User talk:Ktr101

User	Talk	Contribs	Sandbox	Userboxes	Awards	New Pages	Humor	E-mail	Logs	Moves	Uploads

Archives
October 2007-September 2008 October 2008-September 2009 October 2009-September 2010 October 2010-September 2011 October 2011-January 2012

Re rejected article

Hi Kevin

I need some feedback on why the Port of Hastings Development Authority was rejected again.

I tidied up the article. The subject is clearly notable. The organisation runs a public port and has very substantial public and commercial responsibilities. It lies within a State of 5 million people (Victoria) at the edge of a city of four million people (Melbourne). The port development has also been the subject of some controversy.

As far as I can, each major point is referenced from available sources. The legislative basis of the agency is meticulously referenced to both foundation statutory material and Parliamentary debates both of which are available in hard copy and online sources and thus can be easily checked if you are concerned about the accuracy of the material. The trading activities of the port are sourced to the only available public material, ie online sources. One could maybe add a couple of newspaper references but these are notoriously unreliable in my experience.

In those circumstances, what other improvements could be made? Can you let me know please.

Thanks, Con Belacoski (talk) 08:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

From the looks of it, it doesn't appear notable (partly because it was created two weeks ago), so I would wait a bit. Besides, in a few years it might gain a ton of notability, so it might be able to be created then, but until then, it really isn't notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Robert Tavernor

Hi Bryce ... or Kevin (sorry)

I've been editing the page above for a while now, and have studied the criteria for notable academics carefully. It seems very stange to me that I keep getting the page rejected. RT really is an important academic, and really has made a massive contribution to the filed of architectural history and urban design. He really has published notable works, the evidence for which (publishers and critics) I have tried to include. AND, with regard to the criteria for listing again, he has held an important named Chair (in Edinbrugh). So what more can i reasonably do to this article....you seem not to be applying your own criteria, which seems a little, dare I say, irrational! Help!! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absvh (talk • contribs) 10:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I mean, another user also found him to be unnotable as well. I would go into the Wikipedia help channel (a direct link can be found right above the edit box, as an edit notice) an ask them for advice. Otherwise, I really don't know what to say, as I am not really seeing anything huge in there. Sorry. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

AfC overload

Hi Kevin,

Re: My ideas for AfC.

You said the other day in AfC/Talk:  "A lot of those ideas will cause more harm than good in the end."
Some new information has come to light.  Maybe when you have some extra time, you could be specific about your concerns.
Thanks. :- ) DCS 17:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Basically, some ideas might end up hurting us in the end. I'll be on IRC later tonight, and we can talk then, but I think we have some pretty reasonable ideas down there right now, so there is nothing concerning. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Roger that.  I should have a permanent IRC terminal from now on. :- ) DCS 21:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Middlebrook AfC

R.D. Middlebrook clearly meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability of academics as given here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28academics%29#Criteria . Specifically, as a Life Fellow of the IEEE, he meets criterion 3 (and you only need to meet one, although IMO he meets several). (Life Fellow is more prestigious than Fellow, and the criterion specifically says IEEE Fellows are notable.) Please check the criteria and re-evaluate. Afhoke (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Andy (Afhoke)

Okay, would you be willing to add links to the awards that he has won? Also, you still need to fix the formatting awards section (and rewrite it in your own words) so that it isn't a copy-paste from another source. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Advice on Locayta article please?

Hi Kevin I am new to Wikipedia so hope that I'm using the correct channel to ask for your advice! I have been trying to create and upload an article on Locayta - an industry provider of search and merchandising software in the e-commerce industry. I have had several different rejection comments now including that the article reads more like an ad (I have tried to make it more neutral), I have not sufficiently explained the importance of the article, and the subject is not considered notable enough for inclusion. I do understand the comments in principle and have consulted the help pages to get clear on these, but because I'm new to using wikipedia's feedback format I'm losing track of which of these issues remain an issue...so to speak. I'm seeing several different feedback messages now and am unsure which still apply - or whether you consider them all to still be an issue...

Would you be able to clarify for me exactly which issues you feel still have not been addressed so that I can give it another bash? Certainly I can provide additional references. I do think Locayta can be demonstrated as being notable - they are a key resource for more than 100 branded industry clients such as Tesco, Boohoo, BT and Nectar, and they are also closely affiliated with Venda and Dan Wagner - both of whom have made it into wikipedia's directory. However I'm wary of over-emphasizing this in case I then fall back into the "reads like an ad" trap!

Your advice and patience will be hugely appreciated by a wikipedia novice still finding her way around. Thank you so much in advance for your time.

All best wishes Amy Amy Hatton (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It still reads like an advertisement, and I feel like most of the article would have to be removed in order for it to have a chance of being advanced, although I really doubt that it is notable as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kevin. Thanks for your quick response. I am really sorry but I'm confused. You say the article reads like an ad and is not notable. However there are articles on [[1]] and[[2]] already published on wikipedia that to me read in a similar way. They specifically state that the companies are leaders in their field, name clients, services, recognition and products in (I think) a similar way to my own. Given Locayta's close affiliation with these companies and the fact that Locayta was also founded by Dan Wagner, who has enormous coverage in the e-commerce press and his own page on wikipedia, could you please give me more detail of exactly which bits of my article are causing it to read like and advertisement? Apologies, I'm really not trying to be difficult, I am just genuinely confused as to what differentiates them to Locayta and keen to revise the article if I can.

Many thanks for your time. Amy Hatton (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It still reads like a bit of an advertisement, so I'll go ahead and remove it, so that it reads better. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, thanks for your response. Forgive me but I'm not quite clear on what you mean. Are you saying that you are going to remove the elements of the article you feel read like and ad, or are you saying you still believe the whole thing should be removed? Pls clarify, thanks you very much for your time on this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amy Hatton (talk • contribs) 10:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(Responding to an e-mail query) Okay, I have gone ahead and cleaned it up now. I removed the part about the associated companies, as there is no article there, and it will only hurt to have it there. At this point, you can still submit it, but if it is declined, it is probably not notable enough for the site. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Your rejection of the Dr. Peter T. Scardino, Cancer Researcher entry

Dear Editor: I am flummoxed by the suggestion that I failed to show the significance of Dr. Scardino. Here is a quote:

"He and his colleagues introduced statistical models called nomograms that predict both the natural progression of prostate cancer and its response to treatment.[4] Today, nomograms are being used to assist in medical decisions about a variety of cancers of the pancreas, lungs, and breast."

I have links to news items about him. I have a link to a Charlie Rose interview with him. I have a link to his book, which is the leading consumer book on prosrate cancer. I also could have inserted a link to PubMed for the 200 or so peer reviewed articles he's written but was afraid of rejection on that alone.

What is it that you want that I can further supply?

Thanks for your time. Could you please reply to me on my personal email: joanoleck@optimum.net, as I have a lot of trouble navigating on Wikipedia.

Best, Joan 19:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joanvalo (talk • contribs)

(E-mailed as well) Well, it looks as though he is notable, although the way it reads is initially a bit odd (having a lot of external links within the text is a no-no), but it is salvagable. If anything, adding a link to the nomogram page and expanding his connections with him would also help. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Northern Star magazine

Hi,

I have made some updates to the page for The Northern Star magazine, and am just wondering if I did what you required. I also am having problems creating a link from the name to the magazine. Am I making a code mistake?

Thank you for your help.

Will — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildwillinpg (talk • contribs) 17:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but please remove the external links from the page and cite it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Rejected article

Kevin

This is a further communication about the Port of Hastings Development Authority article which you've rejected twice. I am a little troubled by the methodology of the reviews. I shall be adjusting the article again later in the day and will make another attempt to have it posted at that time. In the meantime, I'd ask you to consider the following points.

The reasons you've given for rejection have been different both times. You instanced referencing on the first occasion. I agreed with that sentiment and fixed the referencing. No other reason was given. I tidied up the referencing which is now exhaustive in my view. The sources of each substantive point are clear. As I indicate above, where possible, the material is available in both hard copy and online sources. Accordingly, if you want to check any of the points made in the article, you can. For example, if you want to check the Parliamentary or legislative material, it's very easy. The statute book is available. The debates are available.

On the second occasion you indicated that the subject was not notable. I am having great difficulty understanding this point. As I indicate above, "(T) the subject is clearly notable. The organisation runs a public port and has very substantial public and commercial responsibilities. It lies within a State of 5 million people (Victoria) at the edge of a city of four million people (Melbourne). The port development has also been the subject of some controversy."

Now, it's worth pointing out that the notability ground wasn't mentioned in your first review so I was given no idea that you had this concern and therefore was given no opportunity of addressing it. You mentioned it this time but with no supporting reasons for that view. On current figures this State is larger than around 29 American States. It's larger than Alabama, it's larger than Kentucky, it's larger than Utah, Arkansas and a whole bunch of other States. Similarly the city of Melbourne. By American standards, at over 4 million people this is a very large city, much larger than most US cities, and people here are interested in local affairs including the instituions that their politicians create.

As I indicated above, the port development was a matter of substantial Statewide and local controversy down here. It is of interest to many people including those who live near the port and those who transact business through it. It has also been in the news many times including multiple page spreads. OK, some may see this as a small out of the way place, but the population certainly suggests that its not and, in any case, it's of great importance to those who live here and who access this encyclopedia.

I'll update the article a little more later. I'll add some of the local controversy material if that is seen to help the "notability" thing. What I'd simply ask that you please give this some more time and thought to your review. People don't generally try and contribute to Wikipedia without some real passion about the subjects they approach. They take time and effort to add an article or make an edit. I know, I've posted over 50 articles in other guises and made thousands of edits. The number of rejections I've experienced across all of that work is not yet in double figures and most times the reasons I've been given have been very considered. And, I could grab hundreds probably thousands of articles from the encyclopedia right now, including recent ones, that don't meet the standards that you seem to be applying.

Thanks Con Belacoski (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, it's created. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Just FYI: this removal followed by this notice. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the notice. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Netravati river diversion project

A tag has been placed on Netravati river diversion project requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, image description page, image talk page, mediawiki page, mediawiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, or user talk page from the article space.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Your Trading Edge Magazine

Hello, Can you please explain what I need to do to get my article approved? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Your_Trading_Edge_Magazine It is the same product as this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Times Thank you. Aimee yte (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The citations do not really help to establish any sort of notability, but it doesn't have the feel of a notable article as it stands right now. Feel free to improve it and resubmit it again, before the blackout. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. The magazine is the same as these existing articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_%28magazine%29 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_Analysis_of_Stocks_%26_Commodities, or even this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_Trader_%28UK%29 - plus I have put much more information in our article. I am still unsure what I am supposed to do to get the YTE article approved. Aimee yte (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Just resubmit it, to see what others thing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

rejected article

There are mathematical article on wikipedia that are technical. This article (Ramanujan Master theorem) was to motivate mathematics student towards evaluation of definite integrals.Whole of Mathematics cannot be written in words.Please atleast try to get it review from a perspective of a maths student.

Yeah, it just needs some more text at the beginning for its use. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I have again written the article with some applications. You can review it again at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ramanujan%27s_Master_Theorem.

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks, a lot lot for clearing the huge backlog in WP:AFC. I wish somebody appreciated me for doing the same work too.(sob.....sob.....sob.) Ankit Maity Talk • contribs 06:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Aww, thanks! This is my fifth barnstar in the past few weeks for AFC, so I guess if you just do some insane number of reviews a week, you too will get way more recognition than you think you deserve. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Easyswap - rejection on the basis of references being in French

Hello,

Thanks for taking the time to review my article.

I was told by a previous editor that references in French or in any other languages are not an obstacle for publication. Please see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chiswick_Chap/TalkArchive2011#Easyswap.

Has Wikipedia English now changed its policy?

Is this the only basis on which you rejected my article?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shardy22 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I would have liked to have seen some links in English to back up the facts. Either way, it is a good article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

RadioCentre rejection

Kevin, many thanks for reviewing my article on the UK commercial radio trade body. I am a relatively new WIkipedia user, so excuse my ignorance, but I have read all the links you have guided me to and I am still confused as to the definition of 'notability' in this instance. RadioCentre is to UK Radio what Thinkbox is to UK TV, and Thinkbox is listed. It is the only fully representative body for all other radio stations in the UK which are not under BBC jurisdiction. As I cite in the article, this is nearly 50% of listeners.

RadioCentre appears to me to also be the glue which holds many other UK radio related articles on Wikipedia together. It part funds RAJAR, the Radio Academy and the digital radio switch-over process in the UK - all significant parts of not just the industry but wider media life.

Grateful for your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rendezvousin (talk • contribs) 11:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The article says some things which could be contested, but they aren't backed up by citations, making it harder to tell if it is notable or not. If it sounds like it could be contested, cite it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Article for discussion

Hello Kevin! As I understand it, I am supposed to create a new section on my article, in order to discuss its rejection. I am new at this, so i hope I've done this right. Thanks a lot for you time, and I hope I'll manage to sort this out in the end... Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dr._Albert_Flipout#DISCUSSION — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanaLush (talk • contribs) 18:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the references are poor, the article reads like a hoax, and I don't see any notability there. Sorry, but the article just isn't notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Koob declined article

Hello Kevin,

It is my understanding the article satisfies criteria 9 for notability in academics WP:Creative, and criteria 2 for creative professionals 'The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.' Let me know how to get that to come across in the article to resubmit. I have referenced a few sources about his glia cell concept/theory including an interview in Scientific American. Thank you-

Kilmerbatman (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that article is strange because I started reading it, thought he might have created something important, and did not find anything. Honestly, try expanding it more, and resubmitting it again so that it can be reviewed again. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, the article which cites his theory only allows for paid access, so some non paywall references would to good to back up whether or not this is a huge theory that is gaining recognition or just one man's opinion. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin - I've edited the article and putting up for review again. Kilmerbatman (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Declined Article

Re: Nir Seroussi Hi Kevin, Thank you for taking the time to review my article of creation. You may have quickly realized this was my “first” so I am very grateful for the extra work and effort you have provided me with. This project is one in my bucket list.

So a bit of history on my article of creation:

When my research began, I quickly realized -the subject was already noted, quoted, and included, in many important Wiki pages, which of course would prove the subjects involvement in all aspects of the music business from reliable independent sources and through hundreds of Internet sites.

The notability of the subject is worthy of notice because this is a 36 year old young man born and raised in a foreign country, with no knowledge of a specific genre of music (Regional Mexican) became a major contributor in its business, not as an executive, but as an award winning music writer and producer for that particular genre. I could continue to provide reliable links and third party sources on the subject, including interviews, but the nature of my subject would be lost.-----or so I believe. Being in this business for so long has taught me a few things! Or so I think...right? LOL! Here we go...did you know that... Regional Mexican sales are responsible for 65% of total music sales in the United States? The sales and You Tube hits generated by the Artists that were discovered by the subject changed the history of its genre and its one thing to discover and sign an artist, but no money or machine in the world will buy you audiences, air play or hits. So it has to be great, not good. And lastly, there are more Regional Mexican radio stations in the United States than there are Pop/Urban.My intent with the subject’s article was to keep it simple and clean. Let me know what else could be done to accomplish an article worthy of a page.

Sincerely grateful, TTBBIL — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTBBIL (talk • contribs) 19:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You say that he has won awards, but you don't mention them. Honestly, I don't see any notability there. Sorry. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The subject was the recipient of a BMI Award. The links are included in the reference areas. A huge honor to receive by any composer or songwriter as it denotes a song with massive airplay --worldwide. The subject also executive produced Gammy award winning albums. All for a genre he was not "raised" in. If anything we are looking at a very particular genius here. TTBIL —Preceding undated comment added 03:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC).

• (talk page stalker) The references are full of links leading to things that don't actually mention or discuss him. The BMI site seems to be down, so I can't check that, but it's noteworthy that this award seems not to have been noticed. Various references and searches indicate that this person exists and has a job, but not that he has notability by Wikipedia's standards. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Social Status Clothing

This is my first attempt at submitting a Wikipedia for a company out of Orlando making some waves. What specifically needs to be done to make this acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beansedb (talk • contribs) 21:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It needs to gain notability, which it is currently far from having. Sorry, but the company is not notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ktr101. Please check your e-mail – you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

SarahStierch (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Re rejected article

Hello Kevin

Thank you for reviewing my article for creation: Jacob Cartwright and Nick Jordan. The message states I must indicate the notability for musical performers. However, Cartwright and Jordan are visual artists, with a long track-record of notable exhibitions, films and authored works (by notable publishers such as Book Works and Cornerhouse). I have been careful to tidy up and make full references and citations to many verifiable sources in the UK(such as the Guardian newspaper and the BBC). I have now also added an award for their work, in the latest edit submission. In light of this, please could you re-consider the article for inclusion. A web search will reveal further extensive evidence of the artists' notability and recognition in contemporary visual arts. Furthermore, many of their contemporary peers, who have a comparable reputation and profile, are already included in Wikipedia. With thanks. Jorbert30 (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I mean, it doesn't look like a notable festival, but someone else will probably end up reviewing it as I'm taking a break from AFC for a bit. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Review Kenny&Mason

Dear Sir, Madame

You have reviewed my article about the brand Kenny&Mason. You've indicated that their are some problems that needed to be fixed before you can allow publishing. Can you please explain to me what I have to do to get it listed because this is the first article I publish and I do not understand what I am doing wrong. I really like to contribute to your encyclopedia.

Thank you for your help!

Kind Regards

Paul Jones — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Jones2 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is not a notable corporation, and probably never will be. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Kevin

As a student Political sciences and History I'am sure you understand the importance to pass on as piece of our local English history. It is a pitty that you are apparently not familiar with the rich tradition we have here in Birmingham in the fabrication of taps. Kenny & Mason is one of the leading brands of our region that is around for more then a hunderd year. In my opinion this is certainly worth mentioning in an ecyclopedia. I hope you reconsider your judgement or give me some tips to get this article listed.

Warm regards

Paul Jones — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Jones2 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Jones,

I am Peter.C and I looked further into the concerns you raised with regards to the article you submitted for creation. The reason why your article failed is because it does not appear to be notable. While yes, the company may have been around for over 100 years, there are not many reliable sources detailing it. Furthermore, the article is also written more like an ad than an encyclopedic article. If you are able to provide more reliable sources on the subject mater and write it in an encyclopedic format I see no reason why it will not be moved into main-space, and become a "real" article. If you have any questions, just reply here. Thanks. Peter.C • talk • contribs 02:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Peter c

Thank you for your feedback. I'll revise my article.

Regards

Paul Jones — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Jones2 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

?

Kevin, do you actually like this job? ;) Drmies (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Naval Air Station Sanford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SIOP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

AFC Creation Issues

It seems that User:Anaamikamathu has been creating and moving pages from AFC which are clearly not ready for mainspace (see Chakravyuha (Kannada Film)). Can you move it back/talk to the editor about it? (I'm not sure how exactly to approach the editor) A412 (Talk * C) 22:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Also see User_talk:Anaamikamathu#Lagori_.282012_Film.29. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh yea, that guy. Regardless, it's done. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

When you start putting speedy deletion warnings on your own talk, its time to take a break. ;) That said, thank you for the incredible amount of work you do. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I'll put in a request someday over at the Twinkle talk page to get that done, as it does get quite bothersome after awhile. 22:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

BLC Bank page

Hey there, i hope this message finds you well.

This is in reference to the BLC Bank page available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/BLC_bank

We have submitted and re-submitted this page after two writing adjustments to 1) adjust the tone used in the article itself and 2) to integrate the citations and reference as per wiki-approved protocol. As such, if you could be so kind as to point out what parts exactly still need adjustment so we can address them as soon as possible, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance for your consideration and response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NEL Interactif (talk • contribs) 09:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, just resubmit it and see what others think. I'm taking a bit of an AFC vacation at the moment, so I'll let someone else look over it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm very new to article submissions. BTW I did read the AFC sub link before I posted through. Matt Homeyer

Hey, fellow Wikipedian(?)

I've been declined for the Matt Homeyer article and I have no idea from the header how long ago, if it's been reviewed since or what to do about it.

All of my sources have come from him directly and I have no applicable references to add, seeing as Facebook cannot be one of them. :)

I'll keep trying but until then I would like to find out how I know that my article has come through etc etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polarbear ed (talk • contribs) 12:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no references there, and he doesn't seem notable anyways. Sorry. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

translating into a foreign language

Hi Kevin,

Is there a Wikipedia mechanism to translate an article into another language?\ Kdennis1 (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Google Translate works, but then it makes everything a bit funky, so you have to read over the text to fix up grammatical errors. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

        Thank you for your help! Kdennis1 (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ktr101,

I'm sorry to bother you, but I don't understand exactly what I need to change about my article about Sceneround. Could you please help me out and sent me some guidelines to hold on too? It would be much appreciated.

AnneWritten (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding projects

Hello, Ktr101. You have new messages at Bwmoll3's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dog Cloning

You suggested that this one be merged, but it was actually a copyright violation (which I have now deleted), from the source that was provided in a link. Please watch out for those. Thanks Kevin. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Prostitution in Vietnam

The DYK project (nominate) 08:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Coalition of Hope, Article Justification

Coalition of Hope - Justification for Publication Hello, I'm writing to explain why the Coalition of Hope is an organization noteworty to appear in Wikipedia. The draft article is located here [3].

The Coalition of Hope (CoH) is noteworthy as it follows in the traditions of the International Red Cross, the Mercy Ships, [4], and Project Hope [5]. If that were not notable enough, the CoH is the first ever non-governmental organization (NGO) to convert a warship into a floating hospital. The converted LHA, redubbed a HADR/V (Humanitarian Assistance / Disaster Relief Vessel) will be the fastest medical ship afloat. The current USNHS Mercy and Comfort are capable of just 8kts. The HADR/V can do over 23kts under full steam. Medical mission planners at HQ USSSOUTHCOM see the presence of an HADR/V as significant in their planning of disaster responses.

Please consider the above and let me know about future publication of the article.

V/r G H Smith (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Glenn Smith [G H Smith] — Preceding unsigned comment added by G H Smith (talk • contribs) 01:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I should've declined it as a verifiability issue as well, as it needs reliable sources that aren't the organization's own site in order to be accepted. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, as the organization is not notable, and the entire article is mostly hype. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Kevin, we are currently working on the secondary references, I am not requesting publication until they are submitted. I am aware that the current version of the article only referenced to the project site. Understand however, you are completely wrong about the tenor of the article ["and the entire article is mostly hype"]. This article was reviewed by Tom Fiedler, Dean of the College of Communications, Boston College, and a two time Pulitzer Prize winner, to ensure the article is encyclopdic in tone. V/r GHS G H Smith (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up to the recent TEMIS submission

Dear Kevin,

I am writing to you regarding our recent submission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/TEMIS

We understand there are criteria for a company profile such as ours to be included on Wikipedia among which company notability and article style.

While our industry is not mass-market, it is already identified on Wikipedia [[6]] and several of the companies listed on this page are either of comparable size as TEMIS (Attensity, Clarabridge, Basis Technology, …) and other much smaller ones (AeroText, Fair Isaac, LanguageWare, …) yet also have their own Wikipedia page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attensity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarabridge (etc…)

Based on the fair application by Wikipedia of its notability criteria accross an industry, we would appreciate it greatly if you could give our submission a second look.

Regarding the style of the Article, we have modelled it on the above two providers’ pages (which were approved) to make sure it was appropriate, and cited verifiable third-party sources. If there are other specific steps that we can take to make the page more acceptable, please tell us.

Thank you very much for your consideration and kind regards, Martine Falhon (Corporate Communications, TEMIS)

Temisluxid (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, resubmit it then, but it probably isn't notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AVANCE

Thank you for your feedback re improving the references. I have worked on these and resubmitted the profile. Fbell74 (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks

>This suggestion doesn't sufficiently explain the importance or significance of the subject.

Information about one of the oldest and best established conferences in the field of neural networks that gives stipends to students is not significant? I am an old professor and perhaps find different things to be important. Sorry, but I give up on such sources and will discourage my students to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wduch (talk • contribs) 07:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll get back to you later today, as I want to make this a good response. Don't worry, I have seen this! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is a list of conferences in computer science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Computer_science_conferences

My entry http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wduch&diff=0&oldid=474841412 is not different from what you have there, but I got several times claims that it "doesn't sufficiently explain the importance or significance of the subject". It is more detailed than most of the existing entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wduch (talk • contribs) 07:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll look at it later. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I declined it based on verifiability issues, so I would just try to diversify them a bit more and resubmit it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

University of Edinburgh categories

Hi, I've nominated the categories University of Edinburgh people and University of Edinburgh faculty for speedy deletion, because they're completely redundant to existing categories People associated with the University of Edinburgh and Academics of the University of Edinburgh. Regards, --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize that there was already a category, already. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

USRD WikiProject Newsletter, Winter 2012

Volume 5, Issue 1 • Winter 2011 • About the Newsletter
This edition is going out to all USRD WikiProject members (current, former, or potential) in addition to other subscribers as part of a roll call to update the participants list. Anyone that would like to continue to receive this newsletter in the future needs to update the subscription list if they are not already subscribed.
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features U.S. Roads consolidates M-6 article makes headlines Planning Department debuts Stub drive concludes early, successfully Editorial	State and national updates Project news Task force reports for MD, MI, PA, and VA
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—Imzadi 1979 → 22:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Articles for Creation/ArtPoint

A tag has been placed on Articles for Creation/ArtPoint requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, image description page, image talk page, mediawiki page, mediawiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, or user talk page from the article space.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)