Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 10

Page protection

I have no experience with page protection. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Protection policy and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and any linked pages that might seem applicable. Good luck! 21:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

About List of perfumes

Thanks! My personal policy is not to start an article on a film I haven't seen or a book I haven't read. Same goes with perfumes. Hope my YSL bias isn't too obvious. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


Hello, Wiae. You have new messages at Mayeenul Islam's talk page.
Message added 06:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 —Mayeenul Islam (TALK) 06:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hugh Jackman

Hi – you helped me earlier on with Roarkp on the Hugh Jackman page, but this person won't stop adding this irrelevant sex symbol information, despite what we've said. I'm going to revert again, but what other actions should be taken? It's clear that this person intends wants to somewhat edit-war. Thanks – 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 11:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


Hello, Wikiisawesome. You have new messages at Schetm's talk page. --02:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

horse meat

Soryy but Crimea is not in russia. Either remove the text or change country name to Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F07:D18F:FFFF:0:0:50F:10F (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a conversation we should have on the talk page. wia (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Complaint about you at WP:AN3

An editor has complained about you at WP:AN3. They assert that you're edit warring at College Democrats of America. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Wikiisawesome reported by User:Collegeisreallycool (Result: ). You can respond there if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; the issue has been sorted out! wia (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Penrose illusion

But the authors of the original paper [1] in 1958 were both Roger Penrose and his father Lionel, see his entry. I knew them both and they showed me this and related phenomena on a visit to their home in London in that year. Gwestheimer 22:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwestheimer (talkcontribs)

Hi Gwestheimer; I've been doing some disambiguation work and, while I do recall editing some articles about Penrose, I don't remember which article you're talking about here. (It could be Geometrical-optical illusions but I'm not 100% sure.) It's entirely possible that I've disambiguated a link incorrectly; do you mind replying here and telling me which article is at issue? Thanks! wia (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
The article in question is Geometrical-optical illusions. Gwestheimer 03:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwestheimer (talkcontribs)
Okay, I understand. My edit changed the link from Penrose (which leads to a disambiguation page) to Roger Penrose, but you're saying that both Roger and his father co-created the illusions. The sentence currently reads "The configurations of the [[Roger Penrose|Penrose]] or [[M. C. Escher|Escher]] type are illusory in the sense that..." We can't simultaneously pipe the word "Penrose" to both Roger and Lionel, but maybe a rewording might do the trick? Perhaps something like "The configurations due to [[Roger Penrose|Roger]] and [[Lionel Penrose]] and [[M. C. Escher|Escher]] are illusory in the sense that..."
Let me know if you prefer that. wia (talk) 04:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Patents as primary sources

I think you've made a mistake. I understand that patents are not primary sources for the CONTENT or CLAIMS within the body of a patent, but they are, indisputably, the primary, and only accurate source for information about the existance of a patent (or provisional patent application) and about when a patent was filed. My entry merely stated that there are two competing patents for the CRISPR invention and it went on to link to those patents. That information is relevant to the CRISPR process and is a valid entry to this Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, patents aren't the only accurate source for information about their existence; court cases and newspaper articles that satisfy WP:NEWSORG can also do so. But the heart of the matter is the interpretation of WP:PATENTS here. It says that one should be very wary of using patents as sources, beyond, inter alia, simple, descriptive statements about their existence (e.g., "A patent was issued to Alice Expert on May 5, 2010..."). This may be an edge case, true. But per WP:BRD, The Red Pen of Doom and I have reverted the edit. Now the appropriate step is to the talk page to discuss further. I'm sure we can work something out there in concert with the other involved parties! wia (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding human name disambiguation page

I am adding a human disambiguation page for Craig Sutherland, moving existing content to: Craig Stephen Sutherland (1988-), Scottish footballer.

Please stop blocking my hndis edits. Thank you.

No, there's no need for such a disambiguation page. As I explained to you on your talk page, there is no need for a disambiguation page when there is only one notable person with that name on Wikipedia. Please read WP:DAB: "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." wia (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
No, there are many more notable pages, from advanced practitioners in the field of finance, to the symphonic arts, to science, to engineering, and medicine. True, some of these pages remain to be completed. However, there is no need to add these pages apriori. If you disagree, then the policy will be changed. End of discussion. (And please stop removing this reply.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eideticverse (talkcontribs) 13:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
You cannot make up a policy. The policy is a disambiguation page is needed if many Wikipedia articles are about people of the same name. There is only 1 person with that name here. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes. The policy will be changed. Relent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eideticverse (talkcontribs) 13:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Jack Sarfatti page

Please explain your reasoning about censoring factual information about Sarfatti's long advocacy of retrocausality in quantum theory as is evidenced by the quote from Herbert Gold's 1993 book Bohemia on the page. The recent conference at Trinity College on this very subject is quite relevant as is the two AAAS retrocausality meetings at USD hosted by Dan Sheehan. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you look closely at the Jack Sarfatti page history, the only edit of yours I reverted was one adding Twitter and Facebook pages to the external links section. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox or means of promoting someone's social media accounts, per WP:SOAP. The general consensus on Wikipedia is that Facebook links should not go in the external link section, nor should Twitter links. As such, I have reverted your edit. I didn't revert any of your other edits on that page, so you'll have to ask NeilN about those. Thanks, wia (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I took a look at NeilN's edit. He correctly reverted your edit because it engaged in synthesis, which is prohibited under Wikipedia's no original research policy. Further, the links you added to the article were bare. If you plan to add links or citations to articles in the future, please take a look at WP:CITE. Thanks, wia (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Black Pepper Crab

kindly do not revert the edit. Black Pepper Crab are no longer only serve at Eng Seng Restaurant. There's alot of superb restaurant that serve black pepper crab eg: Red House, Jumbo etc. Those link provided are paid ads.

I reverted your edit because your edit removed the infobox on the page. When you edit, make sure you are not accidentally removing important parts of the article. Thanks, wia (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Noted. Will be caution in the future. Thanks.

I've gone ahead and cleaned up the Black pepper crab article by removing some of the editorializing content. Take a look; it should be better now! Thanks, wia (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Very neat!, thought it's a very short article. I will try to look up more on Black Pepper Crab history so to add more content into the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


Hello. I had made the addition to the vivisection entry that you removed. I don't really know how to add citations in any linkable format, however I can give you the citations that back up what I wrote. If you would be willing to put my text back in and add the citations yourself, I would be cool with that. The information I typed out was found from several other Wikipedia articles:

Additionally, non-Wikipedia sources of information I looked at included:,9171,436029,00.html

In doing a quick search for further sources relating to what I wrote, I just found two non-electronic sources, as well:

-Genocide and International Justice By Rebecca Joyce Frey, page 368

-“Keeping Them Alive, One Gets Nothing; Killing Them, One Loses Nothing”: Prosecuting Khmer Rouge Medical Practices as Crimes against Humanity By Laura Vilim, Georgetown University Law Center 2012 Documentation Center of Cambodia Summer 2010 Legal Associate

I would like what I wrote put back up as it is very easily verifiable information, it is an important part of the darkness of human history, and it is directly related to the article I put it under. So let me know if you aren't going to do it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm happy to do this later tonight. No problem. wia (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and put in a few cited sentences. It's a start; you're welcome to help too. Just use the cite web template and model the citation after what I've done! wia (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Dog sex

Reverted you. I agree that sex slang is important to include, but the phrase "dog sex" never refers to the act of "dogging" -- only to sex with dogs, etc. -- so it is misleading and irrelevant to include it there. (talk) 04:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

As a compromise, I'll put it in a "See also" section at the bottom, per MOS:DABORDER. That way nobody will confuse it with an actual sex practice involving dogs, but people will still be able to find it if they type "dog sex" into the search bar. Thanks, wia (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Alicia Silverstone article

I wanted that on there so please put it back on there — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your contribution efforts, but editorializing is not meant to appear on Wikipedia. The edits you've proposed are personal opinions that violate WP:NOR. wia (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


You asked "how could we know", I was basing it on the teaser trailer - which seems to be the source of several recent edits (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it'd be worthwhile to ask this question at the talk page and attempt to gain consensus. Thanks, wia (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Burnie Burns

My changes to Burnie Burns page (of Rooster Teeth fame) was reverted when I tried to adjust it to account for his middle name, and I was asked to source this. As I don't know how to put in sources, I figure my best bet is to leave it hear so someone who knows what they're doing can do it. It's mentioned in the Rooster Teeth podcast #317 at around 30 minutes into the video, by the man himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your interest in contributing to Wikipedia. However, for articles about living people, we need reliable, published sources for any and all information that is to be added. You can read up on this policy at WP:BLP. The podcast likely does not count as a reliable source, per WP:SPS. If you can find a reliable, published source indicating that Burnie Burns' middle name is Justin, then let me know and I can make the addition for you if you'd like. Hope that clears things up and I do hope you continue to contribute at Wikipedia. It is a vast place but we don't bite too much! Thanks, wia (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm curious as to how a video podcast that the person in the article in question is a part of that is distributed to payed members and is on display (with a week delay) on the company youtube channel, and the man himself states clearly and out loud this information is not reliable? Furthermore, podcasts are listed as references for other points on his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to have to get back to you on this one; I'm off to ask some other users for their thoughts. Stay tuned. wia (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I have an answer for you from this source. The podcast is reliable and verifiable as a source. However, not all reliably cited information should necessarily be included in an article on Wikipedia. (For example, you may find a reliable, verifiable source that indicates that, say, Walmart uses 20,009 tonnes of steel annually to manufacture its shopping carts, but that is not necessarily a fact that belongs on the Wikipedia page about steel.)
So the next step is to gain consensus for the edit. You can do this by posting a message on the article's talk page to canvas for support for the inclusion of his middle name. Hope this helps, wia (talk) 11:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistency in article openings

I changed the page "God in Islam" to remain consistent in introducing deities of different mythologies. If you look at other pages on deities within a mythology, if any word is used, they are introduced with "mythology" and not "theology". God in Islam was the only article I saw that used theology, so I changed it for the sake of consistency. Perhaps I should bring this to the talk page of the article?

NesHoarder (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)nesHoarder

Which other pages are you referring to? I checked the God in Christianity, God in Hinduism, God in Judaism, and God in Mormonism articles—a fairly representative sample of the theistic religions—and there's no mention of the word "mythology" at all in those articles.
Per WP:RNPOV, "mythology" has a very specific meaning in religious contexts. I personally don't find "mythology" is appropriate in the lede of an article about God in Islam, especially since "theology" is defined as the study of the nature of God. Granted, that last sentence is merely my own opinion, which doesn't hold much weight on its own, so you can certainly ask at the talk page! wia (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

you made a mistake or maybe you can help

Frank ocean and Damienn jones had a song out last year and they are good friends stop erasing and if you could help him get his on Wikipedia page or at least a stub page Thanks my name is tiffany — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your interest in making Wikipedia a better place. However, per WP:BLP, we need verifiable citations for anything we add to an article about a living person. If you want to include facts about a Damienn Jones, you'll need a verifiable citation.
Further, it's usually a good idea to have a discussion at the article's talk page if someone reverts your edit. In the future, if you'd like to propose a change to an article but someone reverts your change, it's best to discuss it at the talk page first, not engage in an edit war. Thanks, wia (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

  The Disambiguator's Barnstar
The Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who are prolific disambiguators.
This is for fixing 2494 ambiguous links during March 2015.
Also, you are eligible for a free t-shirt from the Wikimedia Foundation. Message BD2412 if you need the details for claiming your prize. Rcsprinter123 (gab) @ 19:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

A Bailar Tour

Hey, i really, really thank you for editing the page of A Bailar Tour. I'm just reorganizing the references, I am not quiting them by the way. So please, I beg you to don't undo my edition. Thank you again cutie! --Alaan681 (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my bad. I took a quick look at the log and saw that some sources had been removed by an IP address. But you were right to revert my edit. Sorry for the mixup! wia (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Ventura question


Where is your evidence that the section of the U.S. Navy in which Mr Ventura served was part of SEAL in the years he served? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

There are multiple citations in the paragraph that substantiate that fact. wia (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

User: and the Supremacism page

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. David A (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for letting me know. I was not awake so I couldn't contribute to the ANI, but glad to see that it's been taken care of. Thanks! wia (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Hawayo Hiroumi Takata

No one yet seems to have noticed Hawayo Takata, which is also frankly a mess. Not sure how you want to handle this, but we don't need or want a draft submission for an existing article, right? Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there's definitely no need for both. I'm relatively new in the AfC community (just signed up the other day, in fact) so I'm not sure what the proper course of action is in this particular case. At the Reviewing instructions, the flowchart indicates that duplicated articles should be merged, but the quick-fail criteria box indicates that "If you find an article on the same subject, decline the article". Not sure which one takes precedence. Any ideas? I imagine the article could safely be both declined and merged, but I don't want to do that without getting some feedback. wia (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I found this because the editor has started an arbitration case request, which I'm guessing is basically a complete lack of understanding about what we do at ArbCom. I've asked one of our clerks (I'm an Arbitrator) to deal with it, and evidently it also contains copyvio. One thing I'm concerned with in general about AfC reviews is that it's not unusual when I look at one for some reason that I find copyvio. The clerk who is handling this says there is some copyvio and will deal with it. Another interesting point is that it's being declined by all of you on grounds of lack of notability, which suggests that Hawayo Takata, if it doesn't have more evidence for notability, should go to AfD. And if you all feel she isn't notable, then adding material to the existing article might not be the best idea.
You might want to raise at the Wikiproject talk page the conflict between the flowchart and the criteria box. Good luck and I'm glad to hear you've started to work at AfC. Not an easy job, making sure material meets our notability criteria, NPOV, reliable sources, etc. If you run into any articles on archaeology which seem dubious, do contact me and I might be able to offer some help, as that's my main editing interest here. Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

00:40:22, 6 April 2015 review of submission by (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC) How do I put references in to it

Hi, I've answered on your talk page. Thanks, wia (talk) 05:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 02:08:50, 6 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Womenonthemoons

' I am the former touring drummer of Geggy Tah. There are a few online references, but not much. I listed the ones on there. Obviously Geggy Tah is a a well-respected band amongst "true" artists. I would be more than beyond honored to be listed as their former drummer on Wikipedia. I actually had my own page someone put up about 10-12 years ago but it was ultimately removed.. As far as OPM, I can live without, though we did play alot of high profile shows including opening for the black eyed peas.

Womenonthemoons (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I've answered on your talk page. Thanks, wia (talk) 05:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

05:58:58, 6 April 2015 review of submission by Radomirkrkic

Hi, I just wrote my very first article and it was rejected by you. I would like to know the reason in brief so I can edit my article. This is the link for the article draft entitled: Simonida Milojkovic, the link:, Thanks for your response and advice  in advance. Please note that in the article I added photos taken from the google images and I assumed that it is legal to use those photos.

Radomirkrkic (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I've replied on your talk page. Thanks, wia (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


bbboooooooooooooooooooooooo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nattuff (talkcontribs) 04:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

12:08:08, 9 April 2015 review of submission by Abhyud

I have researched a lot about this company and added more information. I have added the best and reliable resources to justify my article. Kindly review this article again and do let me know if still improvement is needed.

AB (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your work on the article. I'll take a look as soon as I can—probably in an hour or two. Thanks, wia (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Barnstar of Diligence
For your work at WP:AFC Fiddle Faddle 13:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


Hi, Thanks for the feedback on my article. I have added very reliable resources such as Peta, Google Patent and other supportive references. Please consider them to justify the facts.AB (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Timtrent has provided some more helpful feedback on the draft. Take a look and try to implement some of his suggestions. They don't seem like too much work and they would definitely improve the article. Thanks,

03:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC) review of submission by agshender

Agshender (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I have greatly expanded the page you reviewed (Draft:2015_Portland_Thorns_FC_season) and would appreciate it if you could re-review and let me know if there's anything else that needs changing. Thank you!

Absolutely, I'll take a look now! wia (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
The article is looking good citation-wise; the more independent sources you can get, the better. (The reference is WP:PRIMARY, so it's best not to rely on it too heavily. The Oregonian reference is a good one though.) I'd take a quick look at WP:NSEASONS too: "Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players". Consider adding a bit more prose to the article (maybe at the start) and then I'd be prepared to accept it. Keep up the good work! wia (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I have expanded the intro section of my article and spread out the references to account for a variety of sources, if you don't mind looking again. Thank you! Agshender (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and accepted the article. Thanks for your hard work! wia (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Typical liberal crap from the Wikigulag

Congratulations on trying to censor those who would tell the truth about NIMHANS. But the truth will out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that was a textbook case of reverting WP:NOR. wia (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Lip Ink International


I have made the changes as Timtrent said. Kindly go through my article again. AB (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I just took another look. You've got the patents sorted out, so that looks much better. However, I'm still having trouble finding notability here. Many of the sources only mention Lip Ink in one sentence, and they don't say anything substantive about the company. For example, the Huffington Post article only mentions that the gift bags featured "makeup from... Lip Ink International", and many of the other sources also do the same. Articles need significant coverage to be considered notable, per WP:GNG: "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Unfortunately, I think many of the sources here are still only trivial mentions. Has anyone written an article (perhaps in a newspaper or a fashion magazine) that talks about Lip Ink International for at least a paragraph? I did a quick Google search and didn't uncover anything, but you might have better luck. Give that a shot. Thanks, wia (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Deep web article

Thanks for your message, I made the change because I thought that there was a spelling mistake, but it seems the two words are very similar in meanings, nothing that can change the meaning of your sentence, still don't get why you said say is not constructive, you can have more words on your disposition to make sentences that could be clearer for your readers, at least it was my case, not saying that it mostly the case, but you know... why bothering changing the word if it does not make a difference in meaning?, — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I understand what you're saying; thanks for asking me on my talk page! Haven and heaven are spelled very similarly, but they actually have different meanings. Haven means "a place of safety or refuge", while heaven refers to the place mentioned in many religions, or alternatively, " a place, state, or experience of supreme bliss". In the context of the article ("some prosecutors and government agencies... are concerned that the deep web is a haven for serious criminality"), the appropriate word is haven. The article is saying that some people are worried about the deep web becoming a place where serious criminal activity can take place without fear of reprisal. So in that context, haven is the appropriate word.
If you've got any other questions, I'm always happy to help. Keep on editing! Cheers, wia (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


Thank you for your feedback on my article. I understand now that there is no article on CS5L CMM and I was attempting to publish as a sub topic to "CYBERSECURITY CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL (C2M2)". How do I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean p connors (talkcontribs) 18:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. Thanks, wia (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Added reliable references

Hi, As you suggested I added reliable references to article Draft:ECIL Bus Station. I sent it again to review. Can you please take a look at it again? If there are any improvements can you please tell me? And also, by mistake I clicked 'run citation Bot' link, after that it edited my article. It is written that only reviewers should click it. Will there be any problem? Thanks, Supdiop (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm happy to take a look at the updated draft and give you some feedback. Don't worry about running the Citation Bot; it doesn't seem to have broken anything so you're good! I'll try to reeview your article in the next few hours and give you my feedback. Thanks, wia (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I took a look at the article and cleaned it up a bit. My primary concern is that there do not seem to be many references on the Internet that discuss this bus station in detail. I think you have found most of the ones that are out there. So I'm not sure the draft quite meets the notability requirements for an article on Wikipedia. Nonetheless, it's in the queue now so it should be formally reviewed within the next week or so. In the meantime, keep searching for reliable, independent sources! Thanks, wia (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. It looks lot cleaner now. Yes, There isn't much about that bus station on Internet. I think it's because it's new. It was a small bus stop before. I found two reliable sources, even they also don't talk about it in detail. I will try to find more reliable sources. I don't think bus stations can have many reliable sources, see another bus station for example: once again thank you
Supdiop (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, sources can be hard to find! I've edited a few articles about train stations in northwestern Pakistan, and sources are few and far between. You do what you can! I'll try to take a look later tonight for some more sources. (It's exam season for me, so pardon my late replies.) Thanks, wia (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I found a news article in which it refers to 'ECIL Bus Station'. I added it as a reference to the article in hope of it giving notability to the bus station. I've searched all the news and I didn't find any other sources. Just one week ago my exams ended and I am all day free now. Best of luck for your exams.Supdiop (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 14:21:26, 12 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Prak nat

Thank you for your review. Would you be kind enough to highlight, at a broad level, what some of the egregious errors were? What should I watch out for when I edit and resubmit.

Regards, Prak nat (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. I don't think you've made any errors per se; the article just needs some cleanup work. Start by taking a look at some of the sentences I've pointed out in my comment at the draft. One big issue, I think, is an occasional non-neutral tone. Read WP:SUBJECTIVE to learn about Wikipedia's policy on subjective language. Another related issue is that some of the content is asserted to be factual but does not yet have inline citations. For example, the sentence "She returned to India and established V-Excel Educational Trust, bringing with her 15 years of relevant experience and a global perspective on curricula for children with special needs as well as the professional quality required in the model schools", there are quite a few unsupported allegations here:
  • "she returned to India and established V-Excel Educational Trust" asserts that Vasudha Prakash founded the organization. But there's no reference there to show that this is true. How will a future reader know for sure that Prakash founded the organization? You have lots of good sources in the article, so it shouldn't be hard to put an inline citation after this sentence. Read WP:IC to learn more about how to make inline citations.
  • "bringing with her... a global perspective on curricula for children with special needs as well as the professional quality" sounds very subjective. What are a "global perspective" and "professional quality"? That language sounds slightly promotional, and it needs to be written in a more neutral tone.
That is just one example. I'd suggest going through the article and making sure you can find reliable sources for all the major claims you're making about the organization: stuff like the founder, their major programs, and awards they've won. That should be a very good start. As always, if you have any other questions, feel free to ask! Thanks, wia (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

A Editor's Barnstar for you

  The Editor's Barnstar
I am awarding you a Editor's Barnstar because of your tireless contributions to wikipedia. Keep up the good work.Supdiop (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Salvatore di Pietro

I just submitted an article that was temporarily rejected for lack of references. Almost the entire article is from a book that was released by BRC press in Belize on March 24, 2015 and sold more than 600 copies at the launch. How are reviewers ever to see a book and pass on its merits, unless they purchase a copy in Belize? It had 3 university professors as its authors and what I quote from it is not matter that is likely subject to bias in reporting. Jzsj (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for inquiring on my talk page. My primary issue was with the JSTOR reference, which does not say anything of substance about Salvatore di Pietro. As for the book, I am not sure that it satisfies the reliable source requirements. WP:RS says that sources must be published and that "media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited". I tried to find something about the BRC publishing house, but if this is their website, I am not sure whether they qualify as a "reliable third party". It seems they are a printing press rather than a full-blown publishing house with editorial standards. However, I freely admit that I am not the ultimate expert in this subject; there are people in the AfC community who are more knowledgeable than I. My suggestion to you would be to inquire at the Help Desk and get other opinions.
Once you have an answer about the source, the next step is to include more inline citations in the article so that readers know exactly what statements are supported by what references. Hope that helps, wia (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The Teahouse answers are very helpful, in case you haven't checked them out yet! wia (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer and encouragement. The question does resolve itself to whether a book can be regarded as reliable if published in Belize style (using one of the few printhouses in Belize), with the Diocese as publisher, and written by 3 university professors. I can send someone a copy of the book if they wish to examine it for professional standards of history. Its bibliography contains 143 books and articles and 139 pieces from 3 different archives, none of which are in my town of Kansas City, MO. I'm sure you'll find shortcomings in citations in most books, even from the US publishing houses, but these authors in Belize seem as diligent as any to get the facts straight. May I refer to their work in footnotes or must I try to trace out all the sources of their info?Jzsj (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Given the answers of my colleagues at the Teahouse, I think it'll be okay to use the book as a reliable source! (I am probably too cautious when it comes to sources.) There's no requirement to send anyone a copy of the book; as long as it is a reliable, independent source, it is acceptable for use. As WP:RS says, "an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet".
What I'd suggest now is to find some more references that discuss Salvatore di Pietro. One detailed reference is always okay, but the more, the merrier. Then use inline citations within the article so that specific claims about the subject are referenced; this allows readers to retrace your footsteps. If you have questions about inline citations, WP:ILC is a good place to start, and I'm always happy to help. Edit: I forgot to answer the last part of your question. You can refer to the book in your footnotes. Of course, you're also welcome to go back to the primary documents the authors referenced yourself, but it's not strictly necessary. Hope this helps! wia (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

17:54:57, 13 April 2015 review of submission by (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the review. You pointed out the lack of inline citation and I rechecked the instructions to put <ref> in the body of the article and I can see the 12 references on the draft page (in edition, in the body; in the draft as clickable notes and full references at the bottom of the article). Sure I missed something but so far I can't see what. Thanks for your time. I'm looking too to ad a picture, but so far, I'm not sure of the process and will work on it later.

Hi, thanks for inquiring on my talk page. The article is looking very good, as are your references. What you need to do is place a few more inline citations within the body of the article. The first paragraph in the Boography section, in particular, needs a few more inline citations. If you can add those, I think I'd be almost ready to accept the draft. Thanks! wia (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm a little confused, sorry. Thanks for the review but after rechecking instructions about inline citations I can't figure why you pointed out the lack of them in the article. I used the <ref> in the body and I can click them and see the list at the bottom of the page, 12 entries when I preview the draft. tHANKS
Okay, I'll walk you through it. Take a look at your draft. Do you see the sentence that ends with "after a first exhibition at the DEMA."? It has a [1] after it, an inline citation. You have a total of 13 inline citations in the article. That's good! However, in the Biography section, you will need some more inline citations after substantive claims. For instance, there is a sentence that says he became a US citizen in 2003. It'd be a good idea to have an inline citation after that sentence; otherwise, readers will have a hard time determining where that fact comes from.
Does that make sense? It's not a problem with your references; you just need to put some more inline citations in the document after potentially contentious facts (per WP:MINREF) so that readers know exactly where they come from. If you do that, I think the article will be nearing completion. As always, let me know if you need any help. Thanks, wia (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

19:52:35, 13 April 2015 review of submission by

I have edited the article with updated citations. Thanks for the review and your time. (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC) (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

20:46:38, 13 April 2015 review of submission by Sean p connors

So do i just wait, or do I need to do something and re-submit?

Sean p connors (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there's no need to submit the disambiguation page until the page it refers to is accepted. Keep working on that main page and after it's accepted into the mainspace, you can try the disambiguation page. Thanks, wia (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Please view my talk page. I am confused why my article has been blacklisted. No reason given that I can work out.

Hi, someone has requested that the disambiguation page be deleted. However, they're not going to delete your main article, just the disambiguation page. That is okay. Once your article is done and accepted, then you can make a disambiguation page. Does that make sense? Thanks, wia (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, it looks like they've actually nominated your article for speedy deletion. You've already contested the deletion, which is the right thing to do if you'd like to try to keep it. However, ultimately it is up to an administrator to decide whether the article will stay. I will post a comment on the talk page as well. Perhaps with some work, the draft can be retained. Thanks, wia (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:True Democracy Party (UK) question

Hi Wikiisawesome

I hope I have suitably improved and referenced the page for Digital Democracy.

Sorry to rush you, but it is a page for a political party with honourable intentions - the aim of returning some democracy to a fairly undemocratic UK. The UK general election on May 7th, less than a month away.

Please say If there's anything else I can do to help?. Basically the party (Digital Democracy) relies on the app ( - or other respected digital democracy apps - to know what people want, and what they think is important.

A BIG thank you


Hi Jon, thanks for inquiring on my talk page. First, I think you ought to read WP:COI, which talks about our conflict of interest policy. I assume the article you're referring to is Draft:True Democracy Party (UK).
The second thing is that Wikipedia drafts typically take some time to work their way through the process. Drafts get accepted once they meet the reviewing criteria, the first step of which is meeting the notability requirements. Notability on Wikipedia is a bit of a tricky concept to grasp, because it's not the same thing as fame. One easy way for a subject to be notable is for it to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", per WP:GNG. There are other ways for something to be notable, but that's a good starting point.
The problem with the True Democracy Party draft is that it doesn't have any references yet. We can't accept articles, no matter how interesting or true they may be, until they have references backing up their notability. So the first step toward the True Democracy Party draft being accepted is the inclusion of reliable, independent sources that discuss the political party in significant detail.
I hope this helps. As always, feel free to reply here if you have further questions. Thanks, wia (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

14 April Hong Kong Time 9:15pm / PETER AZUR draft

Dear Awesome - I tend to agree with you. Azur was relatively insignificant in the overall scheme of things and probably, on balance, not worthy of inclusion in an Encyclopedia. However, we need to remind ourselves occasionally that WIKIPEDIA is not The Britannica, nor Colliers, nor even our simplified Middle School World Book. It's a living, pulsating, constantly morphing experiment in online scholarship and erudition. That having been said, I am willing to withdraw "Peter Azur" from consideration, largely since you've placed the onus on me to further perfect this article rather than on your own editorial resources. WIKI will be all the poorer as a result...

Hi, thanks for inquiring on my talk page. The purpose of the draft process is for users like you to get some feedback and to improve their articles so that they won't be deleted once they make it to the mainspace. You don't have to make an article "perfect"; it need only be good enough to meet Wikipedia's standards.
I'm happy to help where I can, but ultimately, if you wish to make a Wikipedia article about a subject, the brunt of the work will fall to you. I've given you some suggestions for improvement on the page itself. It shouldn't be too much work to find some sources and reflect the subject's notability, should it exist.
Thanks for your contributions and I hope you do continue helping out at Wikipedia! Thanks, wia (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Parents and Abducted Children Together question

I'm not sure if I am talking to you in the right way, but I really need your help. I just don't understand. My latest edit has live citations for every assertion. I have explained in detail on my talk page what was wrong with the previous edit. I do need to know point by point what's wrong with my edit. What information is incorrect? Lutetia99 (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Lutetia99 (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Lutetia99: Hi, thanks for inquiring on my talk page. I've posted a list of some of the problems on the article's talk page. One problem, for example, is the assertion that PACT has appeared in Congressional and Senate hearings in Belgium and the US. If you read through the documents you've cited, the words "PACT" or "Parents and Abducted Children Together" do not appear anywhere. Lady Catherine Meyer's name appears, but never the name of the organization. As such, those references don't prove that PACT appeared at the hearings. I'm happy to help you add content to the article, you just need to be very careful that the references are supporting exactly what's being put into the article.
Let me know if you have any other questions and if I can be of assistance. Thanks, wia (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Beastie Boys question

Hi wikiisaweome,

About the Beastie Boys:

I say they're Jewish (their wikipedia page identifies them as a Jewish band);

I say Jewish ethnicity derives from the Middle East (the wikipedia entry on 'Genetic studies of Jewish origins' confirms this)

I say White people are from Europe (the wikipedia page on 'White people' confirms this)

None of this is at all controversial, so I'm changing it back.

If you have any further doubts please first seek clarification on the relevant wikipedia pages sourced before getting back in touch.

@ Perhaps it'd be best to seek consensus for the change on the article's talk page. Also, this source claims that they are white. I'd seek consensus at the talk page. Thanks, wia (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

"Do What You Do Best and Outsource the Rest" question

Hello Wikiisawesome,

After reading the review it seems evident that I need to strike a balance. Being that this is my first time having submitted an article, I certainly would welcome and appreciate the experienced hand of one of the editors. I do not want to give up, I will take all the advice that I need to make this work.

I am not altogether certain that I understand everything that was said and perhaps you could help me with that.

I tried to stay within the guidelines for independent, reliable, published sources and references. I’ve quoted from

  • Forbes magazine 2 times,
  • BusinessWeek (Bloomberg Business) 4 times,
  • Wall Street Journal 2 times,
  • Success Magazine 1 time
  • Outlook magazine one time,
  • Encyclopaedia Britannica 1 time,
  • Quote sites 3 times.
  • I also quoted from the least 2 books,
  • 3 research sites.

I would certainly welcome your guidance here.

For clarity’s sake, I’ve gone back and put in quotes keywords and sentences from each of my references. I realize that some of the statements seemed bombastic rather than “encyclopedic,” however every statement that seems to be over the top was a direct quote from what I thought to be a legitimate source.

What has been difficult is the fact that Peter Drucker was an absolutely extraordinary individual with a track record second to none on Wall Street and the international markets. No one has had the track record or credentials that he had. Hence the remarkable foresight he had shown as referenced by the slogan. Rats! This even sounds like an advertisement! However, in truth it has the unique quality of being accurate and true as every reference shows. If you read any biography of his, it will sound like my brief description. Should I water down his accolades? BTW.. I am retired and void of any agenda, and again; I am willing to submit to every suggestion.

I tried to make the central point of the article the slogan itself. However I thought that in order to properly explain the ramifications of the slogan, one needed to know who had written it and their qualifications to have done so.

Secondly, it’s also important to not only give the definition of “outsourcing,” but to explain its history and impact on domestic and global markets. Still, I Want this to be all about the slogan.

Again, I welcome any and all input, and I bow to your experience. I’m not sure exactly what to change. You’ve made some pretty broad strokes. Perhaps you can help me with some specificity.

Thank you for your kind consideration and the time you took to evaluate the article. I hope to hear from you soon… Henry Hbazarte (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Hbazarte:, thanks for inquiring on my talk page. Getting an article accepted is a process, so don't be discouraged if it takes a few tries!
You have lots of references, which is a good thing. My first issue, however, is that the article seems to be both a biography of Peter Drucker and a discussion of the slogan. It's fine to talk about Drucker if he's relevant to the topic of outsourcing. But I think there might be better ways of integrating the Drucker information. Another point to consider is that there's already an article about Outsourcing on Wikipedia. At its heart, this article seems to talk about Drucker's influence on and opinion of corporate outsourcing. Is that a topic that deserves its own article? I'm not sure. Feel free to ask for a second opinion at the Help Desk, but it may be preferable to find a way to integrate your content into the outsourcing article, or to change gears and make your draft a biography of Drucker.
My second issue is that some of the writing is not quite neutral. It's obvious that you're a good writer, but some of the content doesn't match Wikipedia's rules on the neutral point of view. For example, your opening paragraph contains things that are technically true ("Grammatically speaking this phrase (or sentence) is an internal rhyming isocolon.") but that are best removed, per WP:LEAD, the document that explains how to write a good introductory paragraph.
As the article continues, you weigh the benefits and pitfalls of outsourcing, and finish with a summary. This reads like a bit like a comparative or persuasive essay. The content is very interesting, but take care that it doesn't start to sound like an essay. You want to assess the pros and cons as neutrally as possible. Sentences like "Countless American companies have transferred technology development and customer service, along with financial and administrative jobs to the international markets" may be true, but "Countless" is a bit of a weasel word.
Keep working on the article and don't be afraid to inquire at the Help Desk if you need any assistance. I'm happy to help however I can! Thanks, wia (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Dear Wikiisawesome,
Thank you so much for your prompt and encouraging words. I also appreciate the specificity that I asked for. You given me a lot to think about and some intriguing ways to reach the goal. I appreciate that it could be difficult maintaining the balance necessary, because there already is an article on outsourcing and there is already an extensive biography on Peter Drucker.
Is it possible to not only submit an article on the subject “Do What You Do Best and Outsource the Rest” but to also add to the existing articles on both outsourcing and Drucker?
Let me jump back in and see what I can do. And I will take your advice at seeking communication with the Helpdesk.
Thanks again
Henry Hbazarte (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
By the way, Wikiisawesome,
I certainly do appreciate your comment on my first sentence.
“For example, your opening paragraph contains things that are technically true ("Grammatically speaking this phrase (or sentence) is an internal rhyming isocolon.") but that are best removed, per WP:LEAD, the document that explains how to write a good introductory paragraph.”
Italic text
Having done some writing over the years, it had bugged the heck out of me to have opened my article with that line. Unfortunately I had been compelled to do so after reading the article for the phrase, “The Pen Is Mightier Than the Sword.” That article “opened much the same way by first explaining exactly what the phrase was grammatically. I mistakenly assumed that sort of opening was expected of me because I too was writing an article on a given phrase. I had been taught decades ago that a good article must start with a good hook. There was nothing “hookish” about my introduction.
That’s what I get for ASSuming…
Thanks again
Henry Hbazarte (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Hbazarte: that's alright! Writing for Wikipedia can be tricky, but there is absolutely no harm done in "assuming", because you can always keep working on the article and resubmit later. My review of your submission is certainly not the last word on the subject.
In theory, yes, it's entirely possible to have an article about this quote and about Outsourcing and Peter Drucker. Just remember that for an article about the quote "Do What You Do Best and Outsource the Rest" to stand on its own, it must be notable. I think it could be, so long as it features reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss the subject in significant detail. I took a look through the sources you've cited and very few of them seem to mention the quote itself. (The Forbes article mentions it, albeit briefly.) So I suppose this is my third major suggestion: add some more sources that talk about it in detail. I hope this is helpful. wia (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes it was... Thanks again HenryHbazarte (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

17:38:57, 15 April 2015 review of submission by AnnRos

Thank you, Wikiawesome for reviewing the Alexander Beridze page so quickly. I made revisions on the language to avoid being close to the language used on the web in his bio which I hope will avoid the copyright issues. I hope this will solve the concerns. I appreciate your feedback. AnnRos AnnRos (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC) AnnRos (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@AnnRos: I'll take a look now. Thanks, wia (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@AnnRos: I've posted my latest thoughts as a comment at the draft. Thanks, wia (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I lost the latest revision of my submission

My submission was deleted. I now only see the first revision that I submitted. I have lost all my edits during this process. Also it was deleted with no reason, as you said you would correct the disambiguate question once it was accepted. This method does not encourage sharing in the Wikipedia.  :(

@Sean p connors: It looks like you still have this version. I think there's some confusion here though: the disambiguation page was deleted because it was placed on the talk page of another draft you had created, which was deleted. When an article is deleted, the talk page is deleted too. So that's why the disambiguation page is gone. I'm not sure if that answers your question; let me know if it doesn't.
The policy on disambiguation pages is that they don't need to be created until the articles themselves exist. So if you create the "Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model" article and another article that could be confused with it, then you're welcome to submit the disambiguation page. Let me know when that happens, and as I offered before, I'll gladly approve the disambiguation page for you.
As for the draft that remains, if you want it to stand a chance of being accepted, you will have to do quite a bit of work on the article:
  • Clean up the formatting. Most Wikipedia articles start with an introductory paragraph that summarizes the subject in a neutral fashion. I'm looking at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/CYBERSECURITY CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL (C2M2) right now, and I think the lead paragraph could use some work. "The Cyber Security Strategy is used to lay down how to choose, implement and measure using 5 Layers of defense, which results in a tactical plan" is your opening sentence. However, it does not define what the "Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model" is. You should consider rewriting the first paragraph so that it explains exactly what the title of the article ("Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model") is, in clear language.
  • Next, I'd suggest reading this article that explains how to write a good Wikipedia page. Read it carefully and use the ideas given there to help you craft a stronger draft.
  • Finally, make sure to add reliable, independent (third-party) references so that the article demonstrates that the subject is notable. I Googled the subject and there seem to be a few links about the subject. Those are a start, but you should look through online newspapers and books too, to see if there's anything there.
I hope this is helpful. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, wia (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 14:31:49, 16 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Smoomaw

I need to post this article for a class. I assumed this was the proper manner to do that.

Smoomaw (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Smoomaw: Is your assignment to create an article about Pseudotoxoplasmosis syndrome? If so, perhaps you should tell your professor that there is already an article about Aicardi–Goutières syndrome on Wikipedia. Thanks, wia (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

During AFC

{{connected contributor}} is more useful that COI notices. I wondered if you knew of it? We try to manage out the actual puffery during AFC, and seem content with COI under those circumstances. Fiddle Faddle 18:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Oh, thanks, I wasn't aware of that template! I'll use it instead. I appreciate the help. Hope I'm not causing too much work for the rest of you at the project! wia (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Work is only caused by those who do not learn, and we are all here to learn   Investigate all the parameters, and, ideally, ensure the other links parameter is filled out, probably with a diff of where the editor has embraced their topic. Fiddle Faddle 18:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

scholarshipowl page

hi you rejected our page. can you advise what needs to be changed? there are no references because we wrote it about our website which is a great new service helping students to apply to scholarships .. please advice..

@Scholarship-expert: Hi, I presume the article you are talking about is Draft:ScholarshipOwl. First, I will warn you about Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest rules. It's strongly recommended that you avoid editing articles about subjects in which you have some personal stake.
As for the article, you will need to add references if you want the article to be accepted. No two ways about it. Please see the comment I posted on your draft for some links to follow that will help you identify reliable, independent sources. wia (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


I have fixed the errors about advertising on Draft:RedArcGaming i believe, could you check it again. And for notability i cant provide any references since the organisation has just started and wont be able to get references until user base is stared. Thank you can hope you can help further.

@Bandnan: hi and thanks for inquiring on my talk page. I took a look, and it's slightly less promotional now, so that's good. I'd also consider removing "Welcome and don't forget to invite friends" from the infobox. As for accepting the article, unfortunately it's not notable yet because there are no references. If a reputable online news source, for example, writes something about Red Arc Gaming, that would be the kind of reference you're looking for. We can't accept the article until it's notable, so we'll have to wait. The good news is that there's no deadline, so even if it takes you a few months to get the references, it's no trouble. The draft will still be there! (I think you have to edit a draft at least once every six months or it gets nominated for deletion to save server space. However, you can always get it back if it's deleted for that reason.) wia (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Wikiisawesome: Thank you for the response, i will go ahead and remove that from the infobox, and thank you for clarifying on how to get accepted.

UNSW Student newspaper Tharunka

added 'The Daily Terrorgraph (The Daily Telegraph)' to the editors section because I actually have a copy of the edition that section is referring to.

Okay, that's fine! I reverted it at the time because it looked like vandalism, but your edit is okay. Thanks, wia (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

09:34:16, 17 April 2015 review of submission by Xxxmicrobexxx

This is not a re-review request. I am a bit puzzled about how much more information is needed and am hoping you can give a couple of example where you would expect a citation. Thanks

Xxxmicrobexxx (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Xxxmicrobexxx: Hi, thanks for inquiring on my talk page. Biographies of living people need to have inline citations after every substantive, potentially contentious fact you claim about the person in the article. The draft doesn't yet have any inline citations, so you'll have to add some. Thanks, wia (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

ECIL Bus Station

Can I post the Draft:ECIL Bus Station directly to the article space? or wait till it gets reviewed? It has been like 10 days since I sent it to re-review. I don't feel sad if it gets rejected. What do you think? should I proceed to add it to main article space? Thank you Supdiop (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Supdiop: Hm, that's a good question. Since you have a registered account, you're allowed to move it to the main article space. If you do that, you do run the risk of it being deleted once it gets there. I don't think that risk is particularly high, but you never know. This article seems like an edge case to me, and I'm not sure which way I'd vote—there aren't really a lot of sources, but most bus station articles don't have many references either. I'd say it's up to you! wia (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes it is a edge case. I don't want to move it. I will copy the text and post it. If no one objects for like one hour, I will remove the AfC tag from the draft.
After reading your comment about vandalism in my talk page, I started to patrol new articles. I gained lot of experience from doing that. Now I know what sort of articles are eligible for Wikipedia. My article is in between the ineligible and eligible. I think it is slightly leaning towards ineligible side.
I will try and if no one objects it then no problem. Thanks Supdiop (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Supdiop: If I were you, I wouldn't copy and paste the text. I'd instead use the "Move" function under the "More" menu and move the article to the mainspace. I don't have a policy to link you to, but that way you don't duplicate the content. If you're worried about speedy deletion, just copy the source and save it in a text file on your computer. wia (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay I will do what you said. Thank you Supdiop (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Alexander Beridze:

Dear Wikiisawesome, Thank you so much for your review of the article on Draft:Alexander Beridze. I am learning a lot about Wikipedia. Another reviewer, CookieMonster755, is also reviewing the page and has given me great suggestions as well, so I appreciate the entire Wikipedia community! I have made many revisions to the page in response to both sets of comments. I don't know the protocol for two reviewers reviewing the same page, but any further suggestions you have would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! AnnRos (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@AnnRos: I think some of the sentences are still close to existing copyrighted material. For example, at this site, it says "The artist dedicated the evening to the memory of his mother, Manana Begiashvili". The draft says "Beridze dedicated the recital to the memory of his mother, Manana Gegiashvili". You've changed "the artist" to "Beridze" and "evening" to "recital", but the rest of the sentence is copied. I think this is still too close a paraphrase. Take a look at WP:PARAPHRASE for some ideas, then go through the article, comparing it to the references you've cited, and make sure that you rewrite anything that's either copied or closely paraphrased in your own words. Thanks, wia (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 21:00:59, 18 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Shumbard

I need to add to an article for a class assignment. I only need to add a few lines. I submitted additions to Adaptive Behavior as substance abuse was not addressed. Not they say it was denied. Due tomorrow at midnight I need to make an addition to that page. Can you tell me how?

Shumbard (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Shumbard: If your assignment is to add something to an article, then there is no need to create an entirely new article. Instead, go to either the Adaptive behavior or the Adaptive behaviors article and add your content there. Make sure that anything you add is written in an encyclopedic tone and is well-referenced. I will warn you that I'm having a hard time understanding what you have written at Draft:Adaptive Behavior. What exactly does "Conceding it is not only a matter of one’s own free will but a disease that leads to possible substance abuse is providing new opportunities for treatment." mean? What are these "new opportunities for treatment"? Do you have a reference to back that up? If not, it sounds like original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Just a few things to keep in mind as you work on adding this content to an existing article. As always, if you need further guidance, I'm happy to try to help. Thanks, wia (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your compliment

I'm watching you growing in expertise and stature. I know that almost sounds arrogant, as if I know what I'm doing  . I look forward to seeing more and more of your work. not just at WP:AFC, but following up things like vandalism, sock puppetry, pr0motional usernames, and som much more. And, among that, enjoying creating and editing articles. Fiddle Faddle 20:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I'm finding there's a whole world of things to get involved in at Wikipedia. Not enough time in the day to discover it all! Thanks for your guidance. wia (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I find that AFC leads us to most places. just follow the threads to where they run. Fiddle Faddle 21:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

South Carolina Gamecocks question

I added reliable outside sources to the "South Carolina Gamecocks men's golf" article. Could you please review it again and let me know if it can moved out of draft status? Whitesquire (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a look. wia (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The references look better. The next step is to remove external links from within the article's content. (For example, you have an external link to Bill McDonald in the lede, and a few in the "Gamecocks on the PGA Tour" section.) Read up on WP:EL for details, or ask here if you have any questions. I would also consider finding some more references for the names listed in the "Notable Wins and Honors" section. You've got the collegiategolf reference, but it just links to a search field. It'd be better if you put those sources in yourself so future readers don't have to do too much digging. Thanks, wia (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The references are there so that a reader can do more digging if he or he wants. That's the whole idea of including references. As for the collegiate golf reference, it's the only outside source for All-American honors, as the Golf Coaches Association of America awards those honors and maintains that particular reference online. They don't have separate pages for each honoree; you have to look it up if you are really interested. However, there are now numerous other references in this article, including recent press received by the South Carolina's men's golf team, which shows the notability. The lack of such references was the only reason given for declining the article. Now that those sources are in the article, you want to add additional hoops to jump through, so I am a bit perplexed. Other articles on men's golf teams don't show as much notability and may also be less developed, but they are no longer in draft status. These other articles don't include references beyond the school's media guide, which is typically where one would find information about individual golfers. The media guide for the South Carolina men's golf team is found on its website, which is referenced in this article in the same manner as other articles on men's golf teams. Also, most existing articles have external links and are a work in progress. However, by you not moving this one out of draft status, I get the feeling you expect it to be perfect first. That was not my understanding of the notability requirement. These extra issues can be dealt with by me and other editors if moved out of draft status. Other editors are also more likely to add info and references if out of draft status. Please let me know if you can move this article out of draft status or if I need to take it up with another administrator. Whitesquire (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Moving an article out of draft space is a process; sometimes it takes a few tries, so don't be discouraged. You fixed the notability issues with your latest edits, so that's one big hurdle out of the way. Now all that's left is some minor cleanup, I'd say. The article doesn't need to be perfect, but it should comply with Wikipedia policy on external links and referencing. I would suggest that you clean up the external links now, since you're planning to do it anyway. As for the collegiategolf citation, referencing a search field essentially tells readers to do the research themselves, which isn't particularly helpful. (You can read about the utility of citing sources robustly at WP:WHYCITE.) What I'd suggest doing is linking to this page instead, as it actually lists the people who've won honours.
I'll let another user handle the next review, which is pending, since I try not to review the same submission twice in the interest of impartiality. However, while you wait, you're more than welcome to solicit feedback from the AfC Help Desk. The contributors at the Help Desk know their stuff and would be able to give you further guidance. Thanks, wia (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I deleted the external links in the body of the article but wasn't able to change the collegiate golf reference since it appears to be the same as the one you cited. More references were added. Thanks for your help. Whitesquire (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Gah, you're right that the collegiategolf reference doesn't work my way either. I think it should be okay to have it the way you do already, then. I'm on the busy side today but I'll check in at the article a bit later. Sounds like everything is on the right track though. Thanks, wia (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Whitesquire: Congrats on getting the article into the mainspace! It looks good. wia (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I couldn't have done it without you! Whitesquire (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

East Somerset Railway line template

If you look at the bottom of the template, you will see that a connection is shown from Wanstrow to Witham.

However, there is a station called Strap Lane Halt that should be shown between Wanstrow and Witham. This station is clearly shown on the template of the Wilts, Somerset and Dorset Railway, where the northwards line connection to that line from the East Somerset Railway is clearly marked and shown.

Can you ensure that Strap Lane Halt is now shown at the foot section of the East Somerset Railway line template, please.

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 07:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Paul Sidorczuk: Thanks for bringing this to my attention! I've never edited a template as complicated as this and I fear it might be beyond my current skill level. Nonetheless, I'll give it a shot and see what I can do. wia (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
@Paul Sidorczuk: Yikes, it's very tricky to work with those rail line templates. I'm not sure exactly how to do it. I can get part of it right but the rest of the map gets screwed up. (Since each stop needs to have its "name" on a separate line, I can't just extend the line horizontally, so I have to add it by extending a vertical line, but that clumps the stops together and I seem to get them all out of order.) You might have some luck asking Useddenim for help if he or she doesn't mind; I've seen their work on another railway template and it is really good! wia (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  Done. Useddenim (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC) (He)
@Useddenim: Thanks for your help; much appreciated! wia (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

17:14:48, 20 April 2015 review of submission by Dagannt

Hello! I just wanted to know if you had any specific recommendations for how I could improve this page. I'm doing it for a class assignment, and my Professor said that the assignment was developed in consultation with the Wikipedia Education Initiative, so the format should be fine. I tried removing anything that sounded like an opinion, but please let me know if there's anything else I should change in particular in order to get it approved. Dagannt (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dagannt: Hi, and thanks for inquiring on my talk page! There are a few issues of original research and synthesis here that need to be addressed. Wikipedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and they need references and citations for everything that is claimed. For example, "The field of design and emotions is a relatively new one, with a great deal of discussion and speculation being made with little concrete research to back up these ideas. Even so, this emerging field is expanding quickly and many psychologists and design experts are working to develop a deeper understanding of the connections between the two fields", doesn't have any inline references, and so it sounds as if you are synthesizing others' research yourself. Synthesis isn't permitted on Wikipedia; you can only report on what others have said. So something like "this emerging field is expanding quickly" has to be rephrased. If you found a source from an academic in the field, for example, you could rewrite it as "John Doe, professor of X at University Y, has written that the field is expanding quickly".
Also, while an overview section is useful in an essay, it's not how a typical Wikipedia is structured. Take a look at WP:LEAD for some ideas on how to write a good introduction for a Wikipedia article. Same with the conclusion section; there's no need for a concluding statement on Wikipedia. Just state the facts, let academics do the synthesis, and report on what they've said. I hope this is a helpful start. If you have further questions, the Teahouse is always a friendly place to ask questions and get useful answers. If you have a question specific to the article creation process, you can also inquire at the Articles for Creation Help Desk. Thanks, wia (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi again! Thanks for your advice. I went ahead and made a number of edits based on your suggestions. Would you be able to look it over to see if the changes I made were sufficient to make it more objective and less synthesized? Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagannt (talkcontribs) 18:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@Dagannt: The article is looking better. There is still some work to be done, I think. For example, in your "Controversies" section, most of these claims are cited without any references to back them up. The reference you do have seems to be from a psychotherapy clinic that reads a bit like PR, so I'm not sure I'd rely on that for your controversies section. My other suggestion is to put more inline citations within the body of the text, especially after any statements that are likely to be challenged. That will help your readers understand exactly what reference supports what claims in the article.
Keep working at it and resubmit when you feel confident you've gotten the references and neutral tone under control. There's a bit of a backlog at the project, so it might take a bit of time for someone to review the article, but it'll happen in time. wia (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

13:24:16, 21 April 2015 review of submission by PalmerWolf

The comment was that there were insufficient citations in the article. However, there are 12 footnotes. Is that not sufficient? PalmerWolf (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@PalmerWolf: A large number of inline citations can be helpful, but it actually doesn't determine whether an article is properly referenced. It's instead whether you're added inline citations after every statement that is likely to be challenged. There are quite a few places in the text without inline citations. Most of the stuff about Goldovsky's early life does not have any. That means that a future reader of this article would have a hard time tracking down the sources you used for those exact claims. There are also no inline citations about the circumstances of Goldovsky's death or his family. I'd try to add inline citations to those sections, make sure that every substantive claim that is likely to be challenged has an inline citation, and then resubmit. Thanks, wia (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

11:25:13, 21 April 2015 review of submission by Sarahmorid

Dear Reviewer, Hi, Just received a notification against my article submission about the Cookie Box Group. it has been rejected for being similar to an advertisement which is not my intention, As you have read the article it's just to inform a great movement took by the Cookie Box Group in initiating a whole new story in pastry industry in a country, Iran. making document about the real people doing real things in Iran was my main intention. and this going to be my first article, will sure take time to get it right inside Wikipedia framework; so I would appreciate if I could have your suggestions or comments on the part of the article which have a misled interpretation of advertising the brand.

thank you very much in advance. sarah.

Sarahmorid (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Sarahmorid: Hi, thanks for inquiring on my talk page! Some of the text here seems very promotional; in particular, the "The Story" section is not written from a neutral point of view. For example, "The story of Cookie Box began from a home kitchen in a conventional oven!" sounds like something you'd read in a press release, not in an encyclopedia, and "Cookie Box is a vanguard in setting the pace in variety of homemade-quality pastries and cakes." is a subjective assessment of Cookie Box's influence. Wikipedia has to be written impartially and objectively, so those sorts of value judgments about Cookie Box will have to be removed and replaced with objective, impartial facts. Let me know if you have further questions! Thanks, wia (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Help with improvement

I am creating a page for a department in the University of Kent and am having difficulty doing so. Any help would be appreciated.

Blorange2 (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Blorange2: Hi, thanks for inquiring on my talk page about Draft:University of Kent School of Computing. The first thing you should know is that getting a draft approved is a process. It might take a few tries, so don't be discouraged if you have to work on the article for a while before it is accepted. The goal is to make a great article, and so the more effort you put into it, the better!
There is a policy called notability on Wikipedia that helps decide what sorts of topics can have articles. Notability says that if the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. There are some additional rules for schools and the like, which you're welcome to browse. But at the end of the day you need to show that the school department is notable by referencing reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss the subject in significant detail. As Timtrent pointed out in a comment on the draft, you can't use Wikipedia as a source because it's not considered reliable. You also can't rely on the school's own webpage as a sole source, because it's too closely linked to the subject itself to be neutral and independent.
That leads into my second point: Wikipedia articles need to be written from an objective, neutral point of view. When you say things like "Both sites have excellent facilities and combine a very safe and friendly environment with a great location, a wealth of cultural links and superb transport connections to London and continental Europe", you are making a subjective value judgment about the school. You will need to remove those sentences and rewrite them from a completely impartial point of view. if you find a study that concluded that this campus is one of the safest in England, then you could rephrase it as "a 2014 X study ranked University of Kent School of Computing as one of the five safest campuses in England", or something to that effect.
Lastly, we don't accept external links within the body of an article. Take a look at WP:REFB to learn how to properly add references. Thanks, wia (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Blorange2: A great deal of sense here. My suggestion is to absorb the information gently and work on one thing at a time, finish that and do the next thing. Your objective is to get the draft accepted, not to achieve perfection. Broadly speaking, we accept when there is a better than 60% chance of the article surviving a deletion process. Deletion processes are tough to defend, so the review process is far, far better. Streets ahead!! Fiddle Faddle 16:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

17:46:00, 21 April 2015 review of submission by

I'm back to my desktop and made revisions on the text according to your advices. I hope all is clear. Thanks for the help and your time. (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@ The article is looking better! Someone should be along to review it within the next few days or so. Even if it isn't accepted this time, don't worry; AfC submissions are a process, so don't be discouraged if it takes a few tries to get the draft through. It'll be all the better for it! wia (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ Penrose, L.S. and Penrose, R. "Impossible objects: A special type of illusion" Brit. J. Psychol. 49:31-33, 1958