User talk:Anon126/Archive 7

Antal Szabo

Hi there, can you help me improve the draft article about Antal Szabo? Thanks Cjhmacacct (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. What you need to do is find sources of information about this person. They must be independent (not written by the person or someone with a close connection), reliable (having a reputation for accuracy), and published (made public) in some way. The biography from the Katona Jozsef Emlekhaz Gallery seems reliable, so that could be kept. If you go to your draft, near the bottom of the box that says it was declined there should be some links after "Find sources". If you cannot find enough sources, he may not be considered notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 00:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Move Commons (2)

Hi, just wanted to let you know that you notified the wrong person by accident: the creators were Jpzafra and Samer.hc. I thought you'd relied on a bot bug until I checked this edit, so I'm no longer confused by what you did. Let me explain: I found the page while deleting G13-tagged old AFC pages. I thought that this one might have potential, so instead of deleting it I submitted it, having no idea that my username would appear anywhere except in the page history. Lest I be unclear, let me say right out that I don't have any stake in this page; I'm not objecting/challenging/asking for a change of mind/complaining/etc about this. I'm basically here to ask that you make sure to notify the actual creators. Nyttend (talk) 05:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I actually used the AFC helper script, so I suppose there's a bug in that. Thank you for bringing this to my attention; I will be more careful with this from now on. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 23:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Jwsstudios

Thank you for Anon126 for your comments on the submission jwsstudios. could you suggest or advise where I should go to help with this article? Thank you jwsstudio assistant.Jeff Schneider 13:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwsstudios (talk • contribs)

The first place to start is the box at the top that explains why I declined the article. The links within it are helpful. If you need more help, you can go to the Teahouse, the articles for creation help desk, or the general help desk. (You can also check out more places to ask questions. Despite all this, you should only ask a question in one place unless you do not get responses quickly.)

User accounts should not be shared. Usernames implying shared use are not allowed. Please consider changing your username to one that reflects you as an individual. If there are multiple people editing, please take the time to create separate accounts. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 15:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks......

Thanks for your most helpful feedback.

I expect she will keep plugging away until she is considered notable enough to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.254.5 (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Who? --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 16:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Appalachian Records AIM guy

Hey man! I think my page is ready! I doubled my sources and took out the bolding and external links. Check it out! > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Taylor_Deihl

Let me know what you think! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drakebronson (talk • contribs) 17:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Why rejected

Dear Annon why my draft rejected — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.68.97.36 (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I assume you are referring to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. Hyder Sindhi? I rejected it because you do not use inline citations, which are references within the text of the article, not just at the bottom. Wikipedia has a policy about articles about living people ("biographies of living persons") that states that any material that is "challenged or likely to be challenged," whether positive or negative, must have an inline citation.

You can see the introduction to referencing or referencing for beginners to learn how to add inline citations. Your citations should refer to independent, reliable sources; this also establishes notability, which is necessary for being included on Wikipedia. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 05:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Whitehall Lane Wine & Vineyards

Hi Anon126,

Thank you for you feedback and time in reviewing the submission. I'm new to Wiki and I'm trying to understand why my submitted page was not accepted. I've reviewed many similar pages and followed their formats and wiki protocol as it relates to sources, etc. I'm not understanding why this page was noted and not approved.

Is it due to the source that I noted form Spotlight? If so, it's a printed publication, not an online publication.

See examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutter_Home_Winery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markham_Vineyards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlan_Estate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beringer_Vineyards

Any insight and recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time- Bamdesign (talk) 06:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

First note about your sources: There seem to be some problems with the URLs. You may want to see how to properly add links.

Sources not available online are acceptable. However, my concern is about the variety of independent sources. The other articles you've cited have independent sources on the history of the wineries, while the one on Whitehall Lane does not.

By the way, this site is called Wikipedia, not wiki. A wiki is any website using wiki software; there are thousands of them. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 06:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Fountain of Love and Life

I am wondering why the article has been rejected? If the article is about an organization, how would it not sound like a promotion of some sort, especially when this article is new to Wikipedia? Would the article be neutralized after more reviewers begin editing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsshung (talk • contribs) 10:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it may be true Wikipedia articles about organizations start as somewhat promotional, and that is why you always have the opportunity to resubmit. While reviewers like myself can help improve articles at articles for creation, most of the work rests on the creator. The best way you can make the article less promotional is to cite independent, reliable sources of information that have discussed this organization. (You can see the introduction to referencing [quick tutorial] or referencing for beginners [more detailed] for information on how to cite sources.) --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 06:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Marijose

Hola! Antes era 81.172.112.44 0. --Marijose (talk) 10:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hola, ¿cómo esta? --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 06:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Article rejection - Paolo Giubellino

Dear Anon126,

I got a notification that the article that I created for Paolo has been rejects since it "includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations". Although I refered to the relevant page regarding the use of footnotes I am not sure that I have understood what exactly is the problem. I am wondering if you could give me a specific example. I understand that you have a hectic schedule and hence if I don't hear from you I will ask for live help.

Thank you for your help and your feedback and I am looking forward to your response.

Best regards, Panos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.5.235 (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello. You seem to already be familiar with inline citations, so the footnotes page will not give you much new information. The main page to read is the minimum standard for inline citations. In short, there are four types of content that must have inline citations. The fourth one, "contentious material, whether negative, positive, or neutral, about living persons" is the usual reason for an article being declined. The draft on Paolo Giubellino has no inline citations for a majority of the content. They will have to be added in order for the article draft to be accepted. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 22:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move from Virtual Piggy to Oink

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsa228 (talk • contribs) 01:06, February 12, 2014‎ (UTC)

Hello. I assume you are .61.237 at the articles for creation help desk.

I'm sorry I didn't make it clear when I provided those instructions for requesting a page move. The request should be placed on the article's talk page, which is the same as the name of the article, except with Talk: in front. The talk page for Virtual Piggy is at Talk:Virtual Piggy.

I didn't check this earlier, but because you have a user account that is old enough (at least 4 days) and has made enough edits (at least 10), you are actually able to move it yourself, by following the instructions at moving a page. (Don't worry, these instructions should be clearer than the previous ones I provided, I hope.)

However, if you want to get some discussion on it first, I recommend following the previous instructions. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 03:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Help

Not sure why the page is not working Can you help? Sergio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastronardi (talk • contribs) 01:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sergio Mastronardi? I declined it because you need to find more independent, reliable sources of information. This is sometimes called the "golden rule" of Wikipedia. Finding these sources shows the person's notability, that is, it shows that other people have talked about him. This is required for being included in Wikipedia. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 02:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Ted Chu, PhD

Hi Anon126, thank you for your recent response to my inquiry re: Ted Chu PhD. I believe I already resubmitted the article for approval, and now am just waiting to hear back?? I am sorry, as i am so new to this... is there anything left for me to do at this point?

many thanks!

Thefutureisnow333 (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you have resubmitted the article. It will be reviewed in time. As the box on the bottom (or it may have been moved to the top) says, "This may take more than 3 weeks."

The most important thing to do now is add inline citations, usually with footnotes (those little numbers that look like this). Wikipedia requires these for information on living people. If you need help adding those inline citations, you can check out the introduction to referencing (a quick tutorial) or referencing for beginners (which has more detailed information).

The other thing you can do now is check out the external link guidelines and probably remove some links in the article. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 02:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Viewfinity / your modification suggestions

Thank you for your suggestions. I will work on that today and resubmit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allycooks (talk • contribs) 14:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Misuse of revert

this was not vandalism. It was someone posting in the wrong place, who needed help.

Please be kind to new users. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hm... Perhaps I was too rash in calling it vandalism. However, it wasn't any sort of question, really, so I'm not sure what would've been a more appropriate response. I did leave a notice on the user's talk page with an invitation to ask a question about at the help desk.

How should I respond to this in the future? --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 03:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The main point is, don't label it as 'vandalism' in the edit summary. I also suggest that, in such cases where the person is clearly confused about where they are, the standard message that you created is unlikely to be helpful - "it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox" doesn't really apply.

Most people deal with such cases by leaving it on HD and putting {{Astray}} which is appropriate - either that, or a more human response.

If you try to think from the perspective of a clearly-confused new user, they might not even notice the talk page message, and probably won't understand it if they do - but there's a fair chance they will check for a reply on the helpdesk itself.

But the main thing is, not to call things vandalism unless you're sure it really is - people tend to do that too often, mostly due to over-use of automated tools. And Wikipedia desperately needs to make new (often very confused) users feel welcome. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

This just happened, and I would call that valid - for three reasons. Firstly, it really does look like a test edit and just messes up the helpdesk without actually anything we can respond to; secondly, it isn't being called vandalism, and thirdly, the talk page message makes sense in this case - advising them to use the sandbox for experiments.

But using the sandbox wouldn't have helped the other person. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted similar edits on the talk page by the same person. Again, I admit that my characterization of the other edit (by .164.233) as vandalism was a mistake. (I think {{Romeo notice}} was an influence.)

I don't believe {{astray}} is appropriate, because that seems written specifically for questions. (The message by .164.233 seemed to be more of a fan letter.)

Perhaps I should reply on the help desk with a specifically written response, as you suggest. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 04:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)