Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 14

ArbCom elections are now open!

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

  Done /wia /tlk 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review of Parables TV Article for Creation

Thank you Wikiisawesome. I appreciate you taking the time to thoroughly review the article draft for Parables TV. I've gone back to look at each of the sources used thus far (based on your comments). As you stated, they are mostly primary. My intended purpose was to use these sources to confirm a statement made in the article, but they don't offer substantial or general coverage of the network as a whole. I will add more reliable secondary sources.LG Brichetto (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@LG Brichetto: Not a problem! Primary sources have their place and can be used in certain situations, but they just don't show notability. Happy editing, and feel free to drop by the Help Desk if you have further specific questions about the draft. /wia /tlk 19:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Rexnord Wiki Draft

Thanks for your note. I would really appreciate some additional guidance on how to overcome the copyright issues. In the event that I donate copyrighted material, I'm unsure as to what to donate. What specifically on the page is perceived as stolen, copyrighted material? I don't have any logos or images yet on the page.

Many thanks.

Emily.white89 (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Emily.white89: There were a few sentence copied from here in the introduction. I see that you are affiliated with the company in question. Whoever in the company holds the copyright to the content on the website may donate the copyrighted material to Wikipedia by following the instructions at that blue link. It's certainly possible to do so, but I'd suggest rewording that content for two reasons:
  1. it's a lot faster to rewrite a sentence than it is to wait for the corporation to legally licence the copyright to Wikipedia; and
  2. the content removed was somewhat promotional in tone, making it likely unsuitable for inclusion even if it were licensed.
Since it's only two sentences and a sentence fragment that have been removed, I think rephrasing that in your own words would be an ideal solution. Of course, the company is also welcome to license the copyright. Both work.
As for the other issues with the draft tagged by SwisterTwister, you generally want to avoid relying on primary sources like newswire services, press releases and the company's own website, as they are not really independent of the subject matter. You can cite them, but they don't show notability themselves, so at the end of the day it's better to rely on more independent sources. There appears to be some coverage in the Milwaukee Business Journal, which is a good start, but since that is a local news source, more regional or national sources would also be a good idea. Google News and Google Newspaper archives are a good place to look, as are magazines, journals and books (whether online or offline). Let me know if you have any other questions. Someone at the Help Desk should be along soon to give you another perspective on the draft, which never hurts. Always good to get multiple opinions! Thanks, /wia /tlk 18:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Wikiisawesome: Many thanks for your advice. I am not an experienced user but of course want to adhere to Wikipedia standards. I reworked the text a bit and added in additional, national news sources throughout the draft. Please let me know if you see any red flags or if I might be able to submit for review once again.
Emily.white89 (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Emily.white89: Hi, it's not a problem! We all start somewhere, and I'm happy to help.
Some of the new references don't seem to offer significant coverage of Rexnord. By "significant", I mean "substantial" and certainly "lessmore than trivial". I know it seems like a tall order, but sources need to provide significant coverage in an independent manner in order to make a strong case for notability. Keep working at the referencing and perhaps trim down a few of the primary sources that don't offer a whole lot in terms of content. Let me know if you'd like me to have another look later on. Thanks, /wia /tlk 19:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Wikiisawesome: Hello again! I have gone through the article for Rexnord and deleted trivial references. I also eliminated any references to sources linked to the company. I focused mainly on finding independent, national news sources. It would be much appreciated if you could review and let me know if this would meet the standards to be published. Many thanks, Emily.white89 (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@Emily.white89: Hi, I took another look at the draft. The New York Times is a reliable source but unfortunately this newly added source doesn't have much of substance to say. It's just a typical directory link; sites like Bloomberg have one for just about every company in the US. The Reuters and Yahoo! Finance articles only offer passing mentions of Rexnord. While they establish that Rexnord exists and is in business, they don't show that it's notable. I like the Milwaukee Business Journal article, although it is a bit light on content.
There is a real possibility that the company is simply not notable at this time, in the Wikipedia sense of the word. I just did my own search for references (previously I'd only been looking at the ones cited) and it seems like most of the good ones come from the Milwaukee region (and in particular the Milwaukee Business Journal). For me that leads to a presumption against notability. There are other good sources (like this source) but it's also from Milwaukee. This suggests to me that the company isn't notable right now. While that's probably not welcome news, I think it's important that you know the realistic probability of acceptance right now.
The good news is that drafts are kept for 6 months after the latest edit, and even after that, you can always request that the article be restored. Keep looking for good-quality sources from regional/national publishers that offer significant coverage of the company. You can probably get rid of some of the less useful sources unless you are specifically citing them for something. Let me know if I can help you with anything else! /wia /tlk 23:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Cluetrekk

Thanks Wikiisawesome. I'm just responding to the comments from Tokyogirl who had modified the content of the New Swears page. The whole process was a bit frustrating as 3 reviewers made comments about not being notable enough yet she indicated that there were issues with promotion. It is a fine line between notability and promotion. I will look over the content and make the necessary changes. Thanks for getting back to me Cluetrekk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cluetrekk (talkcontribs) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Stagophile

Wikiiawesome. The anonymous editor making the revisions to the Xaverian Brothers High School article is a student or alumnus at a rival high school named St. Sebastian's. His edits are mean-spirited and meant to disparage Xaverian. If you look at his IP addresses and pattern of revisions, you will will understand. Also, if this continues, can I recommend a temporary lock on edits? Thanks. Stagophile (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Stagophile: Hi, their edits are a little strange, now that I take a closer look. You can certainly request temporary page protection at WP:RFPP, although it seems to have died down a bit. Thanks for following up! /wia /tlk 17:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Reply to comment on Draft:Jeremiah Texts from Qumran

Hi! I noticed your comment on the draft.

On looking at the Letter of Jeremiah link, I did see a connection in terms of the Pseudo-Jeremiah texts, though I didn't find a lot of reference to the Biblical scrolls themselves. Would it work if a redirect to the Letter of Jeremiah link was put in the Pseudo-Jeremiah section? I haven't found much representing the Biblical side of the Jeremiah Qumran finds, so I'm wondering if this will work or not.

Thanks for the input! Azureindignation (talk) 03:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Azureindignation: Hi, I'm by no means an expert on Biblical history, so my comment is merely a suggestion. The article may well be able to stand on its own! Another reviewer will be along in the coming days to give you their perspective too.
You can certainly put a note in your Pseudo-Jeremiah section linking readers to the Letter of Jeremiah page. Wikipedia:Hatnote explains how to do so (just scroll down until you see "Main article".) Thanks! /wia /tlk 03:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Submission of Draft:Jio_Chat (November 24)

Hello Wia! I have made few changes and also added 3 more reliable citations. It would be great if you could check this. Thanks Tejas Nair (talk) 08:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nairspecht: Hi, thanks for stopping by. I think the problem with the Firstpost references is that Firstpost is not very independent of the subject, since Jio Chat and Firstpost are, I believe, owned by the same company. The CNET source doesn't offer substantive coverage of Jio Chat. I haven't looked at the other sources yet, but I wouldn't rely on those three for notability's sake. Thanks, /wia /tlk 16:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
@Wikiisawesome: Thanks for replying. That sounds right, Wia. Hence, I have removed all the Firstpost as well as the CNET references, and have added articles from the Times of India & Business Standard, which I believe are independent sources. Please have a look when you find time. Thanks Tejas Nair (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
@Nairspecht: Hi, I just took another look, and I think these sources are looking better. You are free to resubmit the draft and another reviewer will come along in the next few days to assess it! (I try not to review drafts twice in a row so as to avoid bias.) Thanks! /wia /tlk 19:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
@Wikiisawesome: Thanks for taking a look and replying, Wia. I'll definitely give it another try. Thanks, again. Tejas Nair (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


Hello Wia. Our paths crossed the other day in WP:AFCRD. I checked out the 3 .js that links to that page. User:PhantomTech/scripts/AFCRHS.js is not perfect, but it appears to be the best IMHO and is very worth a line in one's common.js. Try it. Best, Sam Sailor Talk! 23:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: Hi, I just gave the new script a shot and I like it! Thanks for the tip. Cheers! /wia /tlk 06:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Intel Anti-Theft

Hi wia, I often come across you when reviewing AfCs, and was wondering if you'd mind having a look at one of mine? It's going to have to be a stub for now if approved, and could well be declined! It's Draft:Intel Anti-Theft, thanks! -- samtar whisper 22:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi samtar, I will be on the run for a few hours but have found a few more sources that you could potentially add: [1], [2], and [3]. I'll have a more thorough look for sources when I'm back at my computer! /wia /tlk 22:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Those sources are sort of speculative, now that I've sat down and properly read them, but I think the Springer paper can go in the external links section. /wia /tlk 23:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Cheers wia! It got declined by someone else, but I was kinda expecting that! I've been here for 7 years and only created two articles, so I'm trying to learn a little more about this whole encyclopaedia thing.. :-P -- samtar whisper 06:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

15:33:40, 26 November 2015 review of submission by IGwikiedit

Hey, thanks for reviewing the the Peter Hetherington article. Please can you outline what kind of citations you want to see?

thank you

@IGwikiedit: Hi, not a problem! In general, WP:42 is a good place to start: we need to see a variety of reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss the subject in significant detail. Reputable magazines, journals, books or news sources (whether online or offline) are a good place to start your search. You can use English and non-English sources alike, although English ones are preferable. This may also be helpful: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
In general you want to avoid citing companies related to Hetherington or Hetherington's own websites, as they lack independence from the subject. Also, the references you cite should offer more than a merely trivial look at the subject. In practice this threshold can be a bit tricky to assess, but usually you'll want at least a paragraph of content about the subject per reference. Let me know if you have further questions or concerns. Thanks! /wia /tlk 15:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@IGwikiedit: Just to let you know, this Bloomberg source is not a terribly great one as it also does not offer much substantive content about Hetherington. It's just a directory listing that doesn't really show why Hetherington is notable. I think it'd be wise to spend a little while tracking down a few more high-quality references about Hetherington. If such sources don't exist right now, then it's regrettably likely that Hetherington is not notable at this time. Thanks, /wia /tlk 15:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


I was constructive. I explained metalepsis. You didn't know about metalepsis until I had Turkish food for thanksgiving. Are you Turkish? I don't think so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18A:C303:7F4C:1DDA:4793:C4C3:96CA (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Jabba the hut

the picture is from a deleted scene, its fine. I'm gonna put it back now, just leave it alone. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golubthehut123 (talkcontribs) 22:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

If you continue to vandalize the page, you will likely be blocked from editing. /wia /tlk 22:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

10:29:13, 29 November 2015 review of submission by Whizzarmorsel

the content which i had submitted was the creation of my website called as

@Whizzarmorsel: If you own the copyright, then you may donate the copyrighted material to Wikipedia. However, in my opinion, it is likely not worth doing so, as content on a primary-source website may run into independence or non-neutral point of view issues. I'd recommend simply rewriting the text in your own words, having regard to the policies set out at WP:NPOV concerning neutral writing.
I've also left a comment and a review on the draft about the referencing, which will need some work too. Thank you, /wia /tlk 13:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Request on 17:28:48, 28 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Sunil~mlwiki

i do agree that it is disappointing.. sorry for my bad english. Once I created the article with all references, it is others duty to make it better with citations and other bases. That is what my understanding about wiki. allow me to create the article. After that to make it better, I shall say to my other wiki friends or I shall do it after spending time to learn. I do believe that it has enough refernces. Hence you should allow me to create it. any opposite arguments i shall try to overcome, sure.

Sunil~mlwiki (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sunil~mlwiki: Hello! First, I apologize for my late reply. Usually I am much more prompt, but I've been busy over the past few days. I think Timtrent's comment on your draft is very good advice. While it is true that drafts don't need to be perfect before acceptance, they do need to meet Wikipedia's minimum standards, of which notability and verifiability are two. If you can meet this minimum standard, then the chance of acceptance is much higher. Does this make sense? Let me know if you're not sure. Thanks, /wia /tlk 13:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Sunil~mlwiki (talk)
Yes i do make sense and I provided the reference from one printed encyclopedia and two other books. I shall provide the book online link for one. The others are not online. Then I proveded a wiki link to Indian national (sangeetha nataka academy) award for music. Since it is a national award, and given many links and citations, what else you want, please.
not much information online about him and that is why i want a page in english wikipedia.
@Sunil~mlwiki: Printed encyclopedias and reliable books are a good place to start. You may also have some luck with Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL /wia /tlk 16:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

  The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar
The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to the winners of the Disambiguation Pages With Links monthly challenge, who have gone above and beyond to remove ambiguous links.
This award is presented to Wikiisawesome, for successfully fixing 1936 links in the challenge of November, 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 (chinwag) 20:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Twit alert

This twit already had a final warning in their current campaign. Probably needs custard down trousers next. Cheers (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh! You already AIV'd them. Nice one, thanks (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm on it! It'll be dealt with soon. /wia /tlk 22:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Yup, that's great. Many thanks, goodnight. (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for participating

16:08:20, 2 December 2015 review of submission by Quinnkayy

Hello! I am the Senior Communications Associate at the Building Performance Institute (BPI) and thought it would be valuable for our company to have a Wikipedia page, so I created one. All of the content is original, albeit some of it is adapted from our own company website. The reasoning behind the decline points to a website that doesn't exist ([4]), so I'm not sure how to edit the content so it falls within Wiki's parameters. Please advise, thank you!
-Quinnkayy (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Quinnkayy: Hello, the copyright violation has been addressed and removed from the draft, so you needn't worry about that anymore. (Just be aware of our copyright policies and be sure to always write content in your own words.)
It's important to note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotional vehicle for a company. In order for an article about a company to exist, it must demonstrate that it meets the corporate notability standards Basically, this boils down to finding a variety of reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss the subject in significant detail. There are some issues with the current references. The company's own website is a primary source which does not offer an independent look at the company. The Energy Star source doesn't seem to offer an in-depth look at the company. The EverBlue training site looks like a press release, which also lacks independence. The Grist source doesn't seem to mention the company at all, and the EZBreathe source is also a press release.
Those are the issues with the current references. Reputable magazines, journals, books or news sources (whether online or offline) are a good place to start your search for better referencing.
Finally, I'll note that you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy, since you are associated with the company. Thanks, /wia /tlk 16:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

About reviewing redirects

Hey there, I just want to let you know that if not all of the redirects (in one request) is accepted, you place the closing as 'declined'. Thanks and cheers! Vincent60030 (talk) 11:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Vincent60030: Where did you get that from? Common practice is to close with {{afc-c|a}} when using {{subst:afc redirect|accept|Comments}} which by far also is the positive response. Best, Sam Sailor Talk! 11:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
@Sam Sailor: oops, my bad. =p Vincent60030 (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
No worries. Best, Sam Sailor Talk! 11:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
@Vincent60030: No problem. Cheers! /wia /tlk 16:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 13:09:54, 3 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Phumelele123

I recently submitted an article (The Buffelsdraai Landfill Site Community Reforestation Project) for review to Articles for creation. The article was declined because it included copyrighted material. I am the author of that copyrighted material of which you declined based on. I need to submit this material as Durban is a finalist for the C40 awards at upcoming COP21 in Paris – and Buffelsdraai Landfill site is the case study. As such, I need to ensure that the article is uploaded soon. Going forward, seeing that I am the author of the booklet that the article was copied from, how do I upload the article without being penalized for copying from my own work?

Phumelele123 (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Phumelele123: The draft in question is User:Phumelele123/sandbox/The Buffelsdraai Landfill Site Community Reforestation Project. Only a small portion of material was removed due to copyright issues. A large amount of the draft remains intact.
If you are the author of the booklet from which material was drawn, you may donate the copyrighted material to Wikipedia for use by following the blue link in this sentence. However, this process usually takes a bit of time and most likely will not be completed before the conclusion of COP21. Please note that we are a team of volunteers and, although we enjoy reviewing Articles for Creation submissions, we don't work according to any fixed deadline. You're welcome to resubmit the draft (just add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft) and another reviewer will assess the draft on its merits, but we cannot guarantee that will happen before COP21 finishes.
Before you do so, however, I think the draft needs more inline citations in order to avoid the appearance of original research. For example, "This project is also effectively building “ecological infrastructure” that will help reduce vulnerability and build resilience of the local watershed" either needs a citation that substantiates the project's effectiveness, or that sentence should be reworded to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Other words to watch include promotional adjectives like "exceptional", "pioneering", and "innovative", to list a few examples from the draft. Thanks, /wia /tlk 13:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

14:05:23, 3 December 2015 review of submission by Cflaws000

Thank you for your comments. Can you please look at this wikipedia page (,_Inc.) and help me figure out what sources they used to get approved? This is another ignition interlock company similar to Intoxalock and I've been using their page as a model. Thank you!

@Cflaws000: Hi, thanks for dropping by! The issue with your draft is that none of the sources simultaneously offered in-depth coverage from a reliable source that was independent of the subject. The first thing you should take a look at is WP:CORP, which explains what it takes for a company to be "notable" on Wikipedia.
It can be risky, as you might have ascertained, to use an existing article as a model for a new draft. If you look closely at Smart Start, Inc., you'll find that it runs into the same problem as your draft: the vast majority of the sources are from the company itself, and what remains just isn't enough to really show corporate notability. Wikipedia is made up of volunteers, and sometimes articles can slip through the cracks. That's why it's always a better idea to use Wikipedia policies like WP:CORP when writing a draft. Thanks for bringing the Smart Start article to my attention; I'll tag it for improvement accordingly. Thanks, and happy editing! /wia /tlk 14:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

09:15:44, 3 December 2015 review of submission by Sjscott80

Hello! Thanks for taking the time to do a review. I added a several new, major external source (see CB insights, StackOverflow, and more) and replaced some citations with external ones. Also, as I mentioned when SwisterTwister originally reviewed the article (and then said it was fine), the wikipage of a company in the same industry, Loggly, has the same level of external sources (and possibly fewer). So, I'm not sure why was declined. Can I request a review and comparison with Loggly? Thanks so much for taking the time! :)

@Sjscott80: Hi, thanks for dropping by. The CB Insights and Stackoverflow references are not great sources because they don't offer substantive discussion about the company. The corporate notability criteria require that references offer significant, in-depth coverage. While this can be hard to measure exactly, "significant" certainly means "more than trivial". The CB Insights "periodic table" only mentions by name once, but it doesn't actually say anything about the company. Similarly, the "12 startups to watch" reference only says that offers "cloud based server management software". That isn't enough coverage to be substantive. Finally, the stackoverflow link doesn't really say anything about It's just a quote from one of the company's recruiters.
I'd suggest getting rid of the primary sources and those that don't offer significant coverage entirely. They don't really help assert corporate notability. What the draft really needs is a few high-quality references: ones that offer in-depth coverage from a simultaneously reliable and independent source of information.
It can be risky to write a draft by comparison to an existing article, and it's much better to simply write your draft so that it aligns with policy. The reason is that Wikipedia is basically run by volunteers, and sometimes articles that don't meet Wikipedia's standards and policies sometimes slip through the cracks. Having said that, I think the referencing in Loggly is better than the referencing in the draft, since Loggly has seen significant coverage in reliable sources like TechCrunch, Network World and Forbes.
Keep looking for reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss the subject in significant detail, in accordance with the corporate notability policy. Thanks, /wia /tlk 14:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Colbert Robotics Team

Hi. Quick question, went to review the above draft, and saw that you had CSD'd it. Would it have been appropriate it to decline it as an attack page, blanking it? Onel5969 TT me 22:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Hi, I think you may be right—some of the claims there are rather disparaging of the subject. I'll blank the page now; thanks for alerting me. I'll re-review the distinction between WP:G10 and WP:G3. /wia /tlk 22:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
No worries. Didn't want to step on your toes. By the way, always see your name, and I think this is the first time we've ever actually *spoken*. You do nice work. Onel5969 TT me 22:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
@Onel5969: No problem! It's nice to formally meet you. Thanks for all your work at AfC! /wia /tlk 22:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Emoji at AFCRD

I'd declined as you did at Diff of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects. But the thing is that the suggested redirect is empty when viewed from an iPad (and I therefore assume from an Mac as well) but shows a black droplet (U+1F322) in Chrome on a PC. Sam Sailor Talk! 23:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: Hm, interesting. I'm on a Mac running the latest OS (which has emoji support) and I don't see anything—neither in Safari nor Chrome. 💧and 💦 are the drop emoji that I can see on a Mac, but not U+1F322. I know emoji can be allowed as redirects, but I imagine they'd have to be viewable by all in order to be allowed, right? Not sure what to do with this one. /wia /tlk 23:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Sounds right to me, i.e. that the redirect should be a plausible for us to create it. I'm certainly no expert when it comes to emojis, but given the very limited no. of search results on black droplet (U+1F322) I think the requester was merely passing time. FYI I see "💧and 💦" just fine in Chrome on a PC running Windows 10. Sam Sailor Talk! 23:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Village pump

You could've put the content in the right place instead of just reverting me. I'm editing from my phone and I can't copy-paste that large amount of content, and I'm not going to rewrite the whole thing. Could you please move it for me? Thanks. Ponyeo Gazabell (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

01:59:46, 4 December 2015 review of submission by Mdelapa

Hello reviewer, I added references that are available online. Note that Jon is referenced by Todd Rodgers and others on their pages. I just found references to his tournament wins here -

Also, if it isn't apparent, this is the first Wikipedia page I've published, so your feedback/direction is much appreciated!

@Mdelapa: Hi, the Noozhawk and Volleyball magazine sources are a good start. Noozhawk looks like a local source, and while sources with a more regional or national focus are preferable, this is not a bad place to begin. You'll also want to take a look at WP:REFB to learn how to add convenient footnote-style references into the draft. Keep looking for more high-quality sources too—this may be helpful: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL /wia /tlk 02:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
@Mdelapa: When you're happy with your referencing, feel free to resubmit the draft and another reviewer will come along to give you their thoughts on the draft. /wia /tlk 02:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok, added a link to the Sands of Time Beach Volleyball Database to corroborate Jon's beach titles -
The other information on Jon is either in the other references or from personal correspondence with him. Does that work?
Also, how do I resubmit?
@Mdelapa: I'm not an expert on the sports notability criteria so I'm not sure whether Lee is notable just from this description. My advice is always if in doubt, look for more reliable sources with significant coverage. However, another reviewer will come along after you resubmit, and they will likely have a better understanding of the athlete notability policy and will be able to guide your further. If you're ready to resubmit, just edit the draft and add {{subst:submit}} to the top. Thanks! /wia /tlk 02:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
This is being discussed at the Teahouse. Let's have a centralized discussion there. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up! /wia /tlk 04:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


It appears that your speedy deletion nomination was lost because you were tagging it for speedy and I was declining it at the same time. I wasn't sure whether to tag it for speedy but have now also done so, so it is declined and tagged for speedy. I also reported the corporate user name. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Thanks; our paths have been crossing often lately! Apologies for the automated message on your talk page. /wia /tlk 04:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 07:40:58, 4 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Cassology


Cassology (talk) 07:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 10:26:21, 4 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Phumelele123

Thanks for the quick rsponse, I will keep working on the draft.

Phumelele123 (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Good luck! Let me know if you have further questions, or feel free to swing by the Articles for Creation Help Desk or the Teahouse too. Thanks, /wia /tlk 15:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Cassology global warming submissions

I am not going to bother with revdel'ing only the infringing content, but will simply delete these pages. I don't think the wiki is served by keeping a lot of essays in draft space that are unlikely to ever become articles, and that are of questionable copyright status. Happy editing, —Kusma (t·c) 15:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kusma: Okay, that will be a big time-saver on everyone's part, I imagine. Thank you! /wia /tlk 15:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Madari Mehtar

Hey there, I saw your recent 'good faith' reversion on this user's contribution. Actually, he or she is kind of promoting a certain BLP. Did you notice that the username and the BLP article title that the user was trying to create is the same? Vincent60030 (talk) 11:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vincent60030! I'd noticed that, but as it was a post accidentally made in the wrong location (or so I think; more on that in a second), I assumed good faith on the user's part. Writing autobiographies is strongly discouraged, but if someone does want to do it, WP:AFC is the place to do so.
That raises an interesting interpretive issue, actually. At WP:YOURSELF, the text reads:
Re-reading this, I'm not sure what a "proposal" is: a draft, or a request on the AfC talk page? If a "proposal" means a request on the talk page, then the user probably actually put the content in the right place, which means my revert would have been unnecessary. I will seek clarification at Wikipedia talk:Autobiography. You're welcome to join in! Thanks, /wia /tlk 15:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Autobiography#Interpretive question re. "proposal". Thanks, /wia /tlk 15:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Prima Industrie page

Hello Wikiisawesome, nice to knoow you and thanks for your welcome!

As you know I'm new on Wikipedia, that's why I made some mistakes.. and I neeed your advice.

I modified the page in order to follow your instructions, certainly the sources have to be improved (and organized) more and more, but are we getting any nearer to a solution?

Thanks in advance for your cooperation, little by little we'll solve all the problems.

Best regards

Paolo Bernox (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC) Bernox

@Bernox: Hello, thanks for dropping by. Welcome to Wikipedia. I've left you a new message on your talk page with some helpful links about editing Wikipedia in general.
The issue I had flagged with Draft:Prima Industrie was a copyright one; that copyrighted content has since been removed. As for referencing, I see a lot of sources, but some of them are from the company itself, meaning they are not independent sources. Others like Bloomberg are just business directories that list a stock one-paragraph description of the company. These are generally not the kinds of references that show notability. I'd suggest removing any references with only trivial coverage (basically, if they only mention Prima once and don't say very much about the company) or that only show its stock price, for example. I've looked through about a third of the references and there are quite a few that can safely be removed, I think.
If in doubt, follow the golden rule: look for reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss the subject in significant detail. Thanks! /wia /tlk 16:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Normalizing topic by Mohitrsj

I added some reference after your comment. But it has been rejected again by other user. Mohitrsj (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mohitrsy: Hi, thanks for stopping by. I think the fact that it has been rejected by two users is a good indication that the material might be better suited for inclusion in an existing article. You are welcome to contribute any well-referenced content to Annealing (metallurgy)#Normalization. Thanks! /wia /tlk 16:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 16:34:22, 6 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Davebevis

Regarding Articles for creation: Sir George Kenning (December 6), thank you for reviewing my draft article so quickly. I accept that I should not use copyrighted text and I thought I had made sure that I had written the story "in my own words". I also accept that one of my main sources of information was , but I was careful not to copy and paste from this source. To help me keep within the rules, please can you give me a couple of examples where I have broken the rules? Davebevis (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Davebevis (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Davebevis: Hi, thanks for dropping by. The draft in question is Draft:Sir George Kenning. The copying I found was mostly confined to one sentence at a time. You can view the copyright issues by looking at this diff, where I removed the copyright issues. An administrator will come along soon to redact the revision history, which means that diff will no longer be visible.
On the substantive side of things, my sense is that Kenning might be notable based on the good coverage in the first three references. If you can find any more in-depth coverage of Kenning, that would also be useful. You may find this search tool helpful: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL /wia /tlk 16:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Presskr question

Chrish1984 (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Hi I appreciate your consideration on my very first wiki article according to you i already removed the copyright materials as you can check it, what else i need to do in order to maintain the wiki guidelines and policy.

@Chrish1984: Hi, thanks for dropping by! In general you need a variety of reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss the subject in significant detail in order to show corporate notability. The problem with the references is that they come from sources related to Presskr (whether the company's website or a press release, neither of which is an independent source of information), they do not offer significant, in-depth coverage of the company (sites like Alexa or company directors that offer only a quick one- or two-sentence blurb don't offer significant enough coverage, for example), or they are not reliable sources. Once primary sources, unreliable sources, and sources without significant coverage are discounted, there are no good sources left.
That's your mission! Consult WP:CORP if you have further questions, or swing by the [{WP:TEAHOUSE|Teahouse]] or the Articles for Creation help desk. Thanks! /wia /tlk 16:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Chrish1984 (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)Thank you Sir for your kind reply but i just wanna inform you that I created article by following some other article as well even this is mine very first article on wiki, my article are bit more good than other wiki article as you can see the similar pages. these is bunch of promotional like advertisement on their article but still that is approved by other editor.
@Chrish1984: There is a danger inherent in using an existing article as a guide for your draft, and it is better to simply follow existing Wikipedia policies. The reason is that, as you can see on the OLX page, that article is written like an advertisement and does not have many good sources. If OLX is not improved, it may at some point be subject to deletion.
As for your draft, the best course of action is to find a variety of high-quality reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss the subject in significant detail. Thanks, /wia /tlk 17:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

22:41:34, 6 December 2015 review of submission by Sitaramathur

Sitaramathur (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)Hello! Was wondering if you would take a look at my article once again. I have fixed the issues you brought to light and am hoping to try and resubmit the page.

Thank you!Sitaramathur (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sitaramathur: I took a quick look at the newly added references. I'd remove the sentence about an A+ accreditation from the Better Business Bureau, as it sounds like promotionalism. The Cleantech page doesn't seem to offer in-depth coverage of Next Step Living; nor do the Bloomberg page, the White House Briefing Room page, or the page. The PRWeb and necec pages are primary sources that lack independence from the company. The MIT Sloan page looks like the best of the lot, but I would consider removing most of the other newly added sources as they are not reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss the subject in significant detail.
This tool may help you find more sources Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Reputable magazines, journals, books or news sources (whether online or offline) are a good place to start your search. Thanks, /wia /tlk 23:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

14:18:14, 4 December 2015 review of submission by Pracbrown

Thank you for looking at my draft 'Instant Hedges' In your comments, you mention that my article appears to be taken from However, a couple of paragraphs have disappeared: Reasons for using a hedge as a garden boundary and The importance of hedgerows - it was this paragraph (and only this one) that I used Hedgelink as a source of information. I was wondering whether, as my subject's notability has been questioned, whether it should be a section of the existing hedges (hedgerow) wiki listing. Thank you for your advice.

@Pracbrown: Hi, the copyrighted content at issue has already been removed from the draft already, so you don't have to remove it yourself! As for the notability issue, there are some sources with decent coverage of instant hedges (like this Telegraph article, for example). However, most of the book sources only mention instant hedges in passing, and so they don't really offer significant coverage of the subject. I think that some of this content might be able to be added to Hedge#Hedge types; as for whether it is notable enough to stand on its own, I am not totally sure. This would be a good question to raise at the Teahouse or the Articles for Creation Help Desk. Thanks, /wia /tlk 15:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Pracbrown (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Pracbrown

Editing Draft:Thomas J. Carroll

Hi, This is only my second article. I have been very careful to provide citations / links. Almost everything that I've used has multiple sources. I tried not to plagiarize, but if I've done so, I'll fix it by putting it more in my own words or using quotation marks. It's hard to do that if it's already been deleted. RobSVA (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@RobSVA: Hi, thanks for dropping by. The draft is still here. I've removed the copyrighted content. For the moment, you can see what I removed in this diff, although an administrator will come along soon to hide the relevant revision history. Here are the three areas that I identified:
  • the paragraph beginning "He was also a member of the board of directors for the Sacramental Apostolate" and ending "culminating in Vatican II's promulgation...";
  • the paragraph beginning "Fencing was initiated as a training tool" and ending "then known as the St Paul’s Rehabilitation Program) in 1954"; and
  • the sentence "He was the recipient of nearly 100...".
I think the draft is otherwise well written. I will leaving the final determination re. acceptance to another reviewer. Thanks, /wia /tlk 18:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
many thanks! I wish "soon" was a day or two so that I can fix it. thanks again. RobSVA (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
@RobSVA: No problem. I have already rephrased the "nearly 100" issue, and can help rephrase some of the content while it's fresh in my mind if you'd like. I don't have access to the Carroll book so I can't rephrase the section about the National Liturgical Weeks and the Constitution of the Liturgy, however—that one I'll have to leave to you. Thanks, /wia /tlk 18:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Fabulous! thank you! RobSVA (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
@RobSVA: Okay, I've roughly reinserted the content in rephrased format. You're now welcome to jazz up the language! /wia /tlk 18:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks! The way you set it up made it so much easier for me. I think that I'm done. For the first item, I couldn't easily find a second source about some of the detailed items from the blog. Rather than paraphrasing, I just deleted those parts and added simpler items for which I could find multiple sources. For the second item, I also simplified it. It should be okay now, but I'm not positive as I did not go back to each of my sources (however, all of them are linked ). I'm assuming that you have a tool which can automatically check for plagiarizing / copyright. If you find a problem, please let me know and I'll immediately fix it. For the third item, your verbiage was fine, no need to jazz it up. Besides on my first article I ran into the problem of peacocks / puffery and so I've avoided jazzing things up ;-) thanks again. BTW, now that the copyright problem is fixed, is there a way of someone (not me) removing the warning? RobSVA (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
@RobSVA: Hi, the box with the "blatant copyright violations" text will be removed when an administrator deals with the request to hide the revision history. There is a convenient tool you can use to check Wikipedia articles for copyright violations here. A few caveats though: it doesn't tell you which site copied from which (so if you run a long-established Wikipedia article, you'll find other sites that have actually copied from Wikipedia), it doesn't account for context (so the mere percentage isn't necessarily determinative), and it doesn't tell you whether the content on the website is licensed for use on Wikipedia. So you do have to do a bit of extra legwork, but it's much easier than Googling sentences at random!
Running the checker again now, it shows some "copying" (31.5% confidence) but it's mostly the names of places and proper nouns, and there's no way to rephrase those, so you're fine. I imagine someone will get to the next review in the coming days or week. Thanks! /wia /tlk 22:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Many, many thanks. I really appreciate the extra time that you've taken. It's made a big difference, especially for a beginner like myself. I'll check out the tool. Again, thanks! RobSVA (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 14:16:10, 7 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by


The Chat Enabled Collaboration is a new category just as CRM and ERP is. Whilst chat is the backbone of communication this does not describe the entry. This is about new business processes based on chat systems that are being implemented by companies such as RBS, UBS etc. Intranet is an internal repository, none real-time and asynchronous. CEC is about real-time knowledge sharing. Those two have nothing in common but sharing the umbrella of UC technologies.

You can read about it in the following press article

If you need any more details please let me know. (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Rejection of my page (Wells Cathedral Oratorio Society)

I hope this is the right way to make contact! Thanks for reviewing the article and your helpful comments. The society has been bumbling along for the past 100+ years and I recognise the article needs more references but it's been a society keeping under the radar. I'll do what I can and resubmit. Ben. Somerset Ben (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

15:06:06, 7 December 2015 review of submission by Wodnikprasowy

Please consider that the deleted content does come from the ISSA home page (as the reference pouts out) and it is not taken from In fact the post on Ocean Maritime Academy is a copy paste from the ISSA home page. The post is dated 2013-09-30 09:08:57 and the original text on the ISSA page is far older.

Wodnikprasowy (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wodnikprasowy: The draft also copies the same content from [5]. I don't see a license on that website allowing the content to be reused on Wikipedia. So unless that license exists, or unless the copyrighted content is donated to Wikipedia, then it cannot be used on Wikipedia. Thanks, /wia /tlk 16:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I will proceed with copyright content donation. Sincerely Wodnikprasowy Wodnikprasowy (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wodnikprasowy: Not a problem. Let me know if I can help with anything else. Thanks, /wia /tlk 16:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 19:35:04, 7 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Morkmalk

Wellgo page creation was declined. Not sure what to do exactly/questions around attempted creation. I created the page regarding Wellgo as I googled 'Wellgo wiki' and ended up at the German Wikipedia page for the company: The page I created is just a translated version of the German one, and uses the same sources. I figured this would be useful for other people who are English speaking.

Since this is the first time I have tried to do this, I was wondering if it is in general insufficient to create a page on the English Wikipedia on the basis that it exists in another language's Wikipedia and what rules exist around that. Thanks a lot!

Morkmalk (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Morkmalk: The German- and English-language Wikipedias have different standards for article inclusion, so the fact that a company has an article on the German-language Wikipedia doesn't ipso facto mean they are notable enough for one on the English-language Wikipedia. In order to show notability here, what is needed is a variety of reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss the subject in significant detail. Thanks, /wia /tlk 19:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

06:21:56, 8 December 2015 review of submission by Tmguynup

I am new. I want to make a "sandbox" for drafts. Is that possible? or do I just use the general sandbox

@Tmguynup: Hi, not a problem! You can use the sandbox you started working in (User:Tmguynup/sandbox), or you can make another sandbox (like, say, User:Tmguynup/Traci Guynup). It's your user space, so it's up to you! Let me know if you have any other questions. /wia /tlk 06:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, Wikiisawesome, 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:

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 06:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


09:05:16, 8 December 2015 review of submission by GIMUN

We considered your comments seriously and have since added a lot of references. Could our work be accepted as it is now, bearing in mind that : 1) Not every single sentence is referenced but a large majority is? 2)We're still updating some of the missing information in the tables?

Thanks in advance for your answer!

@GIMUN: Looks like there are more references now! I'm on the run for a bit but will take a more thorough look in a few hours. Thanks, /wia /tlk 14:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
@GIMUN: Looks like LaMona has beaten me to the review! They have left some solid, detailed feedback on the draft. /wia /tlk 18:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

19:14:41, 8 December 2015 review of submission by Crrazyjane

Hey reviewer! Do you mind pointing out the copyrighted text in question? I did write all of this myself but might have echoed the LFDA website without necessarily intending - I'd be happy to reword.

@Crrazyjane: Hi, thanks for dropping by! I've removed the copyrighted text at issue—it was about two sentences in the lede paragraph beginning with "organization promotes citizen engagement...". You're welcome to rephrase it as long as it does not closely paraphrase the existing source. Thanks, /wia /tlk 19:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
@Wikiisawesome:Thanks for clarifying, and for taking out the troublesome text! I've resubmitted and hopefully the rest of it looks good. It was tough to find third-party sources on the org - not much has been written about them.

00:47:08, 9 December 2015 review of submission by Black Dogg1169

I have updated some of the sourcing and removed links to documents and made them general page links to the page with the documents. I also added in a 3rd party source for Pierce's gubernatorial run. What more can I do to improve it? Some of the stuff will not have a source other than his own info.

@Black Dogg1169: Hi, the Statesman Journal source is a good start. I would look for more like it. This tool may prove useful: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Primary sources may be used in a limited capacity on Wikipedia; take a look at the "Policy" paragraph here for some specifics. Similarly, self-published sources are also acceptable in limited situations, so long as the six criteria set out here are met. Thanks, /wia /tlk 00:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

8:53 PM, 12/8/15

I added the TL;DR to the TL;DR page but you removed it because it wasn't constructive. One: It's an easter egg. It's funny. Two: It's constructive in the manner people may use the TL;DR because the article was too long. (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)(no account)

A barnstar for you!

  The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for your helpful assistance with maintaining the encyclopedia. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Yamaguchi先生! /wia /tlk 02:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Secret Award For Invisible Contribution

File:Top secret.jpg Rubber Stamp Award
Thank you for contributing. Nobody has to know about this unless you want them to. Congratulations.

For defending Wikipedia from twits like me. KardinalCypher (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@KardinalCypher: You don't need to call yourself a twit; we all started somewhere on Wikipedia! I have left you a message on your talk page with some links you may want to read. They run the gamut from article creation to finding help for questions and community involvement. Let me know if I can help you further. Thanks, /wia /tlk 17:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks wia, I was finding it hard to find my way around. The info you gave me will be very handy. It's hard to know what's available. KardinalCypher (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

  The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
by (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! /wia /tlk 03:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

03:15:29, 10 December 2015 review of submission by Lunireal

I was wondering what sort of source is missing to show that Woolston-Steen Theological Seminary is notable. Could I have some more information as to why this was denied so that I more accurately adjust the article?

@Lunireal:, Hi certainly! We're looking for references from reliable, independent sources that offer significant coverage of the Seminary. Links to sites related to the school (whether affiliated with the school, from a press release, from the school itself, or another similarly related source) aren't independent of the subject and thus don't show notability. Reliability requires finding high-quality references, usually from a source with an editorial board or policy. Reputable magazines, journals, books or news sources (whether online or offline) are a good place to start your search. Finally, significant coverage is required in order to satisfy the organizational notability criteria.
You may have some luck with this tool: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Thanks, /wia /tlk 03:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Rodney Jerkins question

The information I edited on Rodney Jerkins site is factual, relevant and very constructive. It will be in the news soon, so do you need this to hit the papers and then can I resubmit about how he is a racist, disillusion and dangerous? The people deserve to know the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) )

A barnstar for you!

  The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I am sorry. I like to help around with stuff. I actually do not know what I am doing. I just want to help Factgenerator (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
@Factgenerator: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Generally YouTube links are not reliable sources of information, so that is why I removed your link. I've left a message on your talk page with some links that will help introduce you to Wikipedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask here; I'm happy to help. Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 17:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Yo are a great person Factgenerator (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

September 16 question

--Nimrainayat6290 (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC) Dear Wikiisawesome, please take a look at "16 september 16" where you reverted my changes... Thankx

A barnstar for you!

  The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I've looked at your editing history and found that you are an asset to Wikipedia. You are very good person also. Kitcher45 (talk) 05:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
@Kitcher45: Thank you for the barnstar! /wia🎄/tlk 06:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
At last you replied to me. ;P - Kitcher45 (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
This was mine. - Kitcher45 (talk) 07:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
@Kitcher45: Do you mean you wrote the article or you had intended to tag it for speedy deletion, sorry? /wia🎄/tlk 07:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I intended to tag but you tagged it seconds before I clicked. :) - Kitcher45 (talk) 07:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello wia, can I review drafts without AFC tool? - Kitcher45 (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kitcher45:, it appears you do not yet meet the requirements to join the Articles for Creation reviewing process. AfC reviewers must have an account that is at least 90 days old and must have 500 undeleted main article space edits. You're welcome to add your name to the participants list once you meet those thresholds, however! Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 20:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I will join after 3 months. - Kitcher45 (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 12:54:33, 15 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by

My page on Chat Enabled Collaboration has not been accepted for submission and I would like some feedback. Hello,

CEC is a new category just as CRM and ERP is. Whilst chat is the backbone of communication this does not describe the entry. This is about new business processes based on chat systems that are being implemented by companies such as RBS, UBS etc. Intranet is an internal repository, none real-time and asynchronous. CEC is about real-time knowledge sharing. Those two have nothing in common but sharing the umbrella of UC technologies (talk) 12:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Hi, thanks for explaining the difference between CEC and the other categories! If an article on CEC is to survive on its own, it will need a variety of reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss CEC in significant detail. Most of the references in the draft so far do not actually discuss CEC. It's important to find coverage about CEC, not just coverage of companies that happen to use CEC. Let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks! /wia🎄/tlk 14:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

06:40:54, 15 December 2015 review of submission by Mothmz

Because there was no reason given as to why my changes were removed. I was told only they had been rejected. They shouldn't have been. Wikipedia does not belong to the one person who removed my info. It is as stated for anyone to addition material to. I added relevant information correct to the articles on Moon Knight. I made note of ALL of his powers, not the few stated which does not cover most of them. I summarised and condensed the long winded and space consuming section on contributors and the section on issues and volume numbers and years of release. I also added information from the 2006 series onwards that is correct referencing to Marvel and other pages where I could as being a 'comic' there is no reference material really to use except for Marvels own site and some other comprehensive sites. This isn't referencing history books. I changed some of the sentences and grammar that are the problem with the page as stated at the very top by Wikipedia itself saying the page has multiple issues. WHY can't I at my leisure fix those. I should be able to without having someone look over the top of me saying I don't like that. If you have changed my changes you have contributed back to making the page look shoddy and unprofessional. Compare it to Wikipedia's Batman page which is absolutely perfect in every mistakes, no issues, perfect grammar and sentences. Moon Knight is riddled with issues especially to the listing of issue years. They stated that the 2006 -2009 series was series 5, the bendis/maleev series as 6 and the current available series as 7 which is incorrect. Whoever listed this should not be allowed to add stuff. They have it all wrong. Call up and order a book and you will be told it is currently up to Series 8! Vengeance was not included in the series run which going backwards leaves Bendis/Maleev as 7 and the 2006-2009 series as series 6.

I would appreciate some feedback as to why my additions were rejected, not just that they have been. They are informative and contribute to the overall good nature of the article. I would like to change more aspects of the page to get it up to being a professional page and not this half done shoddy thing that looks unfinished and not cared for.

Matthew <~~15th Dec, 2015 17:39~~>

If I want to make contributions to change some of the wording as there are numerous issues with sentence structure, how do I do this? I would really like to see Wikipedia's Moon Knight page up as one of the go to pages for Moon Knight associated material in not only its content but its aesthetic appeal. Moon Knight is gaining popularity especially from the latest series run (series 8) and the proposed Netflix upcoming run coupled with a possible movie consideration. Having an up to date and easily to follow page but without clutter and over wording is imperative. I personally would like to go over sections and submit them for consideration in the hope that they will be included. Is there someone I should be submitting these to or yourself.

<~~Matthew 15th Dec, 2015 21:00~~>

Matthew <15th December, 2015 20:53> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mothmz (talkcontribs) 10:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mothmz: Hi, it looks like you've started discussion both at the article's talk page and at that of the editor who removed some of your content. That is the right approach! In fact, if you look at Talk:Moon Knight, Argento Surfer has left you a reply with what I think is some good advice, as well as a few links to Wikipedia content policies that are well worth reading. I have not taken a detailed look at the article, but his or her suggestions seem like good ones. Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 14:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thomas J. Carroll

Hi User:Wikiisawesome Many thanks for all of your help in getting the article accepted. you're right about Wikipedia:CITEKILL. I wanted to make sure to make it clear that I had the citations to back up the information. And I was concerned that if I cited too often in the middle of a section that it would appear that the citations only applied to a very small part of the section. I wasn't aware of Wikipedia:CITEKILL. However, I can indeed space it out. thanks again! RobSVA (talk) 12:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@RobSVA: hey, not a problem. There are lots of Wikipedia policies and it takes a while to learn about all of them. Have fun with the Thomas Carroll article and let me know if there's ever anything I can help with on Wikipedia. Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 14:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
@Wikiisawesome: ask and you shall receive ;-) so how do I clean up my talk page with regards to obsolete items? Do I just delete them? How do I create an archive? The old stuff is helpful when I try to remember how to fix something that I did wrong before. RobSVA (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
@RobSVA: no problem! You can remove most messages from your user talk page if you wish, although see the list of exceptions here. Usually, however, it's preferable to set up an archiving system. A bot will come along and automatically archive posts that are over a certain "age".
If you click "edit" on my user talk page, at the top you'll see some code beginning {{User:MiszaBot/config |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |maxarchivesize = 100K |counter = 8 |minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadstoarchive = 1 |algo = old(7d) |archive = User talk:Wikiisawesome/Archive %(counter)d }}
{{archives|search=yes|bot= ‎Lowercase sigmabot III|age=7|auto=short}}.
You can paste that to the top of your own user page. Just change the "counter" field to 1 and the "archive" field to User talk:RobSVA/Archive %(counter)d. That should get the automatic archive up and running. /wia🎄/tlk 15:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: NATS (December 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that the AFC script became confused and thought that you were the originator rather than a reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Wikiisawesome, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I didn't submit this draft; I just fixed the submission template, which had been incorrectly added earlier. I'll let the original submitter know of the decline, thanks! /wia🎄/tlk 18:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Procedural close - London Action Resource Centre

Hi. Seems a bit bizarre to me to immediately close the request for dispute resolution. Actually this debate has been going on for years, so I'm not sure if you actually read what I wrote? If you look at the talk page you'll see a long history, including a RFC and protection of the page. Mujinga (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mujinga: Hi, thanks for stopping by here. Prior to the four posts in November and December 2015, the talk page had been silent for over 6 years, and the RfC was closed over 9 years ago. Those discussions appeared to me to be stale, and the current four posts did not, in my opinion, constitute significant, extensive discussion. However, since I am relatively new at DRN, I will open a discussion among other DRN volunteers to determine if my close was premature. Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 19:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the clarification. The participants are the same so I didn't think that time was a factor. I can see how it could be though, if it is then I'll wait and see how the situation develops for a bit. Cheers! Mujinga (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

15:41:06, 16 December 2015 review of submission by Danielchamberlain

The current article on Generalization Error does not have much detail. I wanted to replace that article entirely. Should I just copy and paste this entry into the current page?

@Danielchamberlain: Hi, yes you can add your content to the existing Generalization error page. Make sure you don't completely the existing content, however; try to integrate the two texts together so they mesh well! Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 15:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Submission Declined about article "Zagham Naseem"


You've declined submission for the article Zagham Naseem [1]. He is famous Entrepreneur in Pakistan and one of early web programmers. All sources are authentic. 2 of them are IEEE references, another is very famous research journal of Pakistan. One is from archive which is independent website. You can also find him on Google Scholar [2]. Can you please guide little more to improve the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:16, December 16, 2015‎ (UTC)

  1. ^ Naseem, Zagham. "Zagham Naseem".
  2. ^ Naseem, Zagham. "Zagham Naseem on Google Scholar".
Hi, thanks for dropping by. As mentioned at Draft:Zagham Naseem, the sources provided are by Nassem and not about him. Can you find reliable, independent sources discussing his work? Those would be a good addition to the draft. Thanks! /wia🎄/tlk 15:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for reply. This is problem with names in Pakistan. His full name is Syed Zagham Naseem, where his orignal name is Zagham but in most research papers and journals they use last name, which, in this case is Naseem but you can find detail on his google scholar's page — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

09:59:51, 17 December 2015 review of submission by

Hi, Thanks for reply. This is problem with names in Pakistan. His full name is Syed Zagham Naseem, where his orignal name is Zagham but in most research papers and journals they use last name, which, in this case is Naseem but you can find detail on his google scholar's page — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

A barnstar for you!

  The Original Barnstar
Thanks Wikiisawesome please advise me on changes and what we need to get article suitable for creation i know we were declined because of duplicate pages not to sure if my references are being indexed right for approvals they are reliable required sites that most other artist seem to be using on there wiki please advise not to sure if thats the case however, all your expertise is appreciated i'm a newbie lol thanks Toniaesposito76 21:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)