the modifications you've made. CharmlessCoin (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giora Ram DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CharmlessCoin,

I'm wondering if we can get some more specific feedback about the Teacher Quality page. I do agree that the first submission of the page (Reviewed by Chzz in Feb 2012) was far too essay-like, but a group of us worked on it together for the current submission to specifically make it read like an encyclopedia entry, and modeled the entry on a number of other well-established Wikipedia pages. We would appreciate any suggestions you might have to make the page accepted.

Thanks

Douglarkin (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Douglarkin[reply]

I'd be happy to help! It's not quite the style of writing that I took issue with, it's more the lack of references. While your references do talk about the subject in detail, I don't think there are quite enough throughout the article to verify some of the claims. While reading it I get the feeling that some of it is original research, which isn't allowed. Take a look at WP:INCITE, maybe adding some inline citations would help out with that. In general, you could use a few more citations to verify some of the things you state in the article. I hope I helped, feel free to ask any more questions if you have them! CharmlessCoin (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charmless,

You recently rejected my submission based on lack of references.

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

I'm still working on the article for a class and will continue to update it with more references. However, you may want to take a look at "Nature" and "Small" which are journals I cited in the article. They are highly revered technical journals, in fact, they are some of the most prominent in the field of neuroscience. Please reconsider my submission or I'll wait after I've included more content and resubmit it.

Thanks, Greg

My problem was that they don't really talk about it in depth. But please do add more references, and I'm happy to answer any questions you have! CharmlessCoin (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have to download the actual paper to get the in-depth information. It is a paid access journal but here's a link where you can look at the full paper.

http://syntheticneurobiology.org/PDFs/12.05.kodandaramaiah.full.pdf

I'm not authorized to distribute the PDF of the other reference but it is the same type of peer reviewed paper. These scientific journals are as authoritative and accurate as any other source out there, right from the horse's mouth (the scientists) you could say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Holst (talk • contribs) 00:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the article with new references, it's certainly better. Feel free to submit it again when you think it's ready. Don't be discouraged if it's declined again, you're off to a great start. CharmlessCoin (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

another reviewer accepted it. I however do not think it has any potential as a separate article distinct from the company, and though I as an admin could reasonably have simply deleted it as G11-entirely promotional, I decided to nominate it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Body by Vi Challenge. You might want to see my comments there. You were in my opinion quite right to reject it, and the only thing I would have done differently is to try even harder to make it plain from the first that it could not appropriately be a separate article. We need to watch out for promotionalism, and especially the common promotional trick of trying to get as many articles as possible for a single enterprise, or we will no longer be an encyclopedia.

I've seen some of the comments above. I urge you to continue to maintain the standards as you have been doing. The standard for acceptance at AfC is that the article would have a very good chance of being kept at AFD. (not on the one hand that it would just squeak by Speedy, or on the other that it must qualify as a Good Article) As I tell contributors who are unhappy about this, we do them no favor by having them rewrite articles only to get them deleted in the end. If they are really dissatisfied, and prepared to receive possibly unpleasant comments, they do have the right to simply insert the article in mainspace themselves no matter what we reviewers say. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're refering to the Body by Vi, I don't believe that I ever reviewed it at AfC. I'll be glad to take a look at it in AfD though, it certainly doesn't appear to warrant it's own article. CharmlessCoin (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Editor,

I thank you for the last revision of my article for creation/INTERACT , that you can find in this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/INTERACT .

This is the second revision my article is submitted to and the reason for decline is the same: not proper reference links.

I recognize that in the first decline some links given as references, which came from European Commission website, were are not that reliable as required in Wikipedia edition guidelines, as the linked pages were labelled as archived content.

So, I searched for valid content in European Commission website and replaced the archived pages by updated links, which refer to institutional and official European Union information online pages, of which credibility can not be questioned. All information available in European Union (EU) websites comes from legal acts and documents and is submitted to accurate revisions. INTERACT is currently in force, is a programme of European Union, created by European Union institutions. After these declines, I’ve been consulting the Wikipedia Guidelines Referencing for Beginners, and I quote: “References (refs) on Wikipedia are important to validate writing and inform the reader.” I question, which links are more suitable to validate information about INTERACT programme once this programme was created by EU political institutions (European Commission included), is regulated by EU Regulations and its implementation is overviewed by EU institutions. Besides the references to the European Commission website, the articles also provides as references links some pages of the INTERACT official webpage.

So, I do not understand the reason of second decline of my article. I was also searching programmes which run under the European Territorial Cooperation Objective, as INTERACT, and there are also European Union institutions’ websites provided. Could you please clear me about specific criteria I should follow in order to comply with Wikipedia References guidelines so that I can see my article submitted?

Thank you, Kind Regards Dina Sebastião — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsebasti (talk • contribs) 11:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heu, Dina. First of all, thanks for writing the submission, we all appreciate your efforts.

But to address your question, I declined it because of lack of secondary sources. While your references certainly explain enough about the subject, they are also the people that approved and created the program, correct? Take a look at WP:QS for some information on what might be questionable sources. Generally, sources that are affiliated with the subject can't be used, for conflicting interests. Surely you could find some newspaper articles or interviews on on television/radio about INTERACT. Those would definitely satisfy the need for secondary sources.

The second reason, that I briefly mentioned in the comment, was that there are no inline citations. They're pretty useful when reading an article, without them it seems like the article doesn't have any reference, and makes information very difficult to find. (especially looking for a reference to a specific line) So please take a look at INCITE, and put some into the article.

If you can get both of these things done, I'm sure it will pass. The article is pretty good other than these issues. CharmlessCoin (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear CharmlessCoin,

I've added some new lins das References in the article INTERACT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/INTERACT) according to what was suggested in the declination explanations. I've saved the changes, but I didn't get any message saying that the articles was resubmitted and I was also searching for an option for that, but didn't find. Could you please tell me if the articles is actually in the list for revision, or do I need to do somehing else, or rewrite all the article? Thank you. Kind Regards Dina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsebasti (talk • contribs) 19:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. I've been really busy lately. As for resubmitting your article, there seems to be some problems with the software used to decline and accept articles. I could manually submit it, but your article is being looked at right now to see if it can help fix it. I'll be happy to tell you how to manually submit your article as soon as it's done being looked over! CharmlessCoin (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

INTERACT is now fixed so it can be re-submitted. There were two "small declines" there, one should've remained normal as it included the extra info, including the re-sub option. — WylieCoyote (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you look at the new edit? The second editor, Hair, got it mixed up with another version, declined it, and hasn't responded to my note to her. If you can't if you could set it up so that I could resubmit the article to the editors again. thanks!--Aichikawa (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at it, thanks for making some improvements to it. Seems much better than before. So if I'm correct, you're asking for another review? I'd be happy to review it if that's the case! CharmlessCoin (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. thanks--Aichikawa (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just accepted Tricia McLaughlin. Thanks for the article, and thanks for working on it to get it approved! CharmlessCoin (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank YOU. --Aichikawa (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CharmlessCoin,

Thanks for your notes about language on my article. I appreciate the clarity on commercial aspects of Wiki articles. That aspect of body size perceptions is important to explaining why Heavyweight Yoga is notable. In the textbook that you can't reference, the author interviews Lentz to get that story. From my reading of it, it is his a way of telling us that acceptance of size is an enabling trait of the practice. It's not just Lentz that does this. She's teaching others how to do it, which to my eye is what takes this from a business to a practice of yoga with a reach beyond her own efforts.

I'll work with your notes and see how we can meet in the middle on this. I do feel like Bikram shouldn't be getting those details you cited on his page, but sometimes life is unfair.

Ronseybold (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear that Heavyweight Yoga is notable, you have sources for that. And that could easily be put into the introductory paragraph, which is what I would do.

The Bikram article has quite a few issues with citations and tone, and I intend to go through that a little later on and see what I can fix.

I think your article is just about ready, just needs some small language work done, which I do believe you're almost done with. Good luck, and feel free to ask any questions you have. I'll try my best to answer them. Happy editing! CharmlessCoin (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1835 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our help desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. Plus, reviewing is easy when you use our new semi-automated reviewing script! Thanks in advance, Nathan2055talk - contribs

	The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar
	Congratulations, CharmlessCoin! You're receiving The AFC Barnstar because you reviewed 122 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! Mdann52 (talk) 11:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CharmlessCoin. You have new messages at Talk:Suicide_of_Amanda_Todd.
Message added by Theopolisme at 02:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hi CC -

Thanks so much for reviewing our article. Do you have any specific suggestions for improvements that would make it approvable? We specifically tried to model it after the other apps listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_time_tracking_software I can't quite figure out where we're going wrong.

Thanks so much! Kelly

Kellydrill (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting in touch! The main problem I see that makes it "ad-like," is the list of features. Other than that, you could use a few more references to establish notability. Take a look at WP:ORG for some help there. Let me know if you have anymore questions! CharmlessCoin (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any progress on it? If not, tag should be removed. — ^Wylie_Coyote 19:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm new(ish) to Wikipedia and most of what I've been doing is patrolling. I don't know exactly how AfC works but Priority Material Office was recently moved from it to mainspace. To me it looks like the main contributor to the article was tired of getting declied and just moved it themselfs but again I'm not sure how it works so could you look at it to see if anything was done wrong? I sent you this message because from the logs it looks like you were the last person to review it. PhantomTech (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for receiving this message so late, and I trust that you have found assistance from elsewhere in the time I made you wait! School and what not has kept me incredibly busy lately.

In any event, AfC is the place where articles go to be reviewed before being moved into the mainspace. It was created to keep the quality of articles up, and assist new/unregistered editors in creating their first article. If an editor is auto-confirmed (has a few good edits to their name), they can create an article without going through AfC.

It's also possible to review your own article, as AfC frequently has a backlog, and it's understand the wait can get rather long. Because of that, sometimes an editor will simply move their own article into the mainspace without an AfC member doing it for them. Thanks for getting in touch to ask, and again, I'm sorry for not getting back. CharmlessCoin (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Penis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

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

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

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. --Mdann52talk to me!

This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I have opened an RfC about suggested guidelines in the Manual of Style for articles about living members of families whose ancestors were deposed as monarchs of various countries and the titles and "styles" attributed to these living people, at the moment often in a misleading and inaccurate way in my opinion. Please join in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies "Use of royal "Titles and styles" and honorific prefixes in articles and templates referring to pretenders to abolished royal titles and their families"[1]Regards,Smeat75 (talk) 07:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CharmlessCoin:

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

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

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. EdwardsBot (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) at 09:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CharmlessCoin! There is a discussion that your input is requested on! I look forward to your comments, thoughts, opinions, criticisms, and questions!

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

This message was composed and sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CharmlessCoin:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014.

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

The AfC helper script can assist you in tallying your edits automatically. To view a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Sent on behalf of (t) Josve05a (c) by {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} using the MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please join discussion for how Chile should be colored. Prcc27 (talk) 08:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CharmlessCoin! You're receiving this notification because you were previously subscribed to the Feedback Request Service, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over three years.

In order to declutter the Feedback Request Service list, and to produce a greater chance of active users being randomly selected to receive invitations to contribute, you've been unsubscribed, along with all other users who have made no edits in three years or more.

You do not need to do anything about this - if you are happy to not receive Feedback Request Service messages, thank you very much for your contributions in the past, and this will be the last you hear from the service. If, however, you would like to resubscribe yourself, you can follow the below instructions to do so:

1. Go to the Feedback Request Service page.
2. Decide which categories are of interest to you, under the RfC and/or GA headings.
3. Paste {{Frs user|{{subst:currentuser}}|limit}} underneath the relevant heading(s), where limit is the maximum number of requests you wish to receive for that category per month.
4. Publish the page.

If you've just come back after a wikibreak and are seeing this message, welcome back! You can follow the above instructions to re-activate your subscription. Likewise, if this is an alternate account, please consider subscribing your main account in much the same way.

Note that if you had a rename and left your old name on the FRS page, you may be receiving this message. If so, make sure your new account name is on the FRS list instead.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the Feedback Request Service talk page, or on the Feedback Request Service bot's operator's talk page. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]