Open main menu
Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15


Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Commitment-based Management (2nd attempt)

I am somewhat frustrated. I have twice attempted to submit an article on Commitment-based Management. I have referred to a book in which this material features, and have referred to newspaper articles and journals in which the results of this work appear. Enterprises win awards due to performance delivered by CbM

I am passionate about CbM, it is enormously powerful, and its results are amazing.

I am suffering from brain cancer, currently in remission. I am very keen to contribute a whole series of articles and case studies on CbM, but I need to get started!


David (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC) — Comment moved from User:Alpha Quadrant by Mabdul (talkcontribs)

Hello David, I declined the article because it didn't cite any sources or references. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, all information needs to be written in a neutral point of view and verifiable in reliable sources. If information cannot be verified in reliable sources, then it is considered original research, and the information should be removed. In order to establish a topic's notability, there should also be ideally be reliable sources that are also unaffiliated (third party) with the subject. Presently, it doesn't look like there are any references in the article. If you have references, you might wish to read referencing for beginners. It explains how to add references to an article. I hope this helps you. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry Hodak

Is it a mistake or was you intention to link to the WP:NBIO section of the failed proposal Wikipedia:Notability (natural sciences)? Or do you wanted to link to Wikipedia:Notability (people)? In latter case the shortcut is WP:BIO. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 17:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. I meant to link to Wikipedia:Notability (people) and I thought WP:NBIO was a shortcut to that guideline. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I will correct my mistake. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My article for Serge Lamothe

Well the article was requested by the author himself, and is practically a perfect duplicatev of the french entry, wich I also did. So I don't understand the rejection ! Please help me with this ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I declined the article because it did not have any reliable sources. I took a look at the French Wikipedia entry when I did the review. While there is an article on the French Wikipedia, it does not have any sources either. In order for the information to be verifiable, there needs to be at least one reliable source. Could you please add at least one reliable source, such as a newspaper article, a magazine article, or other media release by an organization with a strong reputation for fact checking. Sources do not need to be online, nor do they need to be in English. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Category creation request

Could you help review the request for Category:Chinese expatriates in Hong Kong? Sources have been submitted upon request. It's now near the top of the page. Thanks. (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged Part 2 Question

Hello, thanks for reviewing my article! You mentioned that the article already existed on Wikipedia, and this is true since I uploaded it directly before doing the article creation process. My question is: why is it that when I search for "Atlas Shrugged Part 2" I cannot find it? Is the article already on Wikipedia live yet? Thanks! JR00576 (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is located at Atlas Shrugged: Part 2. I have created a redirect at Atlas Shrugged Part 2, so you should be able to find it with a search now. It may take up to three days for it to appear in suggested searches though. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

THANKS! JR00576 (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Surturz/AdminWatch

User:Surturz/AdminWatch, a page you are mentioned on, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Surturz/AdminWatch (2nd nomination). Toddst1 (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Hong Kong expatriates in the People's Republic of China

Category:Hong Kong expatriates in the People's Republic of China, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Apollo Hospitals India Representative Office Sri Lanka Medref Services

Hi, My Article on "Apollo Hospitals India Representative Office Sri Lanka Medref Services" had two third party references. But you have reviewed as; "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable, independent sources."

1. "Services of Apollo Hospitals accessible from Sri Lanka again", DailyFT, Sri Lanka, 08 February 2012. Retrieved on 12 February 2012. 2. "Apollo Hospitals opens rep office in Sri Lanka", Daily News, Sri Lanka, 09 February 2012. Retrieved on 12 February 2012.

Both are leading daily online and print newspapers in Sri Lanka. I doubt whether anyone in Sri Lanka be able to provide better sources. Therefore could you kindly reconsider the review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshasubhashana (talkcontribs) 22:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not really sure a separate article is warranted. On it's own, this subject really doesn't meet the notability guidelines for organizations. It would be better to add this brief article on a particular representative office to the main article, Apollo Hospitals India. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


I wonder if it might not be possible to relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesko Friedrich, for further editor discussion. I note that if one reads the 3 stated keep rationales, they were less than solid. They relied on such things as on sources that might exist but had not been verified to exist, or matters that might be notable, but had not been verified to be notable, with the editors hoping that others with sources might appear at the discussion to indicate if the sources were properly supportive or the awards/shows/parts might be notable. One wrote (emphasis added) "This really needs someone with a better knowledge of German television (and the German language) than I have but so far as I can tell, he seems to be one of the better-known German television satirists, with coverage to match. The Adolf Grimme Award which he and Dennis Kaupp won in 2009 ... looks to me as if it may in itself be enough for ANYBIO.", and a second wrote "The Google news link above lists several potential German-language sources. Also, Friedrich is a published author, which may confer to notabilty: ... Rather than outright deletion, this topic appears to need the attention of editors fluent in German to help ascertain this topic's notability. Adding rescue tag to article. ... I posted a notice at Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board asking for assistance with this article.", and a third editor wrote: "If that's a notable award, then the guy is notable. If any of the shows he created or played a significant part in, are notable, than so is he. [1] Does the German Wikipedia have articles for any of these things?". Allowing more time for the editors that all three keep !voters hoped might show up to show up would, I think, be a good thing. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion had already been open for 14 days. While I agree the keep rationales were fairly weak, the only user arguing for deletion was the nominator. The keep votes appeared to based on the fact that because the person is in a country where the primary language is German, there may be reliable third party sources in German. In order for this to be determined one way or another, a German speaker would need to look through this google news search and see if the subject has received significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Reopening the AfD won't resolve this question, unless on the off chance a German speaking editor stumbles across the debate. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I think it would be appropriate -- especially where, as here, the matter is controversial for the reasons I mention -- to have a second relisting, though I agree that a third would be unusual (per WP:RELIST; "in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice"). As you point out, relisting has the benefit of a German speaker seeing the debate -- and as indicated at the AfD itself, mention of the AfD has now been listed, for just that purpose, at the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. That would be helpful -- given those admissions of keep !voters to the effect that they have not seen the sources they surmise may exist (or do not know whether certain awards/shows/parts are notable) but are just assuming it (which seems to run somewhat counter to wp:v ... if sources to exist (or don't), it would be helpful to have a close based on verifiable sourcing/notability rather than "if such sources were to exist". Thanks for your consideration. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I have asked User:Mabdul to check the Google news search for reliable sources, as he is a native speaker of German. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
That's great. If he is busy, I know of another German-speaking editor who has been around since 2007, and who is excellent, who would be worth asking to take a look IMHO. I've seen him do very careful work in similar circumstances. I note that the user talkpage of the editor you helpfully contacted says: "This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries." Would it be possible to open the page in the meantime? As one of the keep editors indicated -- he left a request for help. It will not be the best result perhaps if a responding editor comes to a closed page. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi -- I know you've been busy, so you may have missed this. Given that the close is controversial, and this has only been extended once, and that we have existing requests at the German wikipedians page pointing them to the AfD -- which is not helping, as the AfD appears closed, and those wikipedians who follow it may never return to it -- I would appreciate it if you would re-open the AfD. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I can reopen it. Would you prefer that I relist the current AfD, or would you like me to open a fresh AfD. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks. I think that relisting the current AfD would perhaps be fairer, as it would retain the three delete !votes. Also, presumably that would also allow the existing requests for further German-fluent editor input. Do you think it would be OK if I were to seek input from the one German speaking editor I mentioned?--Epeefleche (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Done. I don't see any problem with consulting the other German speaking editor. I spoke with Mabdul in IRC about a half hour ago, and he said he would try and look over the sources later today. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. The fact that he won the "Grimme Preis" indicates that he is indeed notable. (that German award can be compared to a won tournament of the French Open in tennis). I will try to find some good references in a few mins... mabdul 23:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi. Thanks for looking at this. Are you saying that he himself won such an award? The article does not indicate that -- rather, it says that a segment in which he appeared won an award, but not that he won an actor award.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Alpha -- the relist appears not to have taken root. Going to the article itself, there is no indication that it is at AfD. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
D'oh, I forgot to add the AfD tag to the article. I relisted it on the daily log, but I didn't readd the tag. My apologies, it is now done. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-free image gallery

Could you explain the rationale for deleting former logos of a current company (e.g. Sirsi Corporation, others)? Was there a discussion I could read through as to why these should be removed? I would think it would have value to the historical context of articles. —GreenwoodKL (t, c) 01:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Logos and WP:NFG largely outline the reasons. Under non-free content criterion #3, only one file should be used in the place of multiple files, if one file will reasonable suffice. While it would be nice to have a history of a company's logos, because the files are unfree, it would be very difficult to justify their usage under non-free content criterion 8. (Note that the non-free content criteria were constructed by with legal considerations in mind.) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Criss Jami

Hello, I submitted an article for the author Criss Jami. The article was declined stating that the subject lacked music-related notability, however the article was about a notable author. I'm confused as to what I should re-submit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKILLOSOPHER (talkcontribs) 03:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

With {{subst:submit}}, of course. But looking at the submission, there's no way I can see how the author is notable. The article is not adequately supported with reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and the references are also not correctly formatted in the format of inline citations. --Bmusician 04:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Iron Horse (video game)

Hello, Alpha. I submitted an article about an old arcade game named Iron Horse but it was rejected due to not having any references. I then added them but it was again declined citing the references as unreliable. My main reference is, which covers all video game info and belongs to CBS. I also included links to game artwork from which has been around for several years as well. My question is, how are these sources not reliable? And doesn't a scan of an actual flyer or marquee provide strong proof of the article in question? I have submitted articles for video games using GameFaqs as reference before and never had this kind of problem. I don't want my article declined again and I know some things need to be corrected, but I'm confused as of what to do next. What do you suggest? Thank you. Beacon of Hope (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Beacon of Hope, I declined the article because the sources currently in the article all have brief passing mentions of the game and/or the information is unreliable. For example, Gamefaqs is not a reliable source because it is user submitted content. It is enough to establish that the game exists, but there isn't enough coverage to establish that the subject meets the notability guidelines. I did a google news search on the game, but I couldn't find anything. Given that the game was released in 1986, it is likely any news coverage of the game is offline. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nenad Grujičić

Can you help me with the article about Nenad Grujicic? I think I've done everything right. What do I need to change to meet your criteria? Milena — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milenagru (talkcontribs) 15:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Milenagru, presently, the article submission relies heavily on the person's official website and one of the person's books. While these sources are reliable, they are affiliated with the subject. In order to establish the notability of the person, there needs to be significant coverage in reliable third party sources. I don't have access to the third source, so I was unable to determine whether or not the source is unaffiliated with the subject. Could you please add two or more reliable sources that are unaffiliated with the subject. Preferably using footnotes (see Referencing for beginners for instructions on how to do this). As this is a biography of a living person, all information in the article needs to be verifiable in reliable sources. Information that cannot be verified is considered original research, and should be removed. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Editing First Paragraph

How do I edit the first paragraph in my submission (Zero Propellant Maneuver)? There is an edit option for every other paragraph except the first.--Nsb2421 (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

To edit the first section of an article, you can click the "edit" button at the top right corner of the screen near the search bar. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Category requests

Hello, Alpha Quadrant. You have new messages at's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

inre Him Ganga Hum

Interesing situation. If you read the text of this screening announcement, you will see it was identical to the "Synopsis" section formerly seen here. I have removed it. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the kind words at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars Pez.

Bearian (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


Hello, Alpha Quadrant. This is a follow up to a request at AFC/R, one was missed. Could you complete one last redirect:

No need to respond, I'll just wait for it to turn blue. Thanks for your help, Rgrds. -- (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I couldn't find a redirect request like that, but I have created the redirect nonetheless. Best, Bmusician 14:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Cisco Systems acquisitions

I remembered seeing this some time ago. I had proposed speedy deletion (A7) on a fair number of stubs that said basically "X was a [tech company]. It was acquired by Cisco on [date]." Some carried and others did not. Might be a good idea to kick it up to the next step. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Crappy article

I'm very concerned about this, i.e., the fact that you moved such a crappy article from AfC into article space. It's based almost entirely on primary sources, much of it is unreferenced, and in many instances the references present don't actually verify the content. I realize that the editor requesting creation and could have created a crappy article all on his own -- but why facilitate it for him? It should have been declined, especially as a BLP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does rely on primary sources, and it does have a somewhat promotional tone. With that said, the issues with the article aren't damning. The issues can be fixed with a bit of work. While I would indeed prefer that every article moved to mainspace is neutral, well written, and well sourced, it isn't currently possible. There is just a handful of reviewers at AfC, and on average, we get at least 270 article submissions a day. While the article I accepted had a few minor issues, it is unlikely the article will be deleted. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
This response completely misses the point. Issues like this in a BLP are not minor, they're major. If there are too many articles to review, that reinforces the case for accepting only the good ones; it hardly follows from "too many submissions" that one should accept crappy ones. Look, I see you are on "editor review", so take it on board: that was a poor decision, the last thing this project needs is more poorly-sourced BLPs. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
SOFIXIT. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
No -- you really don't get it. It shouldn't have been created. If it should/could have been fixed, the person wanting the article should have been led to do that before accepting it via AfC. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
It looks like there are 7 statements that are unsourced or the source doesn't verify the information. I am going through and adding sources to those statements. There is nothing libel or defamatory about the statements, it is just information about what organizations he was/is affiliated with, and what degrees he currently has. I'll try and eliminate the promotional tone as well. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
(EC) No, it's not that we don't get it, it's that we don't agree with you. And that's the bit that you don't get. Part of the wikipedia way is that articles tend to improve more rapidly once they're promoted; and if we want an AfC process that users buy into, we don;t get that by creating unmanageable backlogs. I've looked, quickly, at the 7th Feb version which was promoted and I find plenty of NN refs. Finally, and not to put to fine a point on it, I think the tone of an earlier post of yours to AQ - "I see you are on "editor review", so take it on board: that was a poor decision" - was way out of line, deeply uncivil and arrogant. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The editor wants feedback -- I gave it to him, and I see no need to apologize. He created a crappy BLP -- the last thing we need around here. The way to avoid creating unmanageable backlogs is to decline to create articles that aren't written and sourced properly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, thanks for your contribution, Nomoskedasticity. You can see nothing wrong with your world view or way of communicating, even when others point out there may be issues. Hu hum. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Funny thing -- that's the message I was conveying to Alpha_Quadrant... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Funny, because he did not create it. Why don't you work in the AFC backlog for a little while, and let us criticize you as you have just torn AQ apart. As a wise man once said, "Do not criticize someone's job performance unless you have done it before." Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── If you don't mind, could you please wait until after I am done cleaning up the article before slapping more tags up? Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding more primary sources is not cleaning it up. Credit where it's due: removing the promotional text is an improvement. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Please see WP:PSTS, first party sources may be used, but they should be used with care. In this case, the primary source is merely verifying his affiliation with an organization. While a third party sources are preferable, first party sources may be used to verify this type of information. A bit of work still needs to be done, but I believe I removed the majority of the problem. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The policy with greater relevance here is WP:BLPPRIMARY, which says: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source..." That's a pretty strong requirement. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
You failed to quote the sentence directly before and after that sentence. That particular policy explains that they should be used with care, under limited circumstances, and that the no original research policy is applicable. This source just verifies the year he joined the organization. There are third party sources supporting the fact that he is a member. So "primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source" has been covered anyway. It just didn't list the year that he joined. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Which is the secondary source that establishes he is a member of that organization? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
He is the sub-organization's CEO, how can he be unaffiliated with the organization. Read the very first sentence of Institute of Rural Management.

There is plenty of news sources that verify this example. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I seem to have stirred up this hornets nest, I posted this article at the BLP noticeboard. I was just looking for third-person perspective after the exchange on my talk-page. I feel bad :( Pol430 talk to me 22:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Relisted AfD's

I'm not sure if you're using a script to relist AfD's, but some of your recent ones haven't been working 100%. The relisting template was added to the AfD, but it wasn't correctly transcluded to the new log page or un-transcluded from the old log page. Myself and Snotbot have fixed a few today. Might want to take a look at it. Best, —SW— gossip 22:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that when I was reviewing today's log. I normally use User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js. It looks like for some reason it didn't relist two of the debates. Usually this happens when the script edit conflicts, but in the past, it gave me a message warning me about it. In which case I manually corrected it. Thanks for the notice, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Trying to put together article about Canadian writer Janice MacDonald


Thanks for your feedback, but I'm a little mystified about what kind of sources would meet the criteria. Your comments said that I need independent and reliable sources to prove the subject's noteability, and I had included several newspapers, a magazine, and TV station, and CBC Radio (our national broadcaster). If these won't work, can you help me understand what you're looking for? Ms. MacDonald has written several Canadian best-sellers and isn't on Wikipedia anywhere.

Thanks, Randy Williams Edmonton, AB — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandywilliamsCA (talkcontribs) 23:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Randy Williams, the problem is that the majority of the last two thirds of article submission relies entirely on the subject's official website and the publisher's website. While these are reliable sources, the subject needs to have received significant coverage in reliable third party sources (sources unaffiliated with the subject) in order to meet the notability guidelines for biographies. The first third of the article appears to be well sourced with reliable sources. However, the two thirds of the article relies entirely on sources affiliated with the subject. If possible, could you please add two a few reliable sources to the last two thirds of the article. After this is done, I believe I can accept the article submission. If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to help. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi again,

I've done a major rewrite and have taken out ALL references from the author and/or her publisher. I believe this new version will meet your criteria to accept the article submission.

Thank you, Randy Williams

RE: Comments from I AM EQUAL (photo documentary) article

Thanks for your review of the article, but I'm not completely clear on what your comments mean or how to resolve them. The specific example you gave in your comments that the sentence "was created to encourage individuals to get more active in educating, inspiring, and empowering their friends and family to make a positive difference in their communities and the world." is a summary of the explanation given by the the founders as quoted in several cited sources. Because the section that sentence is in is "HISTORY" I would assume that it should contain information about why the project wast started. As far as I know, it is not debatable "why" it was started, because the articles have all been pretty clear about the reasons. So I'm a bit confused. I really want to make this article work, but I just don't know what you mean from the notes. I've worked with other Wiki editors (i.e. OldYeller) to get it to this point...and it's a lot better than it was, and I really just want to make it work. Your note also indicated that the 21 cited sources from newspapers, magazines, and local news outlets were not enough for this article to be approved. I'm not sure what more I could have included that would meet the criteria you're talking about. I could really use some additional clarifications on your determination for this article. Thanks  Steinway1701Talk | 00:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this article is really well done. There is just a bit of promotional language still present in the article. The example I gave in the article isn't written in a neutral tone. If the statement is cited in reliable sources, then you could use the statement. However, because this statement is not neutral, you need to be clear as to who holds this view. You could write something like
While the statement isn't neutral, it is clearly attributing who holds this view. There are a few other statements throughout the article that aren't neutral. For example, in the "photo activism" section, the statement "The popularity of social networks... has fueled the viral success of the project since its inception." Saying that the event is a "viral success" is an opinion. The "Project Creators" section also uses quite a few non-neutral words. If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to assist. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarity and examples. I have already addressed the first line in HISTORY as you indicated. I think I am understanding better what you mean. I'll go through it again and see if I can clean up the madness. When I'm done and before I resubmit it, I'd love your eyes on it one more time if that's okay. Thanks  Steinway1701Talk | 00:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Sure, not a problem. I'd be happy to re-read the article after you are done. After you are done with rewording the sentences, I can just accept it, and you won't have to go through a resubmit. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Question about an article rejected on notability grounds

Hi, I recently submitted "Norris v. Moskin Stores, Inc." for review. You rejected it on Notability grounds. Since I'm pretty new to this, I read through the notability pages, but can't figure out what the problem is. While the article needs to be be fleshed out (it's definitely a bit stubbish), that doesn't go to notability. As far as I could tell, it satisfied all of the criteria for a presumption of notability, so is there a more subtle flaw I'm not yet experienced enough to spot? A court opinion from the highest court in a state announcing binding law on the citizens of that state, with persuasive authority in other state courts, seems notable, especially a case illustrating the development of the common law framework of later federal law (in this case, the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act). What am I missing? --Outis010 (talk) 06:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

In order to establish a subject's notability, it needs to have received significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Presently, there is only one source in the article, and it merely verifies the existence of the court case. Could you please add a few (at least two) reliable sources that are independent of the subject. For example, news coverage or other sources released by an organization with a strong reputation for fact checking. If you need any assistance, I would be more than happy to help. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Adding to that, the article needs the references correctly formatted in inline citations and also needs wikification. --Bmusician 06:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! I've added some additional references but I'm not sure if they're in the right spot. I've also tried to improve the format. How is it now? --Outis010 (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I updated the format a little bit myself so that the references would show up as well as italicizing the case name, as is the standard norm. -Fumitol|talk|cont 19:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

A fair question, please answer it

Do you work for Screen Gems, Sony Pictures Entertainment, or an associated company? 07:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Under the guidelines laid out at WP:OUTING, I will not confirm or deny the accuracy of inquiries of a personal nature. Thank you, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Your wikilawyering does not exempt you from a fair question based on a pattern of edits which may be due to a conflict of interest. It is a fair question and you have refused to answer it on what you perceive as technical grounds. You will neither confirm nor deny you have a conflict of interest. A per the philosphy of Occam's Razor, I believe the most likely explanation to some of your edits is that you do work for one of the organizations in question. This is not a personal attack, it is simply a fair question. Making edits based on conflicts of interest is against WP standards. No amount of wikilawyering will change that fact. (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
And might I ask what you are basing this alleged conflicting interest on? Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
@The anon IP; Per WP:OUTING, "attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block". You can believe what you want to believe; it's irrelevant. But, continuing your behavior or attempted outings WILL result in a block, nevermind the blatant personal attacks you are making. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
mhm, interesting, evidently I am a "copyright nazi" now. I am honored. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • It _IS_ a badge of honor! You're not a true NFCC patroller until someone calls you a copyright/nfcc/fair use nazi. Careful now. If you keep it up, someone might accuse you of being a mindless automaton or even a real knee biter. Oh the horror honor! --Hammersoft (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  The Copyright Barnstar
For being a 'Copyright Nazi' Fumitol|talk|cont 17:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Clearing the big backlog at CAT:PEND would have been impossible without your help. Best, Bmusician 08:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Nor would I have been able to clear it without your help. I hope to continue seeing you around at AfC. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

morarka organic

the references quoted in the article on Morarka Organic are from independent national reputed newspapers in India and and the other magazines are reputed industry magazines in pharmaceutical industry. I dont understand why are the being disregarded as non reliable and not independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjunnair85 (talkcontribs)

Hmm, it looks like the article did not have a {{reflist}} under the reference section. As a result, the references weren't showing up. I have added it to the article. The article appears to still have a bit of a promotional tone though. Could you please remove or reword the promotional content, so that the article is written in a neutral point of view. If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to help. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

i have rephrased the lines to bring forth a neutral point of view... Request you to review and contribute as per your convenience — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjunnair85 (talkcontribs) 09:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jan V. White.

hello - Be most grateful for a steer here.

Is it the citations or the notability that's at issue ?

The sources seem to me both reliable and independent, and White's notability seems to fit

With thanks Ekphraster (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Presently, there are five sources used in the article. References one and two are duplicates of one-another. While it is reliable, the independence of the source is questionable, as it was published by the college that he attended. I don't have access to source three, so I am unable to analyze the source. I'll assume that it is a reliable source independent of the subject. Source four cites a museum, but Jan White is only mentioned in two brief sentences. The last source cites wordpress, and like all other blogs, the reliability is questionable. In order to clearly establish the subject's notability, could you please add at least two reliable sources that are completely independent of the subject. If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to help. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

hi - notes 1, 4 and 5 are there to support the factual content, respectively education at Cornell, parentage & offspring. There are no duplicates.

It's notes 2 and 3 that I contend argue reliably & independently for his notability. Are they not enough ?

Thanks Ekphraster (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Uhh... Thanks, I guess

I thought a sandbox page should be only edited by the user themselves. The picture was just find where it was, but then again, I was going to remove it anyways. So, thank you? :P Devin Davis (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed the file from your sandbox because the file is non-free. Under non-free content criteria #9, non-free files may not be used outside of article space. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what to do here, AQ?

Was poking around new submissions and categorizing when I saw this which you just approved and this. Same author has worked both, but I did not see any plans to fix anything on the talk pages. I can work it, but not sure of normal procedure in this situation. :- ) DCS 00:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see any problems with the list. Do you have a specific concern? Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The list was also in the article.  They removed the list from the article, and I added reciprocal hat notes.  All handled.  Sorry to bother. :- ) DCS 18:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

FYI, articles which go through AfD and are closed as "Keep" are not eligible for speedy deletion, except in the case of copyright violation (or a few technical ones, like making way for a pagemove). If you're unhappy with an old AfD, you need to run an article through that ringer again. Cheers, WilyD 18:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I hadn't seen that it had previously been taken to AfD. I have renominated the article. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Template "Disputed"

I have noticed that the template "Disputed" is malfunctioning... For example, "{{disputed|The additions by user "Sholokhov"|date=February 2012}}" (as in article "Georgy Zhukov") results in "This The additions by user "Sholokhov"'s factual accuracy is disputed. Please help to ensure that disputed facts are reliably sourced. See the relevant discussion on the talk page."... That "This The additions by user "Sholokhov"'s factual accuracy" doesn't seem right. I suspect that this malfunction started after your edit [1], which was meant to make the first parameter say if a section or an article is being tagged... Unfortunately, it is also expected that the same first parameter will be the name of the talk page section...

Thus, is it safe to revert that edit, or do some external tools (or something) depend on new behavior? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit. I was attempting to standardize the template with the other cleanup templates. My apologizes, evidently, I broke the current functionality in the process. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Donnan article

Thank you for contacting me about the Christopher Donnan article. I don't really anticipate doing anything further with it because I never planned on writing an article- I was just trying to help get you guys started/giving reasons why there should be one. (I was shocked that there wasn't already an existing article, although now that I've seen the paucity of online information for him the omission seems slightly more understandable, but still a startling oversight.) I really would've expected someone on Wikipedia with an interest in archaeology to have done this a long time ago, but it's true that pre-Columbian studies aren't as popular as, say, Egyptology, so I guess no one's gotten around to it yet.

I really only have a casual interest in Wikipedia, mainly because of some highly questionable behaviors I've seen by certain users. It's obvious that a more centrally controlled system with more oversight is required. But I digress... I'd only like to suggest that someone create a Donnan article because your encyclopedia is lessened by the lack of one. Thanks again for writing to me, and hopefully the scarce information I was able to gather will be somewhat helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The subject does appear to meet the notability guidelines. My concern is that there are three claims made in the article that need to have sources. I have highlighted them here. Saying that someone is one of the world's leading experts needs to have at least one source. Ideally, the use of numerous should be quantified. The last statement says that he "is widely regarded as a founding influence by other archaeologists in this field". That statement really needs to have at least one source for verification. The source doesn't have to be online, but there needs to be a source verifying that statement. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again, but like I said, I never planned on writing an article, so I'll gladly pass the torch. The statements I made about notability were to convince someone to write said article; unfortunately I don't have a printed source on hand, just some general knowledge and first hand quotes that would obviously be useless- possibly there's something in one of my references. (As I recall Lords of Sipan by Sidney D. Kirkpatrick touted him highly, although it's hardly an archaeological work; I'm sure other publications have as well. I have a terrible time finding information online- that alone should disqualify me as a Wikipedia author, I would think.)

I believe I also left links to Donnan's offices at UCLA for possible further fact gathering (although I can't guarantee he would welcome the publicity). Anyhow, good luck to you and to whoever actually ends up writing the article.

PS- It is noted that Donnan is 'one of the world's foremost experts on the Moche' here: although this is from a description of one of his books so I doubt it qualifies. Sorry- like I said, this is best suited to someone adept at online sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the article to articlespace. With any luck, someone will eventually expand the article. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Software companies

Hello, I've noticed you've been nominating a lot of software companies for deletion (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Software/Article_alerts). Might I kindly advice you to 1) significantly slow down the rate at which you are nominating these articles and 2) put a little more research effort into these nominations than simply concluding the article is currently lacking sufficient sources, enough research so that you do not have to use the same deletion rationale over and over again, nominations such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nu-Mega Technologies are bordering on the absurd.

If you choose to ignore this advice I can with almost certainty guarantee you the following will happen: because of 2) people will conclude they cannot take your word for it that these companies should in fact all be deleted and because of 1) they will feel put under too much pressure to find sources for a lot of articles in a short amount of time. The result will be a lot of "procedural keep" votes, articles that perhaps should have been deleted will be kept and your work will have been for nothing. Also see meta:Eventualism. —Ruud 01:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yesterday, I was going through Category:Software companies of the United States and recategorizing the articles into sub-categories. I checked google news, and nominated the articles that appeared to fail the notability guidelines. Near the end of the recategorization, I wasn't sure about another older software company, so I checked google books and I found quite a bit of coverage. I have checked over the current nominations with google books, and it appears that five of the twenty-seven articles nominated might meet the notability guidelines based on the google books coverage. I'll be sure to check google books in the future before making nominations. I apologize for my erroneously made nominations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

jack grinnage

Hi, saw my article for Jack Grinnage was rejected. Was curious as to why, as he is a famous actor. I sited his website, as well as 2 books that write about him, and IMDB.COM, which gives a complete listing of his many works. Seriously, you don't know who Jack Grinnage is? You've never seen Rebel Without A Cause? You've never watched Kolchak: The Night Stalker or Scrubs? I mean no disrespect, but Wikipedia lists people I've never heard of (like Richard Hanley -- who?) but a great well-proven actor like Grinnage isn't listed? I hope you'll reconsider ... my gosh, if you don't think Grinnage is noteable, then 99% of the people listed on Wikipedia are. Thank you. Best. Abbythecat (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, the current references cited are not reliable third party sources. In order to establish the subject's notability, they need to have received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, online news articles, books, or other media released by an organization with a strong reputation for fact checking. The subject's official website is a reliable source, but it is affiliated with the subject, so it doesn't really help establish the subject's notability. IMDb is independent of the subject, but it is not a reliable source because it is user generated content. The two book citations don't have enough information in order to verify the information, could you please see Template:Cite book for details on adding book citations. If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to help. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Abbythecat (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Thanks for explaining your decision; it makes sense now. Best. Abbythecat (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Paulinskill Viaduct

Thanks for making the image name more descriptive, but I would suggest "Paulins Kill Viaduct in Hainesburg, NJ.jpg" instead of the current "Pualins Kill Viaduct in Haineburg, NJ.jpg", in which both structure and location name are misspelled. Martindelaware (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The file had actually already been renamed once, I was just retargeting the links to the new filename. I have renamed the file to the suggested title and retargeted the incoming links. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/LordWillin

You tagged this for G12 speedy, but you didn't note the source page, and it's not so blatant that we don't need a source. I've declined the speedy deletion because there's no source page given; please revert me and add a link to the source or explain how it's otherwise a copyvio. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The first result of a Google search with a random text sample from the page was [2] (© 2011 Ill Roc Records. All Rights Reserved). Further comparison shows the text was taken verbatim. Deleted. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
That said, I agree with the procedural point, linking the source in the template makes our job much easier. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

List of comics publishing companies

Hi, I just saw your most recent edit. Those images are being discussed on the talk page. Not sure if you'd already seen that, but thought I should mention it since you're editing on the topic. Cloveapple (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'll drop a note in the discussion. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


Dear Alpha Quadrant,

I'd like some help with my article. I created it based on facts about D-STAR Lab(old name is ASIS Lab). You said my article is not adequately supported by reliable, independent sources. But I cited to the D-STAR Lab's website which is a subsite of the website of Ho Chi Minh University of Technology. I also cited to the homepage of Dr.Tran Khanh Dang who was founded this lab. Please tell me what is the problem with my sources. The Link: D-STAR Lab[3] Thank you very much.

Best regards,

Tuan Anh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuananh1988 (talkcontribs) 06:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

In order to establish a subject's notability needs to have received significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Meaning that the sources were released by an organization with a strong reputation for fact checking and the publishing organization is completely independent of the subject. Currently both sources listed are reliable, but they are also both affiliated with the subject. Could you please add two or more reliable third party sources to the submission; such as newspaper articles, magazines, books, or other media released by organizations with a strong reputation for fact checking. The sources don't need to be online, or even in English. If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to help. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Why am I not allowed to propose articles be deleted ?

Hi - I proposed a few pages be deleted and got a message saying I could be blocked for doing so. When I proposed Crackle of Death for deletion, the message said just by proposing it for deletion was "vandalism". So are we allowed to ask pages be deleted or not? If I propose another page for deletion, will I again be falsely accussed of "vandalism" and be "threatened" with a block? I forgot to log in before I proposed the deletions, but that shouldn't matter, should it? Exactly how much freedom do we have on Wiki? I thought it belonged to ALL of us -- me, too -- and now I'm not even allowed to request a deletion? What gives? Thank you. Respectfully, Abbythecat (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

In order to propose something for deletion, you need to give a policy reason for deletion. When you tagged the articles for deletion, you left the concern = parameter blank. Generally, if a topic meets the notability guidelines, then the article should not be nominated for deletion. I hope that answers your question. If you have any other questions, I would be more than happy to help. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Uh-oh ... I didn't know that. Sorry. Hope I'm not blocked. Thanks. Abbythecat Abbythecat (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
It's not a problem, everyone makes mistakes. The warnings given to you were equally wrong. The user who gave you the warning should have just explained this to you. I have informed the warning user that these warnings were not appropriate. On a side note, you might consider reading through the Reasons for deletion for future reference. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


  reviewing eyes
Thank you for reviewing in the Contributor copyright investigations/PumpkinSky! Paraphrasing (I hope not too closely): If everybody who reads this looked at one more article it could be over today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
It's over, thanks also to you! 719 of 729 articles were found with no problems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation appeal

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!

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 the are 4406 submissions waiting to be reviewed.

Do you have what it takes?
  1. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
  2. Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
  3. Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
  4. Are you autoconfirmed?
  5. 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.

--Bmusician 12:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, but it really isn't necessary. The first thing I check after logging in is the current status of the AfC backlog. Unless of course I have new comments on this page. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Apurve Mehra

My friend made this just placed a edit as had links in the body.

Apoorva is a real guy see this

Could you please approve this and if not can you make a edit please if you have the time.

Thank you so much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattseo (talkcontribs)

Hello Mattseo, the reason I declined it was because the article currently relies entirely on two sources that are both affiliated with the subject. In order to establish the subject's notability under the notability guidelines for biographies, the person needs to have received significant non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources. Reliable third party sources are sources where the publisher has a strong reputation for fact checking, and the publishing organization is completely independent of the subject. Could you please add two or more reliable third party sources. Thank you, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


I and some other editors are working on improving Tharasu. Could you take a second look at it's new shape? I'm asking you because you are the only person to post at the Afd so far. I'd appreciate your input whether it agrees with my own view or not. Cloveapple (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice work on the article. It appears the notability has now been established. I have withdrawn the AfD nomination. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for such a quick response. Cloveapple (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Rude anon.

Do you have any suggestions for how to deal with this user? He is clearly someone with whom I have tangled before, judging by his comments, though I have no particular recollection of him. My guess is that he will return, given his attitude. Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 17:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure why this IP jumped in on your talk page, it geolocates to the United Kingdom. The dispute he links to is between you and a Florida geolocated IP. It is possible you upset this person in the past, so they are stalking your edits. There are two ways to deal with this. You could just ignore it and continue editing, or you could attempt to resolve the issue with the IP. I think it might be worth it to try and get past disputes left in the past. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the 2nd idea. I doubt any good would result from engaging with him any further, so I will ignore him and carry on. I have an idea of who it might be, but speculation is pointless. Thanks for your suggestion. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 15:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

LIU Global

Thanks Alpha Quadrant for the move from Global College to LIU Global. Although the new URL does not reflect the name correctly. The name is now LIU Global, not Global College. So the URL should not say Global College, rather LIU Global. Can you change that too please? Thanks, Susan — Preceding unsigned comment added by SusanElizabethSmithLIUGlobal (talkcontribs) 21:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The URL, takes you to the article on LIU Global. However, there is a there is a redirect at Global College, so will also take you to the article. As it was the organization's previous name, the search term is plausible, so the redirect is kept. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Article for creation / Deletion


I proposed two newly created articles (currently existing as redirect) for deletion, for the reasons mentioned in the deletion proposal. Basically I don't think that we can find single articles where we can redirect the current articles (e.g. Kham, Amdo, Sichuan, Qinghai, Gansu, Yunnan are all partly related to Inner Tibet). Thanks to pass by if you have any comment. Here the articles:Inner Tibet, Outer Tibet. --Pseudois (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for disturbing again,
I think the issue is now solved. Deletion tags have been removed in both articles, see here for more information. --Pseudois (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


Hello, Alpha Quadrant. You have new messages at NCISfan2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks! NCISfan2 (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


Hi, I would appreciate more specific guidance. The previous reviewer commented that the article "reads like an ad". Following that review I made some changes to address this comment, and I sincerely do not think this is the case any more. Can you please point at specific offending text? Thanks. --Yaron (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There are two main concerns with the article. Firstly, the subject doesn't demonstrate why it meets the notability guidelines. Something that was launched this month more than likely does not meet the guidelines. The subject needs to have received a significant amount of coverage in reliable third party sources, meaning that the organization(s) that published the sources are not affiliated with the subject and the organization has a strong reputation for fact checking. The second issue with the article is the tone. Several sentences in the article are written in an advertising tone. (For example, the article refers to the organization's products as "solutions") As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, all information should be written in a neutral point of view and based on fact verifiable in reliable sources. Information that cannot be verified is considered original research and should not be used. If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to assist you. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:RD/C revert?

Hi. What makes you think this is vandalism? On the face of it, it seems like a perfectly legitimate question, but perhaps there's context I'm not aware of. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 19:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the editor's other six edits, and it appears that they were trolling. Given that the user was also blocked as a sockpuppet, I removed the reference desk query. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you're quite right. Silly me didn't check his history properly. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 19:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Genisys Credit Union

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Alpha Quadrant/Archive 14".