User talk:Wiae/Archive 9

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Wiae in topic Damnati
Archive 5 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 14

Request on 21:20:30, 16 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Toniaesposito76

Requesting help because i do not know if the duplicate article has been resolved and if there are any other issues you know i can do to get article submitted for creationToniaesposito76 21:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Toniaesposito76 21:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Toniaesposito76: Hi, thanks for dropping by. Don't worry if you have questions; we all start somewhere! It looks like you've submitted two drafts about the same subject—Draft:Dj King Assassin and Draft:DJ King Assassin. I've declined the first one, but the second is still submitted and will be looked at by another reviewer in the coming days or weeks. They'll give you some feedback as to whether it's ready for acceptance. In the future, you don't need to create multiple versions of the same draft. Just create one version and work on it throughout the process! Let me know if I can help you further. Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 21:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't change my entry's

Who do u think you are..... Jordan0forster9 (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Jordan0forster9: Uncivil behavior like that is a really quick way of getting blocked -- samtar whisper 17:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Seriously?(talk page stalker) @Jordan0forster9:: Seriously? You added your opinion to the article... and and article is only supposed to have fact. He was just doing his job. Uncivil behavior like that is a really easy way to get blocked; do you want to get blocked? Besides, I disagree, Jordan Forester is not the best. Thanks! AnønʘmøưṨ 02:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 02:20:05, 17 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by AnønʘmøṑṨ

Hey, thanks for reviewing it so fast!

AnønʘmøưṨ 02:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@AnønʘmøṑṨ: Not a problem. You're welcome to experiment in your sandbox, but you don't have to submit them for review to Articles for Creation. The Articles for Creation process is designed for pages that are destined for the main article space. Thanks! /wia🎄/tlk 02:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I understand. AnønʘmøưṨ 02:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnønʘmøṑṨ (talkcontribs)

Paul Avrich question

I edited a page about my uncle Paul Avrich with factual information that he was an embezzler and provided details. This information is all contained in and supported by the Miami-Dade-County Circuit Court (Probate Division) records). I also provided a reference link to the court records and my edit was removed a second time because editing user or moderator "Czar" stated that it wasn't backed by a "reliable source". How can court records or documents not be considered a reliable source? Is a reliable source only a previously published work by an author? Please give me some help here as I feel that it is very important for the general public to see not only the positive but also the negative character of this man. William Avrich, nephew of Paul Avrich. My email address is if you care to write me on this. Otherwise, let me know what I need to do to get this information put back into the Paul Avrich page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Alex Karev

The name seems like an insult, but another character really did call him that, in reference to him going to work for a doctor known as Dr. Butthole, hence Lil Butthole. Librarynerds (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Librarynerds: Ah, okay! If there is a decent source out there that calls him "Lil Butthole", then please go ahead and revert my change. Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 05:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't even know where I'd find a source for that. It was said in dialogue in the show. It's not something she calls him regularly. Librarynerds (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
@Librarynerds: Hm, I just watched a clip on YouTube where she says it. However, citing that clip wouldn't be acceptable due to copyright issues. Not knowing anything about Grey's Anatomy, my question is whether this is an actual nickname or merely something she calls him once as a joke? /wia🎄/tlk 01:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Denial of Page for Adriana Martin

On December 15, 2105 you denied my submission for a page on Adriana Martin. I understand why and have endeavored to make improvements. Might you have a moment to look at it in my sandbox as provide feedback? I am still researching more independent links also. Thank you. Mstomasik (talk) 08:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mstomasik: Hi, the issue with User:Mstomasik/sandbox is that it still contains a good deal of primary sources (Martin's social media, own website, things she's written, press releases from PRWeb), and the references that are independent of her don't offer substantive, in-depth coverage. Sources must be reliable, independent and must offer significant coverage. Thanks! /wia🎄/tlk 14:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I will continue to work on that issue as well.Mstomasik (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Page was moved to: Draft:Adriana_Martin Mstomasik (talk) 10:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

16:34:05, 18 December 2015 review of submission by Nmd1978

Not clear what happens now. Is there something else I need to do, or is this just in the queue waiting to be re-reviewed?

@Nmd1978: Hi, yes the draft is resubmitted and the copyright issue looks to have been taken care of. A reviewer will be along in the coming days or weeks to give their feedback. In the meantime, you are welcome to continue working on the article—ensuring that sufficient reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discussed the subject in significant detail, for example. Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 17:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! /wia🎄/tlk 00:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Special Barnstar
Thank you for your work at the Articles for Creation project. Your help is greatly appreciated, so keep doing what you do!   Mz7 (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Mz7! /wia🎄/tlk 02:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!


Thank you so much for your additional copy editing on Animal Park of the Monts de Gueret. That was really nice of you, and you've certainly made that new editor's day by accepting their first article. Cheers! w.carter-Talk 17:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to help! Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 22:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

19:10:09, 20 December 2015 review of submission by Elin08

Kindly state what is meant by a variety of reliable, independent (third-party) sources?

@Elin08: Sure thing! Reliable sources usually come from reputable magazines, journals, books or news sources (whether online or offline). They should be places that have an editorial policy or editorial board—something that assures a certain level of quality and oversight, basically. Independent sources should be removed from the subject itself. For example, the subject's own website, social media pages and interviews don't count as independent sources. Finally, we will need several such sources—not just one or two—and they should offer significant, in-depth coverage of the subject.
For more detail on these guidelines, you can take a look at WP:42, which is a convenient summary of the types of sources we are looking for. Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 22:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikiclaus' cheer !

  Wikiclaus greetings
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you the happiest of Wikiclaus' Wikipedian good cheer.
This message is intended to celebrate the holiday season, promote WikiCheer, and to hopefully make your day just a little bit better, for Wikiclaus encourages us all to spread smiles, fellowship, and seasonal good cheer by wishing others a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Share the good feelings and the happiest of holiday spirits from Wikiclaus !              
Thank you for the Christmas cheer! /wia🎄/tlk 23:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Mall of Africa

Good day to you

Thank you for informing me of my errors in the Draft of that article. All my additions were in good faith and I had no knowledge of my plagiarism.

I ask that you could assist me in improving this article so that it follows the regulations of Wikipedia and can be accepted.

Many thanks Manor4 (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Manor4: Hi, thanks for dropping by! I've gone ahead and removed the copyrighted content from the draft. The revisions will soon be "hidden" by an administrator. You're welcome to expand the article with some of that content, but be sure to always write in your own words. Even "close paraphrasing" comes too close to a copyright infringement, and so it is important to always choose your own words.
In practice, I find the easiest way to avoid copyright issues is to write the draft without flipping back and forth from the sources to the draft. Instead, write using your memory of what the source said, and then check after to make sure you have accurately stated (in your own words, of course) what the source said.
The draft is still submitted for review, so another reviewer will be along in the coming days or weeks to give you more substantive feedback about the draft. Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 12:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
@Wikiisawesome: I highly appreciate your feedback. I will put your advice into affect for all my future additions. Manor4 (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!


Thank you for your feedback, it was the kind of information I was seeking.

Gaby (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jasel.Cantu: Not a problem. I'm happy to help! Feel free to inquire here if you have any other questions in the future. Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 12:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

78.26's RFA Appreciation award

  The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 24:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
@78.26: Supporting was an easy choice. Congratulations! /wia🎄/tlk 00:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

00:10:29, 24 December 2015 review of submission by Hkanderson

Help needed

To whom it may concern,

Many thanks for reading the edits to the article, I am working for SCORE International however I wanted to ensure ask how I change the category since apparently I had this listed as an tarmac race when, correctly as you pointed out, the article needs to reflect that it is an off-road racing category.

Thank you and happy holidays,


@Hkanderson: Hi, thanks for dropping by James! The issue with the draft is that it seems to just explain the rules and regulations of a racing company. That sort of content is better suited for inclusion on the race's website, but it is not really suitable for Wikipedia. You may want to take a look at WP:EVENTCRIT, which explains what must be shown about an event before it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thanks, and do let me know if I can be of further assistance! /wia🎄/tlk 00:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

17:25:17, 23 December 2015 review of submission by TreatyOak


I'll find some additional external references for Deltic Timber Corporation, per your suggestion. I wrote this page because I was doing some research on a related company and I was surprised that nothing was here about Deltic, so I thought I'd add it.

One note: you said that "vertically integrated" was a buzzword and that it violates a neutrality principle. "Vertically integrated" has a very specific meaning, and it's actually NOT a buzzword. In a business setting, it means that a company makes things that link together in different stages of production. In Deltic's case, they own timberland (wood), they grind up the trees (sawmills), they make plywood, and then they sell houses that use that plywood. Vertical integration isn't necessarily a good thing or a bad thing; it's just a strategy. In the old days, Ford Motor was vertically integrated: they owned iron ore, they owned steel plants that used the iron, they made cars from their own steel, etc. Now, they're no longer vertically integrated; they buy steel from a different company, which buys iron ore from yet a different company. (I could go on to explain why Deltic might choose to be vertically integrated or not, but I'll spare you.)

Enjoy your vacation!

@TreatyOak: Thanks for dropping by! I've seen terms like "vertical integration" used in several drafts on Wikipedia, and often promotionally. However, I appreciate your explanation of vertical integration, and if it is not meant in a promotional sense, then it should be acceptable. Thanks again, /wia🎄/tlk 00:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

LARC continued

Hiya so regarding London Action Resource Centre and our previous discussion, well the same material is still being added and removed, so the dispute continues and I'm wondering what can I do? Help would be welcome, I'm assuming the time was found to be a factor, so how much discussion is needed before action can be taken? Thanks for any response Mujinga (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mujinga: Hello! Yes, I recall this page. It seems like there might be enough discussion to take it to dispute resolution. However, that need not be the first step. If the reliability of the sources is at issue, there is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. There is also the option of a Request for Comment about the issue, which may result in a binding conclusion. You can also take it to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, but ideally it would be better to have extensive discussion before bringing the issue to that forum. I have not looked at the substantive content at issue so I do not recommend any particular course of action right now. As always, the more discussion, the better. Thanks, and let me know if I can help you further! /wia🎄/tlk 00:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
thanks for the speedy response and some more options! Mujinga (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas!!
May you and your family have a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help and support, and of course all your work, on Wikipedia!

   – Onel5969 TT me 03:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 20:06:03, 25 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by DinoGamer24

I need help on having my article published, can you please help me understand what I have to do to get it published

DinoGamer24 (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@DinoGamer24: Hello, thanks for dropping by! Have you seen the latest comment I left at the draft? It provides a rundown of the major problem with the draft. So far, the only reference is a YouTube link, which is a primary source: it is by the subject but not about it. We will need a variety of high-quality sources that are independent of the subject—that talk about BreTheDinoGaming. Has this person been talked about in reputable magazines, journals, books or other news sources? If so, those would be good places to start your search for references. If, however, such sources do not exist right now, then the subject is likely not notable at this time.
As an aside, if you are at all connected to the subject, you should read Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Thanks, and let me know if I can help you further! /wia🎄/tlk 20:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
@DinoGamer24: Looking at the draft, I'd say that the subject is not notable at this time. You may want to try again when the YouTuber has gained more exposure and media coverage. Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 20:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Golden Hill

I do know that the Battle of Golden Hill is already a page, but I submitted a new version of the article. The lead was okay so I left it out of the new version and otherwise, the only problem was that I don't know how to use the same reference twice. Can I use the new version on the new article? It still does need help though. JerrySa1 (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@JerrySa1: Hey, thanks for dropping by! The AfC process is intended to review drafts of articles that don't already exist; since Battle of Golden Hill is already an article, you're welcome to add any well-referenced content from your draft to the existing article. Go for it! However, please don't blank all the content in the existing article and just copy and paste your content in. Rather, try to work the two together incrementally so that the document retains the best features of both versions. Thanks, and let me know if I can help you further. /wia🎄/tlk 20:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for Reviewing the Connections-based Learning page

I have received your review on the Connections-based Learning page and just wanted to thank you for the time you took to review it and the suggestions that you made. The submission of the page seems a little pre-mature but I appreciate being able to go through the motions to submit my first page. I will continue to search out more third party sources on this educational approach. Thanks!

Serobinson01 (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Serobinson01: Hi, not a problem. I wonder whether some of the academic papers cited in the Issuu magazine could be useable. You might also find this tool helpful: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 16:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

17:58:44, 27 December 2015 review of submission by Simonsmedberg


I know a lot more sources for glooby, but I don't think they qualify since they're blog posts/mentions on industry websites. I understand your objective and I have read the Wikipedia Guidelines. I just have some questions regarding my draft.

If I have one source that qualify, in this case the source from, is that enough as a reference in order to start a small description article about this website? And when the media features increases, add more text and sources about the website?

I've added some text with the glooby website as source, because I thought it might be useful for the reader to understand the function of the website. I saw some other travel search engines with 1 or even 0 sources. I thought it might be a good start.

I understand that it's better with many different sources. But is there any requirements of how many reliable sources there should be in order to write a short article? If it's not possible to start an article with this content, I would like some tips so I know when it's possible to get an article accepted.

Many thanks! Simonsmedberg (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Simonsmedberg: Hi, thanks for dropping by! The reference is a start, but as a general rule, an article about a website or company should have at least three to five good-quality references (meaning from reliable sources independent of the subject) to show notability. Notability is the threshold that Wikipedia has collectively decided, and so if there's only one reference, that's not quite yet enough to show notability.
Perhaps I did not phrase my comment about Glooby's website very clearly. You are definitely allowed to use the website as a source in limited circumstances (which you can read about at WP:PRIMARY), but primary sources don't help show notability. So you can use the glooby website, but in order to show that the draft is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, you'll still need, say, at least three solid references from reliable, independent sources.
There are over 5 million articles on Wikipedia, but the number of regularly active volunteers numbers in the thousands. That means sometimes articles—like those other travel search engines you mentioned—can slip through the cracks. The referencing in those articles should be improved, and if that is not possible, then they should probably be deleted from the encyclopedia due to non-notability. (There is a whole process for that.)
As mentioned, there's no bright-line lower limit on the number of sources required. But three to five solid references will probably go a long way toward showing notability. If there aren't any more sources like that available right now for Glooby, don't worry—drafts are retained for sixth months after the last edit before they are deleted, so you can continue to tinker with the draft while you wait for more sources. There is also an essay you might like to read about this at WP:TOOSOON.
Let me know if I can help you with anything else on Wikipedia! Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 18:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 00:06:41, 28 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Believeingood

I created an article that was rejected, but I can't find any stated reason for rejection and so I can't amend it. Can you help? Believeingood (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Believeingood (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Believeingood: Hi, thanks for dropping by! You have actually submitted two separate drafts. There is one at User:Believeingood/sandbox/R.B. Walsh / Risteárd Breathnach—this is the one I presume you have intended to submit, as it is the one with the content in it. And there is one at User:Believeingood/sandbox, which does not have any content in it; just a link to the other draft. I've declined this second draft because there's nothing really to review there.
However, the R.B. Walsh draft is submitted, which means you don't need to amend anything. If you visit User:Believeingood/sandbox/R.B. Walsh / Risteárd Breathnach, you'll see a yellow box up at the top of the draft, which means that it is submitted. I haven't declined that draft. A reviewer will be along in the coming days or weeks to assess it and give you their feedback. Let me know if you have any further questions! /wia🎄/tlk 00:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for that clarification. Like anything new, it's a bit bewildering. I hadn't realized I'd submitted an empty file. I hope I don't make too many major gaffes before I get it right. I'd like to try to add an info box to the article. Do you think that's safe, or should I wait till I read and practice more? There was a reference to getting assistance from an experienced editor which was referred to as being adopted. How could you go about that? Believeingood (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Believeingood (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
@Believeingood: That's not a problem! There is definitely a learning curve on Wikipedia, but I'm happy to help however I can, and you'll get the hang of it soon, I'm sure! You can certainly add an infobox to the draft if you'd like. You can find the basic infobox code at Template:Infobox person; just scroll down to "Blank template with basic parameters" and copy the code you see into the top of your draft. Then you can fill it in with the desired information.
There is a list of editors who offer to adopt a user here. I believe that adoption is intended for users who "intend to remain as an active user well after adoption", so if you're just looking for short-term help, there is also the Teahouse, where you can ask questions and get answers from friendly users. I'm also happy to help too and am around most of the time if you have a question. Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 00:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 08:36:23, 28 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Karin1964

I want to tell the readers my story. I want to show them the answers. I want to share my research on the Voynich Manuscript.The last page has jars drawn identical to the jars on the Chartreuse website. The plants used to make Absinthe are the mirror images of the plants on Google search. Karin1964 (talk) 09:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Karin1964: Hello, and thanks for stopping by. It seems you have done some research on the Voynich manuscript. However, if the conclusions you've drawn are your own, then that is original research and is prohibited on Wikipedia. You are welcome to bring this up at the Voynich manuscript talk page, however, to collaborate with other editors. Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 13:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to join WP:RRTF

 Hello, Wikiisawesome! I'd like to invite you to join the new Rick Riordan Task Force (formerly the "Percy Jackson" Task Force), which works to improve articles related to Rick Riordan and his books. Check out our project page or contact me to learn more! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
*Please note that membership is open only to full users. If you currently edit with an IP address, please consider creating an account today! We would love to have you.

21:06:09, 28 December 2015 review of submission by Ericsherby

First, THANK YOU for the prompt response.

Second, I believe that there were/are TWO misunderstandings regarding my submission.

The messages that I received from your editorial staff indicate (a) copyright violation, and (b) a conflict of interest. I respectfully submit that those views are erroneous.

There is NO copyright violation. Copyright protects the expression of facts, not the facts themselves. The article reports on the results of surveys. Those results are facts.

Under the "merger doctrine" in copyright law, when there is only one or limited number of ways to express an idea, copyright law will not protect the expression because it has "merged" with the idea. When the idea and expression are very difficult to separate, they are said to merge. See

The merger doctrine applies with full force to the answers (results) of a survey. There is only one way to express (for example) the fact that half of the respondents to the survey said that their views as to arbitration did not change. No one has the copyright in that fact.

The same copyright (or lack of copyright) analysis applies to every one of the results in the survey.

Substantially the same copyright analysis applies to the criteria used in carrying out the survey. Yes, those criteria are not the answers themselves, but there is only one way of expressing those criteria. So, for example, there is only one (or a very limited number) of ways of expressing the fact that TAX lawyers were omitted from the survey due to the assumption that they generally are not involved in decisions concerning forum selection clauses, arbitration clauses, or mediation.

As with the results to survey questions, the MERGER DOCTRINE renders those expressions non-copyrightable.

On the issue of conflict of interest, it appears that such conclusion was reached without a careful examination of the text. Yes, the surveys were carried out by my law firm, but there is NO mention in my submission of anything "promotional" -- NO mention of the nature of my firm's services, specialization, etc. NO mention of specific lawyers or background.

All that is mentioned is Israeli law firm. The subject matter of the piece practically demands that. If the survey on the views of in-house LAWYERS concerning dispute resolution had been conducted by a dentist or an architect, that would seem odd (not to mention that none of the in-house lawyers would have responded).

Although conclusions are drawn in the piece, the legitimacy of those conclusions has been confirmed (peer reviewed) by each of an Israeli law professor, a California legal newspaper, a UK online dispute resolution magazine, and the American Bar Association. There is NO other opinion expressed in the piece concerning the survey results. These multiple sources clearly meet your standards for verifiability and multiple sources. If other opinions concerning the survey or its results can be gleaned from verifiable sources, other people are obviously free to edit accordingly. But the fact that the piece draws conclusions regarding verified survey data does not mean that I have any conflict -- especially considering that the piece contains NO promotional information.

I appreciate your taking the time to read the above, and I look forward to hearing from you regarding both the issues of lack of copyrightability and lack of conflict of interest.

Thank you.Italic text


Eric Sherby Ericsherby (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ericsherby: Hi, thanks for dropping by. The copyright issue I had identified was that several sentences (for example, "in-house lawyers employed by Israeli companies... regardless of title", "Lawyers employed at companies... recipients for the survey" and "outside of Israel... might be influenced") were copied directly from the document. However, given that you have disputed the removal, I will direct the page to our copyright investigations board, where a team of copyright clerks will assess it. This might take a while, however, so it will take the draft out of commission for a bit.
As for a conflict of interest, I am sure you are able to write objectively about the survey, but a conflict of interest on Wikipedia does not require the existence of promotional content. Per WP:COI, conflict of interest is not about actual bias. It is about a person's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when roles conflict I've left you that message to inform you of the COI policy on Wikipedia—think of it as part of our due diligence as editors on Wikipedia.
Let me know if you have any further questions about the draft! Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 21:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Response to Article Edits

Sorry about all of the moving back and forth on my article! I am fairly new to Wikipedia and was just clicking a few buttons- I was confused how the publishing part works and was worried I missed something for publishing my page. Thanks for clearing up the misunderstanding and I hope everything is okay for review now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.eng20 (talkcontribs) 03:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@K.eng20: Hi, and again, welcome to Wikipedia! No harm done in the end! When you're happy with the article and feel that you've made the changes requested by the reviewer, feel free to resubmit the draft () and another reviewer will take a look in the ensuing days or weeks. If you ever have questions about Wikipedia, there are a few places you can check: with the reviewer, or at the Teahouse, a friendly place to get help. And I'm always happy to help too. Thanks! /wia🎄/tlk 03:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for Declining!

Hey! Thanks for declining. I will put more effort into putting into an article for creation and references and i'll run it again! I've only been *editing* for 2 months so yeah. Thanks for the constructive feedback! Winterysteppe (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Winterysteppe: Hello, thanks for stopping by. No problem—the book was just published last month, so it might take a bit of time for independent reviews of the draft to be published. If those kinds of reviews are released, and/or if there is media coverage of the book, those would be good sources to add to the draft. This tool might also be helpful: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL. /wiae /tlk 20:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2016

Congrats with your new handle, may you have a prosperous New Year 2016. Best Sam Sailor Talk! 23:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: Many thanks, and all the best in the new year! /wiae /tlk 01:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Wiae!


Removed edit

I edited a page which you then changed Matthew.nugent (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Matthew.nugent: That is correct, as I judged that "Jedi" was not the religion of a Catholic secondary school. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 00:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Madden raparees gac

I got content removed that was not false Matthew.nugent (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Matthew.nugent: The content you added needs to be supported by reliable sources that allow us to verify the claims made. Are there reliable sources discussing this Tony O'Hagan? Thanks, /wiae /tlk 00:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Wia(e)!

(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)
Thank you, much appreciated and all the best to you in 2016 as well! /wiae /tlk 00:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


How do i include a refrence/source Matthew.nugent (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Matthew.nugent: The easiest way to do so is to read WP:REFB and to watch the video on that page. Basically, once you've found a source, you wrap it in <ref></ref> tags. The idea is to provide enough information so that other readers and editors can find the source and verify that it substantiates the claim made in the article. So usually you'll want to include author's names, dates, titles, URLs, publishers, and the like. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 00:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

09:36:34, 6 January 2016 review of submission by

I understand that this company called 'Quantify IP' may fall under non-notable one but here my intention is certainly not to use Wikipedia as advertising platform. The company is now close to 30 years old, has been doing business for such a long time without even bothering about any kind of marketing gig. Its being created only for the purpose of letting people know that there are companies like this making this kind of software solutions too. I am unable to add references too. need help on that.

Hi, thanks for stopping by. I'm sure it wasn't your intention to write an advertisement! One issue, however, with the draft is that it contains some language that is better suited for promotional material than for Wikipedia. As I commented on the draft, avoid the use of words and phrases like "innovative" and "most widely used, user-friendly trademark and patent cost-estimating software program across the world", as they contravene Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Report on what reliable sources independent of Quantify have said about Quantify. Has a reliable source called it the "most widely used patent cost-estimating software"? If so, that statement will need a citation. If no reliable source has made this claim, then it will need to be removed from the draft. Same goes for the other promotional language.
As for adding references, I see you've got some URLs in there now! The way to make them appear as footnote-style references within the body of the draft is detailed at WP:REFB. There's a convenient video you can watch there too. Basically you wrap the reference metadata within <ref></ref> tags.
A note about the draft's current references: some of them are press releases, which are not independent of the company and thus don't help show notability. Similarly, information from forums or other wikis are user-generated content that does not meet the reliability and independence thresholds. In summary, make sure that the references you cite to show the company's notability are from reliable, independent sources, and that they discuss the subject in significant detail. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 12:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Questions re Draft:Alesia Riabenkova

The editor in question wished to remove their posts from the page. They are available in the page history should anyone wish to see them. /wiae /tlk 23:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@HBX978: Sure, how can I help you? Is it regarding the draft Draft:Alesia Riabenkova? Thanks, /wiae /tlk 02:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@HBX978: I took a quick look at the draft and there are a few things that jumped out. For one thing, a lot of the references don't offer substantive discussion about Riabenkova. Fashionmodeldirectory and Famousfix don't really have any in-depth content about Riabenkova, so they don't help show her notability. The IMDb citation is generally not considered a reliable source, and I'd be wary of using tabloids like The Daily Mail and The New York Post as sources. If you can find coverage of those stories in generally more reputable papers, I think that would be better.
Another issue is that many of the claims are still unsourced. A lot of the content in the "Early life" section is unsupported by references, and there are also no inline citations yet. If you can't find a reliable source for the claims about who Riabenkova is dating or what her childhood was like, those claims need to be removed from the draft.
A third thing I would mention is that some of the language is a little too informal or conversational for Wikipedia. Phrasing like "But she was not happy. Enormous pressure to lose weight brought her down" may be true, but we can't really report on a person's thoughts or general mood unless it's been covered in reliable, verifiable sources.
In summary, I would suggest looking for stronger references than the current ones, taking care to add inline citations for those references throughout the body of the draft, and doing a thorough once-over to remove any informal language, conversational tone, subjective value judgments about Riabenkova, or content that cannot be supported by any sources. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 01:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@HBX978: Hello! I took a look at the new sources. There's a forum (thefashionspot) that's not a reliable source—get rid of that one. The famousfix links are just to pictures of her—they aren't in-depth coverage of Riabenkova. Do those magazines discuss her in an article, or is it just limited to a picture? The canmua source doesn't look like a reliable source; neither are starsightings or who's dating who. Famefocus only has a quick name-check, which isn't substantive, in-depth coverage; same problem with Muzul, Therichest,, Tuxboard, and frostsnow.
In short, none of the new references are helpful to show her notability, because they are not reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss the subject in significant detail. In addition, much of the "Early life" and "Modelling" sections are still entirely unsourced, and the tone is not yet neutral in nature. My impression of Riabenkova is that she is not notable at this time. You may want to look at the model notability criteria for some guidance as to what constitutes notability.
I've put the comments back on the draft. Comments from reviewers are useful for future reviewers, and so it's best practice to leave them there. (They will disappear should the draft be accepted.) Incidentally, I've also restored the content you had deleted here. If you would like to remove your own posts, I'll allow that in this instance, but I'd ask that you not remove my responses to the comments. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 21:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! HBX978 (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC) |}

@HBX978: Okay, if the magazines discuss her, instead of adding a link to the magazine cover, can you change the citations so that a reader could track down the magazine? Title, date, name of the author who wrote the article, page number—those are the kinds of information necessary in a good citation to a document that is not online.
If you are related to Riabenkova, then you have a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editing is discouraged on Wikipedia, so you should be aware of how Wikipedia's COI policy affects you. Please read the policy document I linked in that earlier sentence. Also, if you are being paid for your work, you must disclose that per Wikipedia's terms of use, either on your own user page or on the talk page of the draft. See WP:PAID to learn about the steps that must be taken.
The nature of Wikipedia is that there are very many articles and relatively few contributors. Sometimes articles can slip through the cracks (as it were). That's why it's not always a good idea to base your draft on an existing article. Instead, it's better to try to write it so that it complies with policy. (In this case, the policies are the biographical notability criteria and the model notability guidelines.
As for "entirely unsourced", take a look at the "Early life" section. There are no citations there at all, and none of the references cited discuss those claims. Claims about people who are currently alive (like Riabenkova) require references that support the claims made within the article. If you can't find a reliable source for something, that information should not be included in the draft. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 22:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I have requested protection for Chef (film)

Just to let you know, I have submitted a request for Chef to be protected. I didn't get into many specifics, however. I wanted to let you know. Thanks for all you've done in thwarting vandalism!Stereorock (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Stereorock: I've also reported the user at WP:AIV. Thanks! /wiae /tlk 23:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Question from Dhaamin16

Happy New year Wiae! I am new to the contribution squad so i will need help.. can you please tell me how to insert citations and/or if you wish to speak you can send a mail to (Redacted)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaamin16 (talkcontribs) 15:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dhaamin16: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I've left you a message on your talk page with some helpful links that will allow you to explore Wikipedia a bit. Two key principles you should be aware of are verifiability and no original research. Basically, information put onto Wikipedia has to be supported by reliable sources; it can't just come from our own personal opinions or experiences. To add a citation, take a look at WP:REFB and watch the video on that page. It will give you a good idea how to cite sources. Let me know if you have further questions, /wiae /tlk 15:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

IP question

My comment is based on the scandalous torture methods with polonium beams of the apparently relevantly connected and their suspected violation by various methods of including Asian Catholic virgins. Inez Deborah Emilia Altar otherwise I know all Turkic people mentioned barbecue and Turkey believes that the Chinese Turkestan population has been exterminated, and President Choybalsan had mass executions of legalists and worshippers of God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


I an trying to make my own page and its really confusing CDoGgaming89 (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Jason Rapert edits

Why did you remove the following edit to ? The following disclaimer is warranted as the page Jason Rapert has continuously had false, erroneous and at time libelous comments posted and left as if they are accurate when they are not:


This is an old issue and the vandalism to the page about me personally continues with no one at Wikipedia taking responsibility. Why do you think YOU or anyone else has a right to post on the "Jason Rapert" page, but any comments correcting the errors or posting a disclaimer are not welcome? You are violating my right to have a disclaimer posted that warns readers that much of the information being posted is libelous and erroneous.Sjrapert (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sjrapert: If you have an issue with the page, you are welcome to discuss it on the article's talk page. I removed your edit because you were using all capital letters, which is perceived as shouting online, and because editorial-style comments like that do not belong within articles themselves. /wiae /tlk 03:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Sir, I just retyped a disclaimer in a new section without even removing the false, erroneous and libelous comments, and someone has already removed that disclaimer with accurate information. I want editors in charge of Wikipedia to assist. This issue is out of control. It is baffling that false and libelous comments remain and TRUTH cannot be offered even in its own section.Sjrapert (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
@Sjrapert: The issue with the disclaimer was twofold: it was in capital letters, which is virtually never appropriate on Wikipedia, and it was put in the wrong place. If you have concerns about the neutrality of a Wikipedia page with which you have a conflict of interest, then the proper course of action is to comment on the talk page and seek consensus for your proposed changes. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 03:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
@Sjrapert: As for your concerns about libel, I have not looked at the substance of the article. However, if you believe that you are the subject of a libellous statement, please follow the instructions at WP:LIBEL. There is an email mechanism there by which you can email Thanks, /wiae /tlk 03:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Special Barnstar
Just out of the blue, I suppose, but Dude, you rock!

Keep on being awesome! Minipup (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Minipup: Thank you! /wiae /tlk 23:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Request on 19:00:09, 11 January 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Simonsmedberg

Simonsmedberg (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wikiisawesome!

Thank you for the detailed instruction in december on how I can get my article accepted. I have gathered a new source from "" and I think the two sources for reliable newspapers with some other information from the website works fine to just describe the website in the page. I was wondering if you could have a look and let me know what you think. If you still think it needs more articles from other newspapers, let me know.

Many thanks, Best Regards Simon Smedberg

@Simonsmedberg: Hi, thanks for dropping by! I took a look at the new source. The Guardian is a reliable source, but unfortunately the coverage in the article is very minimal—just two quick name-checks. That's not enough to constitute substantive, in-depth coverage, which the draft needs. Are there any more sources available? If so, it'd be a good idea to add them! Thanks, /wiae /tlk 23:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Request on 22:19:24, 12 January 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Simonsmedberg

Hi again Wikiisawesome, thanks for the answer. I just have one more question. Is it possible to use Swedish sources from reliable newspapers? Is there any way to use them, perhaps translate? Perhaps it's not possible, but I was wondering, since there is coverage there. Thanks.

Simonsmedberg (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Simonsmedberg: Hello, nice to see you again! Yes, Swedish-language sources are definitely acceptable to use. No need to translate them either; just cite them like you would any other source. Thanks! /wiae /tlk 22:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Request on 22:33:35, 12 January 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Simonsmedberg

Sounds great! Just to be absolutely clear, so I don't make anything wrong. I can use the Swedish article and cite it, even though I'm writing in English? Is that correct? Or do you mean I have to write a Swedish Wikipedia article than? :) Thanks again.

Simonsmedberg (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Simonsmedberg: You're absolutely right. You can cite a Swedish article in an English Wikipedia article! (In fact, you can cite reliable sources from any language in English Wikipedia articles.) Thanks, /wiae /tlk 22:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

00:41:41, 13 January 2016 review of submission by Sonnenfn

Hello! I'm not really sure what the above is^. I'm requesting a little help in regard to the Human Performance Modeling page that I've been placed in charge of developing and editing for submission.

(1) I see that there are two reference lists; how can I fix this to reflect the accurate list? (2) Please be patient with me! I will diligently work on making this a quality article with the help of other editors and reviewers, but please note that this project has been my first on Wikipedia. Any content that you find infringes upon other works, please let me know so I can make timely adjustments - I'm only trying to help my academic community and increase exposure to the methods and theories in human performance modeling, and definitely not trying to do anyone wrong!!! =)

Thank you for your time, Very Respectfully, Nathan Sonnenfeld — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonnenfn (talkcontribs) 00:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sonnenfn: Hi, and thanks for stopping by. When you say you've been "placed in charge" of the draft, do you mean that you are writing it for an employer? If so, then that means you have a conflict of interest. In that case, it's important to read that guideline I linked to in the previous sentence. If you mean that you're being paid specifically to write the draft, then you must disclose this in accordance with Wikipedia's paid editing policy.
As for the draft, it was declined because it contained some copying from a copyrighted source. The copyright issue has since been removed and dealt with. I checked the draft again now and it seems to be fine copyright-wise! The reason you weren't able to pull up any of the previous revisions is because they've been hidden due to the prior copyright issue.
There are "two" reference lists because there are two sources between <ref></ref> tags at the bottom of the draft, just underneath the {{reflist}}. (Reflist is the command that makes the reference list appear.) To solve this, you can simply remove those two references at the bottom, or you can reintegrate them into the draft.
As for the rest of the draft, I haven't checked any of the references yet, although many of them seem from a cursory look to be alright. (The reviewer who assesses the draft will give you more feedback about this, if they are at issue.) I noticed that the draft's lede paragraph could more clearly explain exactly what "human performance modeling" is. A lede should succinctly explain what the subject is so readers get a basic idea of the topic right away. Saying that HPM "provides a tool to facilitate the development of well-designed systems that support their users" is kind of vague, and I don't really know what it's getting at. My suggestion is to merge some of the content from the "Human Performance Models" section below into the initial lede paragraph, as it does a better job at overview.
Thanks, and let me know if I can help further. /wiae /tlk 00:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello again!
Also, how do I correct the following error:
Cite error: The named reference :1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
I referenced the help page, but couldn't understand a bit of it, as I'm not familiar with coding.
Thank you,
Very Respectfully,
Nathan Sonnenfeld
@Sonnenfn: The issue with that reference is that you've cited a reference with refname ":1" multiple times in the draft, but you've never actually defined the reference itself.
Perhaps I can give an example. The first time you used your first reference, you named it like so: <ref name=":0">Sebok, A., Wickens, C., & Sargent, R. (2013, September). Using Meta-Analyses Results and Data Gathering to Support Human Performance Model Development. In ''Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting'' (Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 783-787). SAGE Publications.</ref>. Then whenever you want to cite that particular article, you can just put <ref name=":0" />. The problem with the <ref name=":1" /> is that it's never actually been defined.
I don't know which reference it refers to—is it possibly the Zhao or Byrne references at the very bottom?—so I can't fix it for you. Since you have some familiarity with the references, all you'd need to do is ascertain which reference <ref name=":1" /> refers to and then define it accordingly, as you did with the Sebok reference above. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 01:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much! That is quite helpful. I've reviewed that link just in case, and no; I'm a student member of a national academic organization (Human Factors & Ergonomics Society). Unpaid; I'm pretty sure everyone in the organization are all volunteers. My hope is that after this article, I can start clarifying and adding detail to some of the other Human Factors related pages; it's crazy how an entire academic discipline can continue relatively unrecognized if nobody takes the time to care for the sites.

I'll address the lede and the reference edits you suggested presently. Thank you!


Question regarding Financial Social Work Draft

I was asked to add a reflist template. I don't understand what/how to do this. Is there someone who could please show me a before and after to help? I looked at the wikipedia page explaining what this is but I'm still at a loss.

Thanks so much!

Dorlee Michaeli (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dorlee Michaeli: Hi, and thanks for dropping by. I actually added a {{reflist}} to the Draft:Financial Social Work page in this edit. The "reflist" template ensures that the references are displayed at the bottom of the draft. Let me know if I can help you with anything else! /wiae /tlk 14:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much for both explaining what the reflist template does and having added it into the draft ! I'm most appreciative :)
Dorlee Michaeli (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
@Dorlee Michaeli: Not a problem. You know where to find me if you have any other questions about Wikipedia! /wiae /tlk 14:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Corruption in the government of Azerbaijan

You may have seen that one editor thinks I should have just deleted it, and I probably would have just now but for your review. There are a number of serious allegations against living people in it with some pretty dicey sources in some cases. The lead has opinion stated as fact, etc. If it doesn't get deleted, best of luck with your review! Doug Weller talk 11:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Hi! I don't plan on reviewing the draft while the MfD is running, so for now it's just "out of circulation". (No sense crafting a review while the draft's fate is being decided at MfD, I figure.) I might take a stab at a review if the draft survives MfD, although, as you note, there are definitely some glaring issues with it. /wiae /tlk 13:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
It wouldn't exactly be a review as the editor is blocked. You'd have to submit it yourself, wouldn't you? In which case, I'd advise stubbing it dramatically. Doug Weller talk 17:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. Re-Submitting article Draft:Institutes of Technology Act

Hi, {{user|Wiae}, thank you for your suggestions on the article. Idk how the double infobox slipped past me. Ive fixed that along with simplifying the duties/powers. Looking forward to you approving it. Agrawal.akshay98 (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Agrawal.akshay98: I made a few change myself and then approved the draft. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 22:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Request on 06:04:47, 17 January 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Tombrady1251

Tombrady1251 (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The page in my Sandbox was meant to be added to the Paul Revere and the Raiders discography page. However do to the length of the added information I needed help to review these added parts. My page list all album tracks by the group except for albums which have their own page. Please let me know how to proceed. Thanks Tom Brady tombrady1251

@Tombrady1251: Hi, thanks for stopping by! What I'd suggest doing is integrating the content you have that's currently missing from Paul Revere & the Raiders discography into that article. However, I would not include the trivia in that article; see WP:TRIVIA.
What you could do is rework some of the trivia sections and include them in the broader Paul Revere & the Raiders article by chronology. However, make sure that any such content is well-sourced to reliable sources. Just a note that anyone can edit a site like Discogs, so it's not really a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. Likewise, I'm not sure about the reliability of bradcoweb. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 12:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Request on 04:34:27, 17 January 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga

Nao Sena Medal is an award for the Personnel of Indian Navy. While it is suffixed it is suffixed as 'NM'. For example refer the following recipients of Nao Sena Medal

  1. Devendra Kumar Joshi
  2. Sushil Kumar
  3. Jayant Ganpat Nadkarni
  4. Surinder Pal Singh Cheema

KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 04:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Okay, that makes sense. I did a little searching and it turns out we already have the disambiguation page Nm, which covers entries named "NM", so there is no need to create a whole new disambiguation page at NM. Nao Sena Medal medal was already on that page, albeit under a different name, so I've changed the name on Nm. Thanks for catching this! /wiae /tlk 13:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
That's ok. But when 'NM' is searched in the search bar, the page directly redirects to New Mexico. So please correct that. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 13:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga:   Done I've redirected NM to Nm. The policy rationale for this, I believe, is WP:DPAGE. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 13:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

05:37:35, 18 January 2016 review of submission by

The company ' Quantify IP' has been operational since mid 1980s. It started its operations small, as Computer Associates Inc and then later to Global IP Net. This draft is not meant for any advertisement purpose at all. There are not much of such resource available for it, one reason for that being the name change and keeping a low profile. It has been revised a couple of times already. This time, the reasons for decline a little unclear. What can be done to get it approved.

I've got a commitment for a few hours but will provide a more detailed response as soon as that's over. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 13:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Some of the promotional/conversational tone and unsourced content issues include: "soon grew pretty popular" (how popular?), "simple-to-use" (according to who?), "established a good network" (what's a good network and who makes the judgment call?), "Quantify IP is into providing" (Quantify IP sells IP software" is simpler), "solutions" (see WP:SOLUTION; this is a buzzword), "have a core focus of calculating cost estimates for IP applications" (why not just say "Quantify IP's software estimates IP costs"?), and "is used by professionals across the world" (citation needed).
Let me know if you would like any more detail or have any further questions! Thanks, /wiae /tlk 23:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please revive "Relational Physiology" page

You removed my contribution "Relational Physiology" as I have used a couple of sentences from my own website there. Meanwhile, I sent a mail granting permission to use the said text, which I of course authored. [Ticket#: 2016011810017766]. Will you please bring the contribution back to live?


ZoB1958 20:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZoB1958 (talkcontribs)

@ZoB1958: Hi, I'm neither an administrator nor an OTRS volunteer on Wikipedia, so I don't have the power to bring the page back, but it seems that the permission has come through and your page is once again available at Relational Physiology. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 00:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

10:57:10, 19 January 2016 review of submission by Claire Chung (TV Coordinator)

I have included 4 cites proving my details are correct. One from my IMDB page for the work at the BBC. One for my Studio Lambert Page Bio for my current work and one for the short film I made as well as one from linked in which details my employment in detail. Please let me know if you need anything else to approve this submission. Thank you. Claire

@Claire Chung (TV Coordinator): Hello, thanks for stopping by. The first thing to note is that writing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged, in large part because it is very difficult to write neutrally about oneself, and due to the conflicts of interest that ensue.
As for the draft, unfortunately the newly adduced sources do not show biographical or creative notability. Studio Lambert is a source connected to the subject, as it is where you work. That means it does not offer independent coverage, which is one of the requirements for sources to show notability. Likewise, the Dead Hearts Movie site is connected to work you've done. And finally IMDb is generally not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. You will need to find significant secondary-source coverage in reliable, independent sources. Reputable magazines, journals, books or news sources (whether online or offline) are a good place to start your search. If such sources do not exist, then the subject is likely not notable at this time.
Finally, external links within the body of the text (like how there's a link to Grant Thornton's website in the Career section) are frowned upon, so it's best to remove them. A few can be placed in an "External links" section at the bottom of the draft if you so choose. Thanks! /wiae /tlk 12:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Supreme sundhar submission declined

Y my article is declined? How to corrkt it Vikash rajendran (talk) 09:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@VIkash rajendran: Hi, thanks for stopping by! Have you seen the comments I left on the draft at Draft:Supreme Sundar? That would be a good start. Read through those and feel free to ask me any questions here, if you have them. Thanks! /wiae /tlk 12:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Jonathan Michaels

Thank you for moving the article. I just received notice that the article was rejected because of the sources. Can you advise on this. The sources are 3rd party references, but they are pdf files. How do you handle scanned articles or pdf from printed news. Thanks- Jpop73 (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jpop73: Hi, thanks for dropping by! The draft in question is Draft:Jonathan Michaels. If there is an online PDF, you can link directly to it (using the {{cite web}} template, if desired). If the PDFs you have are scans of offline documents, then there is no need to upload those PDFs anywhere. Just cite the original document. So let's say you have a PDF of a magazine with some information on Michaels. You can just cite the magazine itself. (In fact, there is an optional template for that too: {{cite magazine}}!) As the reviewer suggested, you'll want to make sure the bulk of your references are a) from reliable sources like magazines, newspapers or books with editorial oversight, b) offer significant coverage of Michaels (usually, at least a solid paragraph about him), and c) are independent of the subject (so avoid sources from companies he's affiliated with, or interview with him). Thanks! /wiae /tlk 13:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks

You've removed my complaint about personal attacks.[1] Please tell me what I am supposed to do when a user makes an unquestionably false accusation of vandalism against me and then refuses to withdraw it. I find this deeply insulting, but I see no-one warning the user that such behaviour is inappropriate. (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for dropping by. The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is designed to handle content disputes. The general rule at DRN is that content disputes must have been discussed in significant detail before they can be accepted. Usually this requires at least a few back-and-forth exchanges by the parties, specifically about the content that is at issue. I judged that there was not enough discussion on the Blitzkrieg talk page for the case to be opened. Of course, if there is extensive discussion there about the content in the coming days, the case could theoretically be refiled.
Your question as to personal attacks is a conduct issue, and there are other boards and fora for complaints of that nature. For example, there is the administrators' incident noticeboard (aka ANI), where conduct disputes are often brought. Naturally, it would be preferable to work out a solution with the other party first, if possible. You are welcome to bring the issue to ANI, but keep in mind that the administrators who look at the dispute will evaluate your conduct just as much as they will the other party's. It's definitely something to keep in mind before bringing a conduct issue to ANI. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 13:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
They can evaluate my conduct all they want. The false accusation of vandalism was a grievous insult, and I don't appreciate your implication that my conduct is somehow questionable. All I request is that someone explain to "Keith-264" that making false accusations of vandalism is not acceptable. (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Wiae for you revert, regards, WCMemail 17:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

02:04, 9 December 2015 Review of Submission by

Hi, I'm not sure exactly how to edit these things, but Encore Consumer Capital (, a San Francisco based private equity firm investing in consumer goods, is different than Encore Capital Group (, an international specialty finance company with operations in 14 countries (headquartered in San Diego). Thus, the redirect from Encore Consumer Capital to Encore Capital Group was correctly removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hm, good call. I think you're right. This PriceWaterhouseCoopers document uses them interchangeably in Appendix 1, but that must just be a typo. I'll look into it further (seems the user who created Encore Consumer Capital says it is a "more common name"), and if necessary I will nominate the redirect for discussion at RFD. Thanks for picking up on this, /wiae /tlk 22:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
In case you're checking this page, I've created a discussion about the redirect here. Thanks! /wiae /tlk 23:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Request on 11:27:15, 22 January 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Tombrady1251

Tombrady1251 (talk) 11:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Paul Revere and the Raiders Album Tracks The statement says it exist but it does not exist. I added it to their current page so a new page would not have to be made and got references. I am afraid you will have to tell me what to do next since I am lost????????????

Tom Brady Tombrady1251

@Tombrady1251: Hi, thanks for stopping by again! Here's what I'd suggest doing:

12:31:32, 23 January 2016 review of submission by Nileshrwadekar

I want to know what else i need to do with this article to submit it on wikipedia.

@Nileshrwadekar: Hi, and thanks for stopping by. Unfortunately, it looks like the subject is not notable right now. This is because they do not meet the biographical notability criteria. Wikipedia articles about require strong referencing in order to be suitable for inclusion. However, you are welcome to continue looking for sources and to resubmit at another time if the person is discussed in significant detail by a variety of reliable, independent (third-party) sources. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 13:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

13:12:07, 23 January 2016 review of submission by Louise Riche

@Louise Riche: Hello, do you have a particular question about this submission? I've answered your question at the help desk about it! Thanks, /wiae /tlk 13:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Request on 22:48:00, 22 January 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by KeisaCat

Hi, I need some help in regards to my article draft. Which part appears to be directly copyrighted?

KeisaCat (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@KeisaCat: Hi, I just left a new message over at Draft:Abbas Akhavan! I've removed the copyrighted content. An administrator will be by shortly to hide the revisions, but for now if you look at this diff, you'll be able to see all the content I removed. The URLs the content is from are in the edit summary, and I've also listed them on the talk page too.
As I mentioned on your draft, I think it has promise and he certainly sounds like an interesting artist. You can work on expanding the draft again using the sources, but just be careful about always writing in your own words. Let me know once you've done some more work on the draft and I'll be happy to take another look! Thanks, /wiae /tlk 22:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
@KeisaCat: In short, don't give up hope! The AfC process is iterative; with a little bit of work, I think this draft has a lot of promise. /wiae /tlk 22:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
@KeisaCat: The article has been accepted! Congratulations! /wiae /tlk 19:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

14:04:20, 24 January 2016 review of submission by Louise Riche

why you guys want to delete my article. whats the reason ? Hi I just want to know why you guys want to delete my first article Regards Lousie

@Louise Riche: Hello! User:Louise Riche/sandbox is not up for deletion. It has been declined because it is a duplicate of an existing article, Deniz Kiziloz, and it saves time and energy to just work on one version of the article at a time.
As for the Deniz Kiziloz article, it is nominated for deletion because the nominator feels that it may not meet our standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. I have not looked at the references in detail because I neither speak nor read Bulgarian. However, if you would like to make a comment on the deletion process explaining why you think the article should be kept, you are certainly welcome to do so! Just go here, edit the page, and at the very bottom you are welcome to leave your opinion. Before you do so, however, it would be a good idea to read this short few paragraphs about contributing to deletion discussions. Thanks, and let me know if I can help you further. /wiae /tlk 14:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
@Louise Riche: Also, you don't need to keep submitting User:Louise Riche/sandbox for review. The general rule is that if there's already an article about the subject, you don't need to submit a second version for review! Thanks, /wiae /tlk 14:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


Hi! I saw that my article about the band Damnati was rejected because it didn't have reliable sources. I addad a link to where you can buy their music at and a link to iTunes. Is the article ok now?

/Trinomious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinomious (talkcontribs) 7:31, January 26, 2015 (UTC)

@Trinomious: Hi, and thanks for dropping by! As a quick note, when you leave a comment on a talk page, be sure to sign it by using four tildes, like this: <message goes here> ~~~~.
Wikipedia articles about bands require strong referencing in order to be suitable for inclusion. However, the draft does not yet provide acceptable references—Amazon and iTunes are places where you can buy their music, so they indicate that the band exists and is releasing music. However, they don't have any coverage or commentary about the band. That's what is needed, according to the band inclusion criteria: coverage from things like magazines, newspapers and books about the band. To that end, please find and add a variety of reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss the band in significant detail. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 12:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)