User talk:Davidwr/Archives/Archive 10

The Bug Squasher Award for Excellence

		The Bug Squasher Award for Excellence
		For your recent timely error report, I award you the Bug Squasher Award for Excellence in troubleshooting efforts. Thank you for catching this error so quickly! Thanks for your effort to test the beta version of the AFC helper script. Regards, mabdul 14:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, a barnstar with 6 legs, and not star-shaped, and not a barnstar.  :) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Article for submission: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Avelina_Florendo_(Avelina_Carbungco_Florendo)

David, I am really confused, you did say i have to change my username so that there won't be a conflict of interest. I tried to change it but it wont let me, I dont know if im doing it right. I tried to delete my account but im going in loops. I had my friend create a username instead and submitted the same article to avoid the conflict of interest. I am really not tech savvy. Is it a mistake that we submitted the same article by a different user/contributor? Also when we tried to copy paste the article on wikipedia's editor it looked right but when we hit submit the formatting was all wrong. Here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ciaraestrada/sandbox#Request_review_at_WP:AFC Help us please!

Thanks, ccsbakeshop

This is the old one I made: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Avelina_Florendo_(Avelina_Carbungco_Florendo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccsbakeshop (talk • contribs) 07:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, one thing at a time.

• First off, I'm only speculating that you have a conflict of interest because your current username suggests that you have some affiliation with the subject of the article you wrote about. There is nothing inherently wrong with having a conflict of interest for articles submitted through Articles for Creation (aka AFC). In fact, besides providing a way for new editors like yourself to contribute new articles, AFC also allows established editors like me to contribute an article where we would normally strongly discouraged from doing so (it's against the Wikipedia guidelines to write directly about something "close to you", see WP:COI).

So, if you do have close ties to this person, don't worry. You did the right thing by submitting through AFC. Likewise, if your friend has a "conflict of interest" in regards to this person, he's in the same situation you are.

• Second, your username appears to violate Wikipedia's Username Policy. I say "appears" because it suggests a close relationship with a company or organization. The violation is either 1) one of (unintentional, I presume) deception, if the account is yours and not the bake shop's, or 2) an violation of "accounts belong to individuals, not organizations, no transferring of accounts" if it does "belong" to the bake shop. If you have no ties to the bake shop at all AND you are the only editor, then there is no policy violation, but it is still confusing and it would be good idea to request that your username be changed anyways (see below).

If the account has only been used by one person, I recommend reading Wikipedia:Username_policy#Shared_accounts and Wikipedia:Username_policy#Changing your username and either abandoning this account and creating a new one or requesting a username change. Requesting a username change will re-attribute your existing posts to the new name, which is generally a good idea.

If it has been used by more than one person then you will need to abandon the account and each editor who wishes to keep editing Wikipedia will need to create a new account.

• Third, submitting the article a second time can cause confusion for article editors. IF you prefer the newer version to be used during the review, please add the following text to the TOP of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Avelina Florendo (Avelina Carbungco Florendo)

{{histmerge|User:Ciaraestrada/sandbox}}

If, on the other hand, you want the older version to be reviewed, ask Ciareastrada to erase the contents of User:Ciaraestrada/sandbox and replace it with the following

{{db-user}}

I hope this helps. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Media-Soft Inc.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Davidwr, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for all your great contributions related to a number of tasks! Keep up your wonderful work - Voidz (t·c) 18:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Robert Perless Article

reviewing Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robert Perless?

I am working with the author of the article. He is gathering some references that can be put in as inline citations to support the assertions being made. The main issue with the article is the original research aspect. Slowly but surely. Perless is a very interesting person and I judge meets the notability criteria but the article does not have the proper sufficient citations. Kanuk (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Distance From Earth to Moon In Light Seconds.gif missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:Distance From Earth to Moon In Light Seconds.gif

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 10:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Response on Notability Issues

Thanks for your review. I have provided reliable newspaper editorial and articles (in particular Andres Reynaldo of El Nuevo Herald in Miami) which ensures the facts are correct; however, the issue of notability is not just about facts, as I understand it. It ensures that the topic is a) important for history sake b)it is not repeated under other topics c) it is of interest of wide variety of people:

On a) this article is about a TV and radio pioneer in Cuba, Colombia and Puerto Rico, including a filmed screenplay in existence today recently shown in a film retrospective in PR as cited reference, as well as a theater pioneer in Miami by staging an actor as Fidel Castro, much like Chaplin acted Hitler. Additionally, breadth of the work included folk, popular and political satire as well. Pioneers are NOT repeatable and make history by default and, I believe, notability. b)the subject is not covered in any other article in Wikipedia, while many, like is the case of Gilda Galan, shows a reference to her being the actress to Mr. Gonzalez scripts but not how he came to write them. Is she, the actress, or her career notable and not him or his? c) Cuban Americans have made important contributions to the American way of life, but many are of an age of reviewing the history of their ancestors; can there really be no mention of this pioneering work to the generations of Cuban Americans to follow? Moreover, Mr. Gonzalez had a contribution in the development of popular comedy in Cuba, Colombia, Puerto Rico and Miami which suggests a common cultural thread entwining itself throughout this larger Hispacnic diaspora.

Considering the above, please do let me know why the notability is in question here?

CGLUQUE1958 CGLUQUE1958 (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I have updated the submission but left it in the "pending" queue. I hope a Spanish-speaking reviewer can approve it, otherwise I'll tackle it with a translator later this week. If any of the newspaper clippings you uploaded to the commons actually support the text of your submission, consider adding them as in-line citations where appropriate. Include the usual bibliographic information as you would any other newspaper reference, plus a short verbatim snippet of the Spanish text and the best available English translation, or your own if a professional translation is not available and if your translation skills are adequate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit tests on Bob Deitrick

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your edits to articles, such as the edit you made to Bob Deitrick. This is a common mistake to make and has probably already been corrected. Please do not sign your edits to article content, as the article's edit history serves the function of attributing contributions, so you only need to use your signature to make discussions more readable, such as on article talk pages or project pages such as the Village Pump. If you would like further information about distinguishing types of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! This is an automated message from 28bot. False positive? Please report it. 28bot (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI: this won't happen agin (see this discussion). mabdul 12:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Todd Lieberman bio

Please explain why the information on Todd Lieberman was rejected. It is his actual bio so it's fact. If it needs to be shortened or refined, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandevillepub (talk • contribs) 13:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

As explained in the grey boxes within the pink boxes, I declined the version of 02:37 April 7 because it had no references, the submission appeared to be a combination of an article about a person and an article about a company, and it included material which should not be in any article because it is promotional rather than encyclopedic. I also explicitly stated that there may be other issues with the article as it existed at the time.

The Earwig (alternate) (talk · contribs) declined the version of 15:02 16 April, with the comment that "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." I will not attempt to read his mind regarding other issues he has, but agree with his assessment of that version of the article.

I see you are drafting a new version at User:Mandevillepub/Todd Lieberman. As of the 13:11, 16 April 2013 version I see no references there and the above issues remain. You may want to visit The Wikipedia Teahouse to get some help to determine 1) if this person meets the criteria to be in Wikipedia, and 2) if he does, what is needed to get the article ready to move into the main part of the encyclopedia. It is possible that this person may not be notable enough to be in the project but that the company described in the draft is. Or vice-versa. Or neither or both may be notable enough for articles. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Followup: There may be other issues with the submission, but lack of references and the lack of the ability to even determine if notability requirements are met are so severe (see WP:Biographies of living persons) that further review at this point would take time away from the 1500+ other submissions that need to be reviewed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Cold Shot

I don't know what you're talking about? You and you alone declined the article based on the fact that Cold Shot was included I many articles of a magazine that only features unsigned acts which couldn't be farther from the truth! Now back then Rock City News and similar mags only delt with un signed acts but Screemer was and still is an International Magazine featuring major label acts! So your reason for declining the article was erroneous. Cold Shot clearly meets the notability requirements with their Magazine credits alone let alone the fact that they had two major songs in the Ilm Scross the Tracks as well as being Suicidal Tendencies guitarist Anthony Gallo's second band. His involvement alone meets the requirement being a Notable himself. Punkinfo (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

??? - I didn't decline it, Shearonink (talk · contribs) declined it at 07:10, 17 March 2013‎. About 3 hours earlier, I commented on the submission. My comments said that in 1987 the magazine featured unsigned local bands, and provided a link to screamermagazine.com saying as much. I also specifically said that they might or might not be still doing that during 1989 and 1990, the years in which the referenced material was published. In any case, you may want to to to Wikipedia:WikiProject Music's talk page and ask for help in 1) getting this submission in good shape and 2) using several different sources that are widely recognized as being reliable. As an "incentive" I would invite you to read WP:Did you know - if you get your submission in good shape before submitting it again, then as soon as it's submitted you can try to get it linked from Wikipedia's Main page for a few hours in the "Do you know" section. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

ref and ELs

(I'm writing with respect to Bulls Bears and the Ballot Box:

When there are references to third party source listed as external links, which is done by many beginners, but is especially common in promotional articles, the thing to do is not to move them to the talk page. If they are relevant content, especially in notability, to notability, as for example book reviews from reliable sources, add them to the article, if necessary making a new section to do so. If they are irrelevant entirely, or duplicate actual references, another comment problem, then just remove them. There is no need to preserve anything on the talk page--the edit history does that automatically. The talk p is not a supplement to an article. (I've fixed this article, but the refs still not formatting to be a ref to the article, not a bare links) DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

An Barnstar for You!

	The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar
	Congratulations, Davidwr! You're receiving the Invisible Barnstar because you reviewed 55 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) 12:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Jaylen Bledsoe

I agree with you declining the AFC, but... "Ms."? "her"? I think you should look again... — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

For spotting the flaw in the template that I had overlooked for 6 months - thanks :D Mdann52 (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Response on In-Line Citations

I have followed your suggestion to cite the journalists in the text of the article; it anchors the facts in the sources themselves. Thank you.

These articles are out of print, but I do have them for reference in full by email, should they be required.

I believe that the paraphrasing I have included in the article itself and snippet translation of all Spanish titles (self-evident to the topic) makes further article synopsis redundant, but it can be added if your further review suggests that. I have not found many examples of this in Wikipedia, so please do direct me to some if you do.

I hope that above will help the article to be acceptable now. Please advise.

CGLUQUE1958 CGLUQUE1958 (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for taking time to do cleaning up!

ADfan (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Your lack of consistency with your colleagues leaves me speechless. I have spent countless hours revising this article following advice to a point where it was deemed acceptable only to have it once again declined by you. The Index is a highly relevant tool used by mortgage brokers to learn about market forces in the bridging industry. It absolutely warrants a stand alone article as well as a link within the Bridging Loan article. Andymossy (talk) 10:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You make a good point about inconsistency with my colleagues. We are all volunteers and, while we follow Wikipedia's quality standards in good faith, we are not of a "hive mind" and sometimes we disagree about what is and is not acceptable in the project, especially in borderline and near-borderline cases.

With that in mind, I am going to give my fellow reviewers and you the benefit of the doubt and withdraw my "decline."

For purely technical reasons having to do with how the WP:AFC process works, I undid your edit which removed ALL of the AFC submission templates and restored the version that was immediately prior to my declining the submission. I then added two comments: One reminding you not to remove the templates because it prevents the submission from being reviewed at all, at a second explaining why a very old submission suddenly appeared in the to-be-reviewed queue and asking someone to review it. It should be reviewed within a few days. If it is declined for notability reasons again, then you should assume it is a "close case" where the reviewers disagree on the article's notability.

In any case, if the article does make it into the project, any editor who thinks it is not notable may put {{notability}} at the top and those who strongly believe that it does not belong it Wikipedia may nominate it for deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Davidwr appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andymossy (talk • contribs) 16:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata

The interwiki links I added to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zac Poonen haven't been turned into sidebar links (see Sirah (rapper) for a sample of how it SHOULD look); why is this?--Launchballer 09:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

First, interwiki links should "generally" not be placed on non-articles. There are some exceptions if there is a similar file with a similar purpose in the same directory-structure. For example, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines has interwikis. In particular, draft articles should not have interwikis. As you have discovered, interwikis from the English AFC submissions don't work when they point to other language main articles. I didn't know this until you pointed it out. This may be a bug, or it may be intentional.

There is a "convention" that interwikis and categories CAN be added to the bottom of a draft article BUT you put a colon at the beginning of the name. They appear as "ordinary" links until the colon is removed. As part of the process of moving the draft to the main encyclopedia, the reviewer should remove the colons. If he does not, any other editor can do so later. This has the advantage over using an "#if wrapper" that you can actually see them in the draft. I have made the necessary changes to your Zac Poonen submission. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Davidwr. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 13:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

AfC Cleaning / cats by days

Hey, I noticed your thread Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation#Daily_cleaning_of_submissions -- I wonder if that's something amenable to 'botting. We had a similar situation in categorization of pending BLP PRODs by day/expired BLPPRODs, which at the core of it was a problem that the templates were smart enough to get the number of days remaining right, but Wikipedia's caching wasn't smart enough to reevaluate the templates to get the recategorization. Is this something like that? I run User:Joe's Null Bot, which uses a special flavor of purge to update the category links for BLPPRODs, is that something that would work here? I'd totally file a BRFA for a new task if I could solve this for y'all. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I tested a NULL EDIT on an article and it did the right thing. Please start a new thread at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation and formally announce that this bot exists and you are offering to make it work for the AFC pending submissions. If there is a consensus to do this from the WPAFC community, then we can go get approval and make it happen. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Will do, one thing, could you check that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=purge&forcelinkupdate&titles=Foo does the same thing? The BRFA guys will give me a lot less grief if that works than if I ask for a true WP:NULLEDIT, I realize that sounds like a minor difference, but I'd like to make this all go as smoothly as possible. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That works too. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Awesome. I'll put up a note later today. Thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 20:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Rittenhouse Elementary School

Ye, I was actually thinking that (templating it) and looking up the syntax when you hopped in. If you would like, to avoid conflicts, I'll keep working on the ones down in External Links, ok? Was kinda hoping someone else would hop in....the 'text' here is actually a graded thing for the person who wrote it, but she's not a tech type, new to WP, and was asking q's on the Teahouse, so some peeps have been helping with the formatting. This has come a loooong way really fast. :) Revent (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking closer. I did /not/ know there was a specific NRHP cite template. Nice. Revent (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm done for the night. This could easily turn into a WP:Good article or even a Featured article. Have you considered nominating it to be on Wikipedia's Main page in the WP:Did you know? section? The latter is for only very recently created articles, so the clock is ticking. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you say this was a school project? She and her instructor may want to read Wikipedia:Assignments for student editors. If she's in college, her instructor may want to read Wikipedia:School and university projects. If she's in high school and therefore likely still a minor then it's best to keep any hint that she's of "school age" quiet for privacy and personal-safety reasons (see Wikipedia:Child protection). I'm going to assume she's an adult, and I strongly recommend against saying or even hinting one way or the other. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL. She mentioned she was a grad student on the Teahouse when asking for help on this. :)

What I mean is, it's obviously not private. She's made comments about being in Grad school, that she was going to offline because she was going on a dig site, etc, several places in the ongoing convs. Revent (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Lawrence Fuchs - stub rating

Hello, I noticed that you reviewed this article as a stub for WP:WikiProject Articles for creation. I recently completed a major update to this article, expanding it quite a lot. I don't think it should be considered a stub any more. Could you please take a look and determine if you would like to update your review on the article's talk page? Thanks! - tucoxn\^talk 02:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at Lawrence Fuchs? It is no longer a stub. Would you please change your review on the article's talk page? If it's not changed, it may cause a problem (D11) for the article's DYK nomination. Thanks! - tucoxn\^talk 04:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that this issue is resolved. I also posted on the article's talk page, but I wanted to be sure to thank you here as well. Thanks again for your help! - tucoxn\^talk 04:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed article regarding Yuri Andreyevich Olkhovsky

Greetings Davidwr,

I am indeed Paul Olkhovsky, Yuri Olkhovsky's son. Regarding my article and possible conflict of interest, I would be happy to declare myself as the author if you think that would assist the reader.

I completely understand why Wikapedia has a conflict-of-interest policy. I do want to note that I tried to be objective as possible and, regarding any descriptive references such as "he worked avidly" pursuing human rights I relied on third-party sources including the New York Times and book authors. All of the facts including his work history, degrees and involvement with the journal Kontinent are public record. Also, I want to say that I decided to write this almost four years after his death, hopefully after any "passions of the moment" have passed.

I am open to your suggestions and whether or not my contribution is accepted, I want thank you for giving of your time to something I value as a great common good -- Wikapedia.

--Polkhovsky (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You may wish to talk to Dodger67 (talk · contribs) about this and about the lack of reliable sources he mentioned when he declined the submission. I expect to be relatively inactive on Wikipedia this week. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of About Last Night (2014 film) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article About Last Night (2014 film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/About Last Night (2014 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

David, I've argued to keep the article and have added content to it. I hope you'll review the discussion and the new material. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for following up! Erik (talk | contribs) 21:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Gujarat elections

I created article instead of Template by mistake. I wanted to get it deleted but not submitted it in time. Sorry for inconvenience. Delete it asap. Sorry again.--Nizil (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not an administrator. An administrator should get around to it within a day or two. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Questions - and many thanks for your help

Hi David, I am new to this and trying to publish my first Wikipedia page for a graduate school assignment that is due on Friday. Do I need to have the page reviewed in order to publish it? If so, how long does that typically take? It seems like I should do the second option that you mentioned since I feel that the article is basically "done," but I am not sure if it will be available for public view then? Also, could I submit it for review at a later stage if I move it for now? Thanks for all of your help Yallabye (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Questions - and many thanks for your help

Hi David, I am new to this and trying to publish my first Wikipedia page for a graduate school assignment that is due on Friday. Do I need to have the page reviewed in order to publish it? If so, how long does that typically take? It seems like I should do the second option that you mentioned since I feel that the article is basically "done," but I am not sure if it will be available for public view then? Also, could I submit it for review at a later stage if I move it for now? Thanks for all of your help Yallabye (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Yallabye

From a purely technical perspective, any editor who is "autoconfirmed" - that is, any editor with an account more than a few days old and I think 10 edits - can create a page in the main encyclopedia. Whether that is wise or not depends on many circumstances. If your professor will grade your submission without prejudice if it's still under review, then please, move it back to Articles for creation. If you are "stuck" trying to get a grade, you might just be stuck leaving it and watching it be quickly edited by others or even nominated for deletion if there are serious issues like notability that haven't been resolved yet. Hopefully such edits will not affect your grade. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot, if you send it back to Articles for creation, it will be put in the "review" queue (which is about 2 weeks backlogged at the moment). You can and should keep improving the article while you wait for a review. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

re: File:World Knowledge Medal.gif

Hello. You have a response at Czar's talk page. czar · · 05:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Help

Hi Davidwr, I am writing to you about the article 'Anatol Kagan in stevenson street'. Firstly I would like to thank you for being so kind about my article. I have tried really hard, submitting it multiple times. It is a school assignment and I am just trying to publish information about a little known architect that doesnt get any recognition. I understand your concerns about the information about just the architect. I will fix that ASAP, but i was just wondering if you could help me with what else you think needs help. Thank you, Emily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilyCipriani (talk • contribs) 04:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. If indeed this is a "little known architect that doesn't get any recognition" then by definition he cannot have a Wikipedia page and Anatol Kagan should be nominated for deletion. Based on the references in that article though, I would say he has received some recognition. Wikipedia is not the place for people, buildings, or other items that have not already been recognized elsewhere - that's why we have the notability criteria. I still have grave concerns about the building. If the article doesn't clearly indicate the building's notability within a few weeks, I may propose that it be deleted or nominate it for deletion. Please take the next few weeks to read through Wikipedia's notability guidelines and read through WP:Inline citations and make the article clearly show that the structure meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, please go to commons:File:Anatol Kagan's Slide of 53 Stevenson Street.JPG and clarify the copyright status. See Commons:File talk:Anatol Kagan's Slide of 53 Stevenson Street.JPG for my concern. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 June newsletter

We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were Ian Rose (submissions) (A), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (B, and the round's overall leader), ThinkBlue (submissions) (C) Casliber (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.

If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to Stone (submissions) for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardsBot (talk • contribs) 21:33, 30 June 2010

Dating to help out the archive bot. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:57, 26 May 2013 (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 2452 submissions waiting to be reviewed. 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? Are you autoconfirmed? 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.

Dating to help out the archive bot. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Per Ziad Ghanem

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

Dating to help out the archive bot. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

RE:Sirah (rapper)

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

Dating to help out the archive bot. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sanicola

How many songs do you want citations for in the discog section in order to take the notice down? Please dont say all:( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.117.156 (talk) 04:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that reference. It's a gold mine. What is really needed to save this article is proof that one of the songs he wrote charted, went Gold, or otherwise became notable so that he clearly meets WP:COMPOSER, or some other way of showing that he meets that or one of the other WP:Notability criteria. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Added two references of charting singles in the header, will that do ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.117.156 (talk) 05:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Dating to help out the archive bot. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

afc

just to clarify, the reason I'm even bothering is because i'm trying as systematically as possible to straighten them out, getting ready for general use of speedy for old afcs. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Of the group that was in Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old, I quickly declined all but two. I left those two in the hopper. You may want to write a note on WT:WPAFC letting people know what you are doing and why you are doing it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Davidwr. You have new messages at Gtwfan52's talk page.
Message added 03:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Davidwr. You have new messages at Gtwfan52's talk page.
Message added 03:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Mark Gantt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Michael Lerner

Tina Ghods (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to CA

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)