User talk:TheQ Editor/Archive Jun-Jul 2014

CVUA

Hey TheQ Editor I'm Wackyike and I was wondering if you would accept me in the CVUA. I have 200 edits and if you accept me then can you teach me a little bit about reviewing in addition to the other material?Wackyike (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Wackyike: Sure, let's get started! I'll make the subpage as soon as possible.TheQ Editor (Talk) 20:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Help?

Hello @TheQ Editor:, I was wondering if you could help me. I was submitting a draft to AfC, and on the first submission, it declined. The reason stated was that it was not proven to be notable enough. I added some points on how notable the road is in Dallas (it is the main road to Airport, also on of three roads that conncets DNT and US 75, which are two major hwys in Dallas, etc.) but it still declined on the basis that it was not notable (that it might be my neighborhood street (which it is not)). Do you know what I could do?

Thanks, Brmedia 17:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Brmedia:, declining an AFC stating that it is not notable enough is the worst thing you could get. I know how it feels. I'm going to expand it a bit more and let's see what happens.TheQ Editor (Talk) 20:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Brmedia 20:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Re

Thank you, I accept. WhisperWindz~ 19:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Good, I'm going to message you on your Talk PageTheQ Editor (Talk) 20:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Eric Walters at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Advice

Hello @TheQ Editor:, I would like to say thank you for helping me with my page. I was wondering, in the state it is in, if I should re-submit for creation. Thank you! Brmedia 00:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

(Note: I like your new user page)

Hello Brmedia, I would suggest working on it a little more. The citation style still needs a bit improvement. How about let's work on it even more tomorrow? (My time zone is EST so it is 10:00 PM right now). Bye, and I really need to rest.TheQ Editor (Talk) 02:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! (My time zone is CST, for further reference) Brmedia 14:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Judith Sheindlin page

I removed the edit because the event has now passed. AmericanDad86 (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi @AmericanDad86:, thank you for letting me know your reason. If it is this case, then I would suggest making the paragraph past tense as we still want readers to know about this stuff. Thanks, TheQ Editor (Talk) 02:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You're most welcome, QEditor. Actually, it's mentioned in past tense on the actual television show article Judge Judy. I don't know if that makes a difference to you. Let me know. AmericanDad86 (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dead rabbits album cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dead rabbits album cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BDD (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Mikkeli

Do I have to expand the sports section for it to be promoted? I fixed everything else. If it would be required, do you know anyone that could help me? (Maybe even someone that knows Finnish?) --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi @AmaryllisGardener:. No, you don't have to. I'm very busy right now, but I'll get to the changes in a while. Sorry. But note, if you want to run it for FA, you have to get that fixed.TheQ Editor (Talk) 01:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it good enough now that I have the dead refs fixed? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm

(I cannot think of any other header name than Hmm)

@TheQ Editor:, I was wondering if what Davidwr is doing is right. Another person on Wikipedia told me he was "biting the newbies" by, after he reviewed my article, once he saw my article was up, putting a template on my article saying that it was not notable, and going to my talk page and saying he will delete it. Could you tell me your thoughts on this? Thanks, Brmedia 21:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Brmedia:, I don't think he's biting the newcomers, he's just giving you advice. It's just that he thinks that the article doesn't meet up with the notability guidelines, and he's hoping to consider a AFD or PROD as it may not be notable enough. I have some external links that contain some useful information about it. (I just don't have enough time to add it):

• [1]
• [2]

TheQ Editor (Talk) 21:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Brmedia 21:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed

Hello @TheQ Editor:, I am now autoconfirmed. Hope this helps some with the adoption! Brmedia 01:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Brmedia:, That's wonderful. You are now open to a variety of new but fun tasks that can help you even more later in Wikipedia.TheQ Editor (Talk) 01:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TheQ Editor. You have new messages at User_talk:Brmedia/Adopt.
Message added 03:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have completed the task. Brmedia 03:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

A new article

Hello @TheQ Editor:, I am currently trying to develop a new notable article, but I need references and some history on it. Do you know of any person or anywhere I could find this information? Thanks, Brmedia 23:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Brmedia:, the most important thing about articles is that it needs to be notable. Double check with WP:Notability to see if the road is truly notable. If it is, then you should have not much trouble finding sources. I usually do a Google search and a search on Google News and grab all the relevant links I could. Cheers, TheQ Editor (Talk) 00:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I am also developing another article that I know is notable (this road is numbered). I am furthering this article more, because this article will also be a solution to red links. Thanks! Brmedia 00:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Review

Hello Q Editor, Could you review my new article? Thanks, Brmedia 01:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Brmedia 01:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikify Mikkeli education section

 Done. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for promoting it, and for having patience to wait on me to fix its issues. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 12:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Charlotte Cortlandt Ellis

I just wanted to say thanks for accepting my very first contribution to Wikipedia. I'm still struggling along trying to work everything out but it's really encouraging to see that my small efforts have paid off. So thanks!Ambrosia10 (talk) 03:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cleanup Button (June 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cleanup Button.
• 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 .

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

• Please remember to link to the submission!

• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

hewhoamareismyself 20:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Preference SQL

I fixed up your decline of Draft:Preference SQL. I think you meant to say it was a copyright violation, but you marked it as "existing in Wikipedia." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, TheQ Editor, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and ƬheStrikeΣagle sorties 05:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Cleaning the language in Richard Belzer article.

I am Pastor Titus Caraway and I made some editing on the Richard Belzer article by taking out the last letters of the two words and using only the first letter. I did this because of its vulgarity and I receive the message that you do not censor your articles. Cleaning the articles is not censoring. The language used in many of the articles is disgusting and has nothing to do with learning about the subject a person may be researching. What your response has taught me is that I no longer want to financially support Wikipedia and I have researched my last article through your service. Using the phrase "does not censor" is just an out for the vulgarity I read in the article. Whether you know it or not, the majority of people do not appreciate hearing or reading such language and quite honestly, we are fed up with it. This is my last word on the subject. Your sight and emails will be blocked from my computer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PastorTitus52 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@PastorTitus52:, thank you for letting me know. And sorry if I am disrupting you with this message. But I just want to tell you that Wikipedia is not censored, as it states very clear in this section. To quote the relevant part to you. In original Wikipedia content, a vulgarity or obscenity should either appear in its full form or not at all; words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols. Thank you. TheQ Editor (Talk) 15:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi there

Lixxx235 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Hi, TheQ! (I almost automatically typed "Welcome to Wikipedia" ;)) I was wondering if you'd take offense at me copyediting your adoption pages? Also, wow, you're already teaching CVUA? I'm still taking it ;) And you've already got yourself three adoptees? (I mean, I only have 6 ;)) Just wanted to check in. Thanks, Lixxx235^{Got a complaint?} 14:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, what do you think of the following template-to-be? Thanks, Lixxx235^{Got a complaint?} 14:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@Lixxx235: Thank you very much for the cookie. It's been a long time since I've eaten a cookie. And no, I don't mind if you copyedit my adoption pages. It's still not 100% done yet. The template? Yes, I like it very much. Cheers, TheQ Editor (Talk) 15:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 8

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

CV Training Program

Hi, TheQ Editor. I accept you as my trainer. Just drop me a message at my talkpage for when we start. Thanks,Schoolskater (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

So when are you going to check my work?Schoolskater (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Schoolskater:, I am very sorry as I was on vacation and did not notify you of it. It was sort of last minute. I am back and will check your work.

Miss Multiverse page deleted

Greetings,

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

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

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

Best regards,

Jose Cuello (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Jose Cuello: I'm not sure what Q has to do with this, but it's up for speedy G4 because it was put up for deletion (and deleted) last year. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Amaryllis,

My question is why is it being deleted?? there most be a reason, not just because it was created before?

Is wikipedia a place for collaborators?? solutions, making things work? or just quick delete...

I will appreciate your help enormously, if you would kindly take a look and figure out a solution. this pageant is real, its really there, its really happening, therefore, why does it not deserve a page just like the numerous other pageants that are on wikipedia....

Best regards,

Jose Cuello (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jose Cuello: Here the nominator's rationale was "SPAM" and then one voted delete because they said it wasn't notable. Try to find enough to pass the general notability guideline, that is the solution. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Greetings

@AmaryllisGardener: Can you please provide a link to where the nominator's rationale was "SPAM" comments are posted??

The information you see on Miss Multiverse right now is exactly the same, i copied and pasted from a word document in order to restore it, do you see SPAM there? if so please let me know so i can correct it immediately.

Thank you

Jose Cuello (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jose Cuello: Here's a link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Multiverse. I don't know about "SPAM", but I can see it doesn't seem to pass GNG. I would recommend WP:AFC, where you can save your article in "Draft" namespace and improve it until it's good enough for the mainspace. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

G Flint Taylor

You reedited my submission and rejected it on June 3, 2014 for unreliable sources. All of the sources are either to news articles, periodicals or to a book. Could you help me with which sources are unreliable and how to fix them? Thank you G. Flint Taylor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.112.141 (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @50.193.112.141: @TheQ Editor: The reason for rejection seems inappropriate, as the article does seem to be "adequately supported by reliable sources" albeit in an unusual, though acceptable, format - see the comment by the very experienced admin DGG (talk · contribs). Although your format for listing references manually rather than using <ref> tags is acceptable in Wikipedia, it can be problematic because it means that if another editor wants to add a sourced statement using a new reference, they would have to renumber every later reference. Also, your use of "id" ("ibid"?) is against Wikipedia's Manual of Style - see WP:IBID: "The use of ibid., Id. (or similar abbreviations) is discouraged, as these may become broken as new references are added". If you use <ref> tags, you can re-use a reference by giving it a name, which shortens the list of references. But this unconventional referencing style should not be grounds for rejection of the article. PamD 14:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@50.193.112.141: I see that you signed your comment above as "G. Flint Taylor". Please read WP:COI and WP:AUTO, for explanation why you should not be writing this article. PamD 14:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

for individuals with a COI, AfC is the recommended route--though an autobiography tends to raise questions even there. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd forgotten at that point that we were talking about an AfC. You're right, of course. PamD 07:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@50.193.112.141:: But about the article: often when an article is declined for a totally inappropriate reason, I will accept it unless there are other bases--in this case there are major problems, though none of the people commenting seem to have managed to express them--I really should have done so when I saw it. The problem is that the bulk of the article consists of detailed reporting of particular cases. This should be done only in the article about those cases, if we have them, not in the article about the attorney who tried them, where, if his role is important enough, they can be mentioned but need not be expanded on. Putting them in this detail into his bio is what an attorney often does when he publishes own autobiography, where the natural and expected tone is that the author will try to show off his talents, and tell interesting anecdotes about his experiences. These are not suitable content for an encyclopedia article. DGG ( talk ) 21:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

AFCs

I've nominated for deletion as advertising an article you recently accepted, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrie Williams. You may wish to comment. DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, again

Hello @TheQ Editor:

I am now back from a month-long wikibreak for exams. I will be on the wiki daily. Thanks, Brmedia 00:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Horray! TheQ Editor (Talk) 00:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Gamer OR

Could you please provide more detail as to what parts of the Gamer article you think contain original research? This tag seems insufficient to identify the unverifiable content, as most sections are referenced and the unreferenced parts do not contain any outrageous or exceptional claim - so they should be easy to verify through articles at specialized news media. Diego (talk) 09:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Diego Moya: I'm not identifying original research, someone else has already identified it, if you look through the article, there are tons of [citation needed] templates. I'm just notifying that they may be original research in this article. Thanks, TheQ Editor (Talk) 12:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

"Citation needed" does not automatically make something original research; there's a difference between "unreferenced" and "made up", in special when it's reasonable to believe that the unreferenced content is accurate. In this case, the inline tags seem to be requesting sources for content that *can* likely be referenced; otherwise the editors would have tagged this content with the or tags instead, or removed it. In any case, as those sentences are already tagged, the whole-article tag seems unnecessary; as more detailed tags are already included, the article tag is redundant. Diego (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Cool!

Oh wow...China! That's cool! Thank you for letting me know. Brmedia 19:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Page deleted without proper discussion

Hi User:TheQ_Editor, A page TapWalk that I initially significantly helped with, submitted for review, and that you approved was recently nominated for deletion. I followed protocol and expressed why I thought the page should be kept. A couple of people very generically and briefly said why they thought the page should be deleted – statements that I disagreed with in my comment. After their posts, I also actively worked to improve the page. The page was then suddenly deleted without any kind of proper discussion. I'm new here but I believe that this goes directly against Wikipedia rules because there was not a proper discussion and certainly no consensus was ever reached. You seem like an experienced editor (and you initially approved the page) so I thought I would reach out to you.

Any help would be much appreciated! Thanks! sergeymann (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sergeymann: First of all, I am sorry that I can not fully explain to you why it was deleted because of the sources. Perhaps you can list me the sources you used. Second of all, it was probably my fault in accepting it. But first things first. After about 10 days of discussion, majority wins basically. If it is 10 delete and 3 keep. Then it is kept after the period of time. But you were right, as the comments other users made were kind of generic so i can't give a full judgement. Sorry about that, but maybe WP:NCOMAPNY will help. Thanks,TheQ Tester (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of TheQ Editor

@TheQ Editor: Thanks for your reply. While I definitely understand your point about a majority, I feel like in this case it does not apply. I definitely agree that if it was an overwhelming majority (10-3 like you said) that's one thing, but in a case like this where there was one very specific comment and two very brief and generic comments, that's a completely different thing. In fact, I feel like this goes against Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion as there was not a proper discussion. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the two people that commented did not even spend a lot of time even looking at the page (one of them was implying the page is for a product rather than a company – a very important difference here). As regards to the sources, there was a wide variety of sources that covered a number of things about the company. In fact, one NY Times article was entirely devoted to the office space that this company as well as a few others occupy and why that is significant, a Boston.com (a Boston Globe subsidiary) article entirely talked about products that this company has developed, etc. I feel like there was more than enough sources to establish notability. I think I saw somewhere that after a page is deleted, it can still be returned within a certain period of time by an admin. Is that true? If not, are there any other options available? It's just that I worked very hard on this page (and it is one of my first pages) and it really sucks that it was deleted by people who seem to have spent almost no time at all examining it. sergeymann (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TheQ Editor. You have new messages at User_talk:Brmedia/Adopt.
Message added 02:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Brmedia 02:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheQ_Editor/CVUA/SkaterLife

You are invited to join the discussion at [[3]]. I finished filling in the chart with Diffs and Warnings Thanks. SkaterLife (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Cailin Marcel Manson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cailin Marcel Manson 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/Cailin Marcel Manson 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. DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

A brownie to you for reviewing at least 15 submissions during the WikiProject Articles for creation June 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks for contributing to the backlog elimination drive! Posted by (t) Josve05a (c) on 23:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation.