User talk:Revent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Trout this user Were this user to act in a foolish, trollish, or dickish way, he is open to being slapped with a large trout.



A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
Thanks for your help with the VHA article. Pine 08:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Veronica Vera[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Veronica Vera. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

2014 WNBA Finals[edit]

Hi Revent,

Yes, you are right about the 2014 WNBA Finals. There needs to be an official page on the website giving good a description about it. You are also right about the comments you said. Thank you. Robert4565 (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Brilliant Idea Barnstar Hires.png The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Dear Revent, thanks for your extensive work on Template:Paid article! The template, with the new 'client' parameter is now ready for use! Keep up the good work! You are making a difference at Wikipedia! With regards, AnupamTalk 07:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

please help me!!![edit]

Hi those who edit my revert and try to prove the King of Pop's Shadmehr have no evidence to prove that sometimes a word document with the interview Shadmehr. B.B.c persian make no mention of where the page the King of pop is not Shadmehr! They are just fan of shadmehr aghili and trying to supporting him.They are subversive!Mobayl73 (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mobayl73: Hi. Just to you know, and don't take this wrong, but it's not considered appropriate to 'recruit' people to your point of view, not that I don't realize you're just asking for help. Asking for a second opinion, or advice on how to deal with something is find. FYI, I'm not really taking sides in the 'content argument' you guys are having, but I am interested in the article meeting 'standards'. I did actually make a couple of edits to it, mainly to fix the infobox, and all the social media links, since those are straight 'policy' things.... also the stuff in the lead wasn't even a complete sentence. Just so you know, however, people are paying attention now. The discussion really needs to be on the article talk page, and then only 'consensus' edits made to the article, since it's obvious there is a disagreement....that's how Wikipedia works. I gave you the editwar warning, but I also gave one to the other editor. Just beat it out on the talk page, and it's no big deal. You might want to read the page at WP:BRD for how it's 'supposed' to work, and the page at WP:DR for a discussion on how to deal with disputes.
If an editor does keep making the same changes over and over after input from multiple editors have shown they are against consensus, or refusing to discuss them, then it's time to bring in an admin with a nerfbat. :) Reventtalk 12:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I request assistance for the protection of the screen against vandalismMobayl73 (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mobayl73: I am not an administrator, and I cannot take action against vandalism. The appropriate location to request such action is at WP:AIV. I would advise you, however, that any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or disruptive, is not vandalism, and edit warring is EXPLICITLY not vandalism. I advise you to read the links I gave above, and pursue those means to resolve your dispute. Reventtalk 00:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


You know that you were added to the checkpage and you can use AWB. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 03:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: Yes, I know, and I appreciate it. At the moment I've been preoccupied between my normal IRC thing (I sit in wikipedia-en-help a lot, teaching newbies about editing and dissuading the people trying to piss garage bands onto the wiki) and trying to zero out Category:AfC submissions with categories, which is easier with the AFCH script than it would be with AWB. Then I'll probably aim as some of the smaller ones like Category:Biography articles needing priority parameter replacement and get some practice with it. Reventtalk 04:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Surely, there's a lot to do right now. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 04:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Well earned Barnstar![edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
You spent some considerable time giving me huge and specific help on the live chat on Saturday. My article about Alison Appleton has since been accepted. I really appreciate it. Thanks Revent!

PS: Hope this works.....

Linspark (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you (have a kitten)![edit]

Kitten (06) by Ron.jpg

Just wanted to say thank you for the input on my user page - I'm a bit lost here (there's a pretty steep learning curve), so help from those more experienced than me is always welcome!

Gisou94 (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Help with article[edit]

Thanks again for helping to improve the article. Do you think the resulting article maintains NPOV well and is not promotional?

And, a small question, what tool should I use to format the references to a format such as this: "Bennett, Brian (3 June 2013). "HTC One Review". CNET. CBS Interactive. Archived from the original on 22 August 2013. Retrieved 12 September 2013." (It includes an archived link.) Dmatteng (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it reads as promotional at all. You mention the criticisms (price and no microphone) and all of the 'superlatives' you use are sourced.
As far as the references, what you are looking for is 'citation templates'. There are several types, but the most commonly used (the one that generates the style of references you quoted) is Citation Style 1 (aka CS1). The help sage for them is at Help:Citation Style 1, and for the SoundLink II article the one you are looking for is probably 'cite web'. Reventtalk 02:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Do you think the article could be promoted towards GA? Will this tool archive sources (at as well? Dmatteng (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
The Wayback Machine ( doesn't archive pages on demand...they have a webcrawler that archives them periodically. The tool you are looking for to archive on demand is WebCite, located at
As far as getting to GA, that's certainly possible, but those articles are typically the result of long-term research work by a number of people...I don't know if there are enough sources available about the product . I think the 'parent' article is probably a more likely target. Reventtalk 22:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll find another audio product that got more available sources and hope you will be able to help me to copy edit it. Dmatteng (talk) 08:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


Enjoy your trout slapping - maybe we should have a duel. The WA project has a few WikiTown processes which are evolving, to have a 2 edit person more or less say this doesnt exist vis a vis notability because it didnt win a heritage award (that in itself ia a misreading) needs some advice... Admittedly could have gone on the users talk page, but the ed has worked from an IP and the 2 edit user page - so instead of duplicating it stayed on the afd page. Your asumptions about the afd is obviously from the participation in afds previous. Imho - this one went this way due to a number of reasons, and personally, your reasoning is fine, and I have no debate with that. But if someone from New Zealand is thinking of single handedly starting a similar project from pulling another one apart (in a manner of speaking), I fail to see where the AGF comes in. satusuro 06:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@SatuSuro: Actually, the nomination gave a reasonable analysis, and didn't mention the Heritage award at all...maybe you read the later comment differently from how I did, but what I took from it is that they wouldn't have nominated the article if Freopedia had won, but that since it didn't they didn't feel the nomination showed notability.... I thought that was clear. You're perfectly right that the person reads as much more knowledgeable about AfD than you would expect from so few edits, but it was apparent they had previously edited from an IP. Who they 'are' is irrelevant to if the subject is notable.
For what it's worth, you weren't the only person I was 'chiding', you just happened to get a particular mention because you basically wrote a thousand words criticizing the nominator. The very second !vote was essentially using WP:CRYSTAL as a 'keep' argument, which is completely backwards, while saying he was involved in the project.
I'm not quite sure if your 'assumptions about the afd' comment was supposed to be sarcastic or not, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm also not the only person who commented about the discussion getting sidetracked, though. I'll tell you right now, however, that I've read far more AfDs than I've ever commented on....same with RfA, etc. Too often they get bogged down with people simply 'voting' or repeating what has already been said. If I don't have anything new to add, I keep my mouth shut.
I also find it disturbing when people who can't 'prove' huge numbers of edits seem to have their arguments ('valid', even if not persuasive) discounted based on that, and (in other discussions than this) when other people seem to end up having their behavior excused on the basis of their 'seniority'...their bad behavior is spread out over time, and after repeatedly getting away with it they seem to feel 'justified'. I think this kind of thing is a major part of why we have an editor retention problem.
Personally, I intentionally avoid looking at a person's number of edits most of the time. It's easier to be neutral about the 'content' of those edits if you don't. If you look at mine (which I assume you have) you'll get a totally misleading idea of my Wikipedia 'experience', since I edited regularly for the better part of five years without logging in. You might want to consider the advice given at WP:BRANDNEW (which even specifically mentions new accounts who know about AfD). Reventtalk 08:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you - sincerely, for taking the time to answer in the fullness of your points, I can tell your experience is not necessarily relative to your edit count. The considered comments here and elsewhere, I can perceive someone who has a sense of justice that is what I would expect from someone who is in real life probably well above the average citizens sense of balance - something we in the British inherited justice system of Australia rarely hear. Pity you have the duck for cover attitude - you could have been a good admin or arbcom member. Perish the thought.
As for advice about anything for me - I know too many people who have left wikipedia for so many reasons, its great to speak to those who are left, even if I do come over as weird at times. satusuro 10:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. I wasn't trying to be 'condescending' about pointing at the 'BrandNew' essay, it's just that since it's an essay instead of a policy or guideline I didn't know if you had seen it. I think it makes some pretty valid points about why new users might legitimately have a good idea of the process....occasionally you hit that person that actually reads. (gasp)
As far as ever running something like an RfA, I have a number of reasons why I would never accept a nomination...mostly personal, and actually unrelated to Wikipedia. Not 'dirty laundry' or anything, just personal. I also kind of like my current 'vantage point'...while I have strong opinions, I don't really 'need' the tools for the stuff I enjoy doing, and I think watching the dramaboard without any desire for hats gives a clearer picture of certain things....there are some things I wouldn't feel comfortable saying to people if I had any kind of 'official' position, simply because they might be taken as 'official'. Similar to how I don't normally review AfC articles, even though I spend a lot of time in the -help channel on IRC helping new users who are dealing with AfC... I have no doubt I've helped generate far more content through looking at drafts and talking to people than what I've typed in the box. It affects how people see you when you aren't 'above' them in whatever sense. Reventtalk 23:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

A little gift...[edit]

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Just a little gift to thank you for being a great help in #wikipedia-en-help. I've observed some great conversations and assistance to contributors in need. Have a great day :) — JamesR (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Conrad Glass[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Advice on AFC approvals[edit]

Just letting you know, I have reverted your review of Draft:Amy Feldman and deleted the corresponding main space article.

Before you decline an AFC submission because a main space article already exists, please check the history of both articles. In the case of Draft:Amy Feldman, the main space article was just created today as a verbatim copy of the draft, which has yet to be approved. Obvious WP:COI concerns, as indicated by the edit history, suggest that the article should remain in user space or draft space pending closer scrutiny before approving it for publication in main space. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Amatulic: I was aware, and I wasn't 'approving' it... I agree that it is not a 'good' article. I was just following the principle that any editor can create a new article in mainspace if they choose to do so.. using AfC is not 'required', even for editors with COI issues. If an editor chooses to 'abort' the AfC process and put the article straight to mainspace, that's their prerogative, and the article can stand or fail there on it's own. It actually happens a lot. My 'efforts' related to AfC are much more concerned with 'cleaning' up things like drafts with categories, misplaced drafts, etc, rather than actually doing 'reviews' other than in cases where the draft has such blatant issues that letting it wait for a decline would be a waste of time. If the draft has been cut-pasted to mainspace by the author (like here) the 'real' solution is a histmerge, but that seems pointless when the article was completely written by one person. I don't think there is any kind of a consensus to prevent editors from removing drafts from AfC, though... if there is, I have missed the discussion, but I know that that proposals to 'require' it met with a lot of opposition. Reventtalk 00:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikisource, article and other unused parameters[edit]

See Template talk:EB1911#Wikisource, article and other unused parameters -- PBS (talk) 11:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
For all your help with marking categories, day and night, with templates and stuff, I hereby award you with this barnstar. (This is the barnstar all wikignome want, I heard!) (tJosve05a (c) 01:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Alumni of Col. Brown School & my 'fixing' an url[edit]

Just to note we had a similar page but there was a lot of confusion about names and sources. See [[Talk:Colonel Brown Cambridge School]. I had to 'fix' the stophaus url as our spamblocker was stopping me from saving any edits. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Thanks for noticing that, though I guess it was from past familiarity. It does look like it's supposed to be about the same place. I was just cleaning up Category:Pending AfC submissions in userspace with the rewrite script (which gets a surprising number of 'thanks', actually) and declining the 'obvious' ones... in that particular case, it was so garbled I had a difficult time actually figuring out what the topic was supposed to be, which is why I just cleaned it, moved it, and left it alone.
FYI, I've been trying to run through that category and, more importantly, Category:AfC submissions with categories on a pretty much daily basis. I'm also keeping an eye on Category:AfC pending submissions without an age. I'm not really an active 'reviewer', but I am a regular helper in the IRC channel so I deal with a lot of submissions from that direction. Reventtalk 18:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. It was basically just an FYI. Keep up the good work. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2014[edit]

14:58:06, 14 July 2014 review of submission by Olamikhx[edit]

Olamikhx (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you please enlightened me more on why my article (Kenna Partners) submission was declined despite citations and non inclusion of advertisement phrases. I'm written this for a client and I have tried as much as possible to write from third party's view while providing adequate citation to support my article(Olamikhx (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC))

Article Rejected, Please helps[edit]

Can you please help me on why my articles was declined for submission even with all the citation I provided and the fact that I wrote from third party's view regarding the said articles.

Kindly guide me through as I am a beginner here.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olamikhx (talkcontribs) 15:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@Olamikhx: I'm not sure what submission you are referring to. Can you please clarify? Reventtalk 23:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal re June BED[edit]

There is a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/June_2014_Backlog_Elimination_Drive#We_need_a_conclusion that merits your consideration Fiddle Faddle 16:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

MoS Drama lol[edit]

Just wanted to comment about what you said without derailing the proposal. I'd love to use MoS as a guide/push ahead and completely agree it should be encouraged. The reality, as I've recently experienced, is a lot different - I was even told (without ever bringing it up) that IAR wouldn't be reason enough. These days it seems to all be about policy.. JMJimmy (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]


u r kewl. See also this, which is amongst the future of automated citation formatting in VE and part of the direction toward normalizing citations, eventually into wikidata. (dtm from IRC)

Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 23:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sabancı family[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sabancı family. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2014[edit]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kashif Saleem (July 19)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
Reventtalk 09:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Herewith returned a rejection message which presumably you sent to me in error :: I did not start this article; at 07:04, 16 March 2014‎ User:Jpworth3rd started it over a redirect which I left when I did a history-merge. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Anthony Appleyard: Script bug, was using the AFCH-rewrite script. Was talking with the submitter in IRC at the time, though, so he was aware. Kinda funny, sorry. :) Reventtalk 11:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #118[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Billy McFarland[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Billy McFarland. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2014[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #119[edit]

22:10:51, 31 July 2014 review of submission by Henrytow[edit]

Henry Townsend 22:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I was told that I was rejected twice, but it seems to have been accepted: My substitute article seems to have been completely accepted. I do not understand.

What should I have done?

Henry Townsend 22:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Henrytow: Yeah, my original comment in the 'decline notice' got wiped out, so you missed it. The 'decline' was more a 'technical' thing.... Articles for Creation is setup for new articles, not for improvements to existing ones. The tool isn't capable of merging improvements into an existing article and keeping the proper attribution of changes in the edit history. When I declined it, I left a message that you needed to 'cut-paste' your changes into the existing article (so they would be attributed to you), but then an admin woke up on the IRC channel and I was able to get him to do a history merge. You changes are a vast, vast improvement, and perfectly acceptable...just not through AfC.

In the future, for a case like this, you can use WP:SUBSTITUTION to make a copy of the existing article into your sandbox, make your series of changes, and then substitute it back on top of the existing article (as long as there have not been any intervening edits). That way you can work on it in your sandbox, and all of the changes will show up in the actual article history as one single edit. In this case, you would have saved the wikitext {{subst::Hans Sachs (poster collector)}} into your sandbox... on saving, this would have been replaced with a copy of the existing article. Then, after making all of your changes, you would edit the existing article, and replace the /entire/ contents with the wikitext {{subst:User:Henrytow/sandbox}}. When you saved, that would be replaced with the contents of your sandbox before the 'edit diff' was calculated, and so it would create a single edit in the history showing only the changes you made.

The only difficulty with doing this is that if there have been intervening edits by other users, they will be wiped out in the process unless you make matching changes to your copy before substituting it back. Otherwise, you can simply cut-paste your changes into the existing article. Reventtalk 22:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Like so much on WIkipedia, the right way to do this is unknown util one does it. Henry Townsend 23:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Henrytow: Yeah, lol. Normally you just make small bits-and-pieces changes, but when doing a total rewrite doing it in a sandbox makes more sense just to keep the page history sensible...most people would probably just cut-and-paste the bits and pieces back, but using subst is a ton less effort. Reventtalk 23:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2014 Spring, Texas shooting[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2014 Spring, Texas shooting. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for the assistance!
Sanfordstreet (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2014[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #120[edit]

Your comments at CP's talkpage[edit]

Hello Revent, I saw your comment at CP's talkpage. While he is a new user, I assume you are not. By your comment it's pretty clear that you don't have enough knowledge of patrolling new pages. You said: Draftspace and user sandboxes exist for the purpose of bringing new articles to an acceptable condition before moving them to article space - This are generally prescribed for new users but not to those who have started many GAs and hundreds of DYKs. It is WP:COMMONSENSE that an article can take sometime to finish and that is the reason why we (after consensus) consider waiting for atleast 2 hours until the issues are big (Copyvio / attack page / hoax). While you are correct that adding the templates right away can be seen as 'bitey', an experienced editor should realize that mainspace is a collaborative editing enviroment- Yes, it is an collaborative environment, but again you can't add improvement tags when the article is only 10mins old (Although there are some exception), I mean when the article is already undergoing improvements. Also, it's somewhat 'too much' to expect someone who comes across an article that needs improvement to always double check to see if it is 'new' -Yes, it's a duty of a new page patroller to double check to see if it is new. See the above box. and risk leaving the article in both a broken and untagged state.- There are huge number of editors here so if you miss something, someone else will fix it. Since it is not compulsory for anyone to worry so much. Once an article is in mainspace, you do not 'own' it, or even 'own' the temporary right to be to only person working on it. - as I said you don't have enough knowledge of how we treat a new page. Now, don't think I'm WP:HOUNDING. This is just an advice. Please be careful when you say or advice something. Nothing else, thank you for your understanding & have a nice day. Face-smile.svg Jim Carter (from public cyber) 20:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jim Carter - Public: In the interest of civility, I'm self-redacting most of what I originally typed before I save it. I'm just going to say this.... I've been editing Wikipedia for over seven years, I'm an Articles for Creation reviewer, and a regular on the #wikipedia-en-help IRC channel where we deal with new article creation on a continuous basis. I'm also quite familiar with new editors bringing up 'otherstuff' arguements, based on crap articles that were created and left untagged. There is no 'policy', 'guideline', or 'consensus' that new mainspace articles cannot be tagged, and never has been. Experienced editors who create articles in mainspace are expected to make sure they are compliant with content guidelines when they hit the save button, and there are templates that can be used to ask, as a courtesy, that people not tag the new article. An experienced editor who doesn't do so has absolutely no basis to complain when the article is tagged.

Also, your way of quoting my statements is both annoying as hell and doesn't attribute them to me. Please never do that with what I have said again.

BTW, the article in question, as well at least three other new articles by the same editor, are blatant unattributed plagarism of public domain sources. Reventtalk 21:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't doubt your knowledge. It is always good to use common sense when patrolling new pages. Btw I was also a AfC reviewer myself and I have also faced similar cases. But reviewing AfC and patrolling new pages are two different things, recently a new user have tagged an article with CSD A1. After 15mins author expanded and added some reliable sources. After 2 hours, an admin declined the request for deletion and left a message on the patrollers talkpage explaining not to add tags when the article is too new. This is why I suggested not to tag anything (Use common sense).
I already said, I don't mean to WP:HOUNDING you. Beside this, you said you have rarely seen Indian editors who have good knowledge and are WP:COMPETENT? It is not good to comment like that, saying such may hurt Indian editors. You should never say like that. Indian editors might feel insulted for their inability to speak English properly. I advice you not to say something like that if it hurts someone's feelings. Hope you understand. Cheers, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 06:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@Jim Carter - Public: There is a difference (a huge one) between tagging a article with improvement flags and tagging it for deletion. The discussion to which you were replying was about improvement tags, not a speedy deletion template. To tag an article for speedy deletion without looking at the history is always inappropriate, as there are multiple reasons why an article might be ineligible for CSD. The most obvious one would be an article that has survived an AfD debate.
As far as my comments to CP were concerned, they were complimentary to him, addressed specifically to him, and on his own user page. I was not insulting anyone. I'm sorry if you felt offended by my saying it is 'sadly rare', but you apparently are unfamiliar with the constant assault of new editors who are not only not fluent enough to write a comprehensible article in English, but are not fluent enough to understand the directions, and repeatedly submit articles which are extremely technically broken. To say that many of the editors we see from the Indian subcontinent are not fluent enough to contribute to the English Wikipedia (which I was not, in fact, saying about any particular person) is not an insult, it is a simple fact, and there are many who would be far better served, and frustrate the people trying to help them less, if they were to contribute on their native language Wikipedia, and then ask an editor who is fluent in English to translate the article. To say that something is 'sadly rare' is not the same thing as saying I 'rarely see it', it is saying that I wish it is something that we saw more often. WP:COMPETENCE means that competence is required, if a person cannot contribute competently to the English Wikipedia, then they should not do so. While editors are required to be civil, we are here to write an encyclopedia, not to make people feel better. Reventtalk 07:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not made by only one people, every user is welcomed here. Wikipedia is made by collaboration between many editors. We can't write Wikipedia if we are not cooperating with each other. Have you ever been to WP:INB? I don't know about AfC, but I have seen many Indian editors write good articles ex-Krimuk, Bollyjeff, Redtigerxyz etc. You can't judge everyone, it's totally your personal view point that they can't be competent if they don't have enough knowledge of English. If I say, YOUR ENGLISH IS NOT PERFECT will you feel better?? I think you will not. Remember English is not the national language of Indian editors, so they may have some problems but I myself has mentored an Indian user, it is true that his English is not perfect but he is an COMPETENT user. And you said we don't make feel better? If you won't then what is the need to award barnstar to CP?? Don't you making him feel better by awarding that star?? You can't make a good community if you don't feel others better (personal view point). Now, let's not argue. Thanks for taking sometime to reply my comments. Happy editing! Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@Jim Carter - Public: I never said there are not Indian editors who are not competent, I was just thanking a particular editor for being one of them. Technical competence and 'competence in written English' are not the same thing, but both are needed to some degree. If you can't write in English, you shouldn't be writing for English Wikipedia.
If you told me my English isn't perfect, I would simply agree with you. It isn't. It wouldn't affect my emotional state at all.
Saying we are not here to make people feel better is not the same thing as saying we can't be nice to each other, it's just saying that the purpose of being here isn't to console people if they feel inadequate for some reason.
Finally, to be blunt, that I gave CP a barnstar, or why, is none of your damn business. Now, stop writing to my talk page. Reventtalk 08:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Last para of your comment seem to me a bit personal attack. Anyway, please be more polite and civil when talking with others and I think you should read this before suggesting others. Kind regards, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 10:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@Jim Carter - Public: Telling you that my interaction with another editor on his own talk page is none of your business is not a personal attack. I stated it rather rudely, but that was intentional, as you have been rather rude yourself. I'm quite familiar with that essay, having read it long ago, as well as many other policies, and even if I wasn't your repeated linking of it would still be annoying. Now, get the hell off of my talk page before I ask an admin to make it an official warning. Reventtalk 10:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I always try to AGF. And sorry if you're hurt. I didn't meant to hurt you. But you yourself linking my name every time which means you're expecting me to reply. I'm really very sorry if I was rude. You're very welcome to ask an admin to intervene. But again, I'm sorry. Cry.png Jim Carter (from public cyber) 10:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be shaping up as a good day.[edit]

There's some saying about no good deed shall go unpunished. You seem to be epitomizing that today. I'm sorry to see an editor I highly respect taking umbrage at you, unwarranted in my opinion, but my hope is you will treat it as simply a bad day by someone jumping to conclusions. (And no, I'm not talking about this page.) Let me know if you want to talk further, but I see an editor who is working hard to improve this place, and getting smacked around for it. If you are willing to let it go, that would be best. If you think some things were said that need addressing, let me know.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I knew that mentioning it on ANI would create a bunch of heat and fire, and I'm not overly concerned about it, to be honest... I don't contribute to Wikipedia for the purpose of getting 'validation' from other editors, and I know that people would take my mentioning it on ANI as some kind of attack against her, which it wasn't. FWIW, my 'edit count', which of course someone referred to, gives little real indication of my 'experience' with Wikipedia... I edited for about five years or so as an IP after creating my account before starting to use it again. I also, honestly, 'contribute' far more to Wikipedia through dealing with new editors on the IRC help channel than on the Wiki itself, and the of-course 'untrackable' list of issues I've dealt with over time through simply poking an admin about them (because they were something that quite simply didn't 'need' documentation on the wiki, like 'hey, do a move without redirect of this draft on a userpage', would be quite long.
It was, quite obviously, an 'incident', and something that needed to be addressed regardless of any further action that was taken by either Rosie or I, which is which I brought it up on ANI. I wasn't, as I said repeatedly, trying to say 'sanction this user', just that this was something that looked like it could be a major problem (I wasn't cherry picking to puff it up, the list I posted was every article I looked at). It wasn't a 'me and her' conflict that needed to go to dispute resolution, and something like an RfC/U would have been far more confrontational. It was simply something that needed to be addressed, regardless of actions by her and I, and the type of issue that, honestly, should not be discussed 'privately' for the PR reason of showing that Wikipedia actually 'does' take such things seriously. It's, frankly, wonderful that @Rosiestep: was willing to admit it as a mistake, and willing to take prompt action to fix it... it says good things abut her. There are, sadly, many other well established editors whose history makes it fairly blatantly obvious that they would respond to a 'private' notification of such a thing in an extremely hostile manner, which would make it a personal dispute, and endless examples of people refusing to 'fix' systemic things unless they are repeatedly, individually, pointed out... given the number of things she has worked on, doing so would be effectively impossible for just me.
TBH, the poor attribution of public domain sources, even if they are attributed, is a huge problem on Wikipedia, and a lot of it is due to long term editors being sloppy... something like 2/3's of the attributions to the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica don't give the article name, volume, or page number... "We took this from them, but we won't tell you from where, so you can't verify it, and can't even tell exactly what as taken". (sigh) This is another reason why something like this deserved public mention.
If anything, what bothers me the most about is responses that are dismissive of the whole issue, or that exhibit a 'circle the wagons' attitude. It's not a matter of my 'personal' ethics at all, proper attribution is widely regarded as an ethical requirement, and 'academic plagarism' is a major ethical issue, whether intentional or unintentional. Saying 'no laws were broken, so who cares' is just sad, and that kind of an attitude from an established editor is rather depressing. Not that it really matters so much in this case, and not that it is something that would ever be prosecuted, but to be 'technical' about it when an editor puts text in the box without attribution, they are explicitly claiming copyright in that text, and invalid copyright claims are illegal. This is not to make an accusation against Rosie... it was pretty blatantly at this point not her intent, but it is something that was 'effectively' being done, and something that editors need to know about and avoid.
Rosie, I hope that you understand why I addressed it that way I did, and that I was not trying to get you 'punished' or something. Like I mentioned at ANI, I have been unfamiliar with you personally in the past, but you have obviously done a massive amount of very good work. This was specifically both a 'particular case' of this kind of issue, and an example of something (incorrect attribution of sources) that is done far too often, and is normally not fixed until years later if ever. I don't personally have any issue with the inclusion of material from PD sources, in fact I think it is a very good way to combat systemic bias, and I have personally fixed a large number of broken 'missing encyclopedia entry' attributions in the past. If you look at my user page, you'll see my (still incomplete) efforts at tabulating, among other things, the 'tracking categories' for such issues.... the over 8500 EB1911 attributions with no article parameter that I mentioned above being a particularly glaring example.
Sorry if this was TL;DR. Reventtalk 03:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the in-depth response. I don't know you, so wondered how you were taking what seemed to be some unfair reactions. Glad to hear there is little to be concerned about. I agree that proper attribution of pd material is something we want to do, thanks for all you have done in that area.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Revent, I baked an apple pie and figured you might like a slice.
And a slice for you, too @Sphilbrick:.
Hi Revent. No no, I can't fathom that you'd have a good reason to want me (or another editor) to be 'punished' for what occurred... I accept it as a lesson learned. I'm ready to move forward and hope you feel the same. I've added the PD paragraphs back into Calif Silk Center Association. I'll start returning content into the others in a bit. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

21:08:37, 5 August 2014 review of submission by Step28[edit]

Hello Revent, I just wondering about the reason why my article was rejected. I included three external references ( - - and I'm going to add another one (pag 56) , that is a link to an article to Faresin projects. Maybe, in the first draft of my page there was an error in the link about Sydney FC. Now, it would be ok.

Thank you


Step28 (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Step28:Hi, happy to explain. The first link - [1] - Industry journal, independent source, about the article topic and gives signifigant coverage... all good. The second link - [2] Website of Cabete, about a project Cabete (and according to the draft, Faresin) worked on, doesn't actually mention Faresin at all, and would not indicate 'notability' if it did (it would merely demonstrate a single fact, that Faresin worked on that project The third link - [3] - Is not from an independent source, it is an acknowledgment from Sydney FC that Faresin gave them money, and does not indicate notability The new one - [4] - About Calconco, merely mentions they bought a product from Faresin... not about Faresin, not signifigant coverage, and is only a source for that particular fact

To show notability, you need to show that Faresin, itself, has been considered worthy of significant coverage by multiple independent sources... you can see the specific requirements at WP:CORP. Things such as magazine, newspaper, trade journal articles about the company, or books that discuss it in depth, meet this criteria... things like short news blurbs like you find in the business section of a newspaper covering specific events that give no background, or republished press releases don't. A source can be independent and reliable, but still not provide significant coverage, either because it is very brief (merely taking note of an event) or because it is merely a mention in something else. You have not shown notability.

In addition, the majority of the article should be cited to reliable independent sources, and anything that indicates the quality or importance of the company must be cited to such sources. Most the statements in your draft are completely unsourced, and thus are not verifiable by readers. This is also something that needs to be addressed.

Hope that helps. If not, or if you have further questions, feel free to ask. Reventtalk 22:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

05:44:06, 6 August 2014 review of submission by Ndgei[edit]

dear wikipedia, I am recently working at Notre Dame of Genio Edcor, Inc. as a school registrar. I was new to wikipedia articles and upon browsing the web on instructions on how to create one, I decided to create an article about our school. I started creating the article entitled " Notre Dame of Genio Edcor, Inc." After much anticipation on the approval of this article to be publish on the internet, I was very disappointed on learning that it was rejected due to this article being a duplicate and as far as I am concerned I was having hard time submitting this article and no other articles about this topic was made by other person except me. I really think that there is a mistake on this, perhaps a double submission on different dates. Sorry for this matter at hand. I am still hoping that this article would be reconsider. This article was given an effort, please do the same for me. Thank you so much and God Bless. Ndgei (talk) 05:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ndgei:Yes, you misunderstood. The draft was created twice, one in the 'correct place' and on in the 'incorrect place'... normally the one in the wrong place would get moved to the right place, but the other (identical) copy was in the way. The 'decline' of one copy was a technical thing, the other one is in the queue to be reviewed. It's not something to be worried about, it was not 'really' declined, just the second copy. The draft is waiting for review at Draft:Notre_Dame_of_Genio_Edcor,Inc.. Sorry for the confusion. Reventtalk 05:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

08:50:33, 6 August 2014 review of submission by Ndgei[edit]


Dear Revent,

Please review my article entitled " Notre Dame of Genio Edcor, Inc." It was rejected lately due to double submission and recently I was editing this article so that it will have a greater change of being accepted and hopefully I could see this article I created once I browse over the internet. Thank you and God Bless.

Ndgei (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

09:12:23, 6 August 2014 review of submission by Ndgei[edit]


Hi Ravent,

Please make a review of my article "DRAFT: Notre Dame of Genio Edcor, Inc.". I received just now a reply that my images in this article was not own by me. How is that possible if I was the one who uploaded that images. "ndgeilogo.png" and ndgeimary.png". Please help me with my article. Thank you so much.

Ndgei (talk) 09:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Your draft is in the queue waiting for review. There are also 2000+ other articles, most of which have been waiting far longer than a day, and your article is not more important than those others. Asking that your article get reviewed 'right away' will not cause it to happen.
As far as the images, you uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons under a claim that they were your own work....that you had actually been the creator of the seal and logo themselves, that you owned copyright in them, and that you are allowing them to be reused freely by any person anywhere without permission as long as they attribute them to you. That means they could be used commercially, in satire or ridicule, or for purposes that you would find offensive. I doubt they are truly your own work, or that you (if they are) you intended to release them in such a way. Reventtalk 18:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


Thank you @Revent for your detailed explanation about why the article Mohak Meet is nominated for debate. From March to July 2011, Mohak Meet played the role of Aditya in Chandragupta Maurya (TV series) who was the friend of Chandragupta Maurya. His upcoming movie Vartak Nagar is presented by Kunal Kohli Productions. Isn't it notable? Should I collect more references? Kindly guide me through to improve this article as I am newbie and don't have experience of writing articles about living persons. Thank You. --Khushiar (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Notability is not the same as 'importance', 'signifigance', or 'existence'... it is purely a matter of if independent, reliable sources had 'taken note' of the subject. Unless you can show, before the closure of the AfD, that Mohak Meet currently meets the notability criteria, then the article should be deleted. That does not meet that it can not be recreated in Draftspace or in your userspace to be worked on, just that it is not currently acceptable as a published article.
More references will show notability, IF they are from independent, reliable sources, and give signifigant coverage to Mohak Meet. References that are on other subjects (the movies, probably) that just prove 'facts' about him, but do not really talk about him, do not work. Reventtalk 19:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jennifer Rubin (journalist)[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jennifer Rubin (journalist). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Giving Awards[edit]

Hi. Please don't take this as heavy criticism, but simply as an observation: I feel it's rather unfair to give awards to other editors congratulating them on their ability to speak English fluently when they can't. If you are being sarcastic, they won't understand this, and if you're just doing it to be nice, it doesn't encourage them to improve. I'm a strong supported of our awards system, but it is important that these awards are made for reasons of genuine merit. Thanks. RomanSpa (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2014[edit]

Copy pasting at Lake Superior National Estuarine Research Reserve[edit]

T'was me. You are up to speed on what is allowed. Please see the article talk. I am rather nervous about this and feel quite guilty, but think I've done it right. Many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: The way you attributed it was perfectly fine, except that the use of things like {{{url|}}} in the actual article was breaking the template... I've made an edit to fix that, and it now all shows up properly. I'm guessing that you used substitution, or something, that mangled it.
Personally I prefer to put the attribution before the reflist, but that's really just a matter of a layout choice... I just think it 'looks better' visually. Reventtalk 01:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

End of the Polandball issue[edit]

I don't know if you saw my comment, but I've been completely uninvolved in all previous discussions of Polandball. I contacted Supernerd after finding his name somewhere and never followed up with him, and some IP address contacted me. It would be fair to say tha I'm so uninvolved that the threat of meatpuppetry accusations don't daunt me.
That being said, I saw your comments and the impression I get is that it's simply been disallowed. I was shocked by the extremism displayed by both users and even admins on the issue - it was almost a flame war against an absent adversary. But I want to ask you since you seem familiar with the topic: is there any avenue that wouldn't be a waste of time? It seems that reviving it on the deletion review log would get crushed and, so soon after that last discussion, would seem a bit pompous. Is there a forum where it can be discussed without the threat of anonymous IPs jumping in and this further inflaming those obsessed with blocking this article at all costs? Or should it just remain dead and buried? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo:FYI, the variety of IP addresses speaking up are all, almost undoubtedly, Russavia socks. The ongoing 'flame war', as you put it, is quite widespread, and extremely far as the article itself, I doubt it can, or ever will be, recreated, regardless of the notability of the subject, until the current 'toxic environment' of Wikipedia is itself fixed. There are too many editors and administrators with 'pull' that have an obvious, blatant grudge against Russavia, to the point of stalking him on other wikis, for anything related to him, or that can be portrayed as related to him, to go unchallenged. Unfortunately, the current 'brokenness' of some Wikipedia policies makes the blocking or banning of a editor an invaluable 'tool' for the preservation of a POV, as it allows the abuse of 3RR and the 'duck test' to suppress new editors who might challenge that POV. Similarly, the aggressive 'hunting' of socks, or supposed socks, of people who were blocked or banned as part of a 'politicized' dispute has become a great way for some editors to (as I see it) ingratiate themselves with others.
There are other recent cases where obviously acceptable new articles on topics more notable than Polandball have been repeatedly deleted, and even salted, as part of the 'war' against Russavia. While I'll be among the first to admit that Russavia can be a massive asshole (and no, I'm not talking behind his back, he knows I think so) the current situation has far more to do with him being unwilling to simply shut up about what he perceives as abuse (and I usually think he's right), kiss ass, and act humble, or alternatively do what many editors in his situation seem to do, and simply sock quietly. The situation as it stands right now has, I think, become so extreme on the part of the anti-Russavia crowd simply because in the case of several of the articles he created other editors stepped in and recreated them while stating they were 'IAR' and doing so because it was obviously to the benefit of the encyclopedia. The response to that has been for them to become even more aggressive about it, to the point of stalking his commons uploads and creating miserably bad stubs on anything he uploads images for, simply to try to deny him the 'credit' for creating the article with a fresh sock.
TL;DR, what's going on is a blatant and focused effort by Russavia to expose the hypocrisy of certain editors and admins, by making it explicitly clear that they are more interested in 'ownership' and 'winning' than in improving the encyclopedia. Reventtalk 04:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I like long messages as they explain more. Thanks for depressing the hell out of me this morning, not because I'm crazy about Polandball (it's just a cartoon) but because it's sad to see what's going on. Better if I stay out, I suppose. Stay safe and thanks for the details man. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The Nerd has responded[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Revent. You have new messages at Supernerd11's talk page.
Message added 20:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 20:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: Dragging me into another IRC channel :) Jab843 (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Owwww, the dreaded "seafood snap". :) 03:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #121[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Somaly Mam[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Somaly Mam. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Preempting arbcom?[edit]

I notice you were actually attempting to preempt Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC. Very well, shall we now list you as an involved party then? O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kim Bruning: If you want to do so, be my guest. Reventtalk 01:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise will be along to revert shortly[edit]

Hi FYI. (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

If or when he does come along, him and others should note that they explicitly do not have my permission to revert edits from my talk page without my request, no matter who made the edit or what excuse they want to use, unless it is something that is actually required to be removed by a policy such as BLP. Reventtalk 21:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

17:29:26, 15 August 2014 review of submission by Dsouzaronald[edit]

Dsouzaronald (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Dsouzaronald (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Ronald This is my first submission. please tell me what's missing or point me to a guideline I need to follow

@Dsouzaronald: Hi. Sorry it was unclear, but the links in the red 'submission declined' (which are admittedly not obvious) actually explain the issue. In order to have a Wikipedia article, an organization must not merely exist, but be 'notable'... it must have been covered in multiple independent reliable sources, such as newspapers, magazines, books, or television news, and the article needs to use those sources. This is because a core content policy of Wikipedia is that information much not merely be correct, but must be verifiable by the readers from trustworthy sources that are independent of the subject.
Relevant links would be be guidance given in the "Your First Article" essay at WP:YFA, the "identifying reliable sources" guideline at WP:RS, and "referencing for beginners" at WP:REFBEGIN. You should note that it is stated in the reliable sources guideline that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about long as...the article is not based primarily on such sources."
Also, you need to ensure that your draft article demonstrates that the organization meets the criteria for the notability of organizations given at WP:ORG, which in an of itself boils down to the existence of reliable, independent sources. Reventtalk 22:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

00:28:28, 16 August 2014 review of submission by Dcgreene88[edit]

Hi I recently submitted an article for review, about a production group "The Order". It was declined. The original submission about "The Order" was made in error by a friend. That one should be disposed of and not considered. This recent submission is accurate in small detail subject matter and sources. What would be the proper steps to ensure that this gets fixed so that this submission is published. Thanks in advance.

Dcgreene88 (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dcgreene88: It's inconvenient for the reviewers when a draft can't be moved to the appropriate name because there is another one in the way... not that this is a fault of yours. Since the other draft contains text that you reused, it needs to be attributed to the other user for copyright reasons, even though that account was blocked for the username issue. What needs to be done, really (in order to fix the edit history), is for you to cut-and-paste the 'content' (not the afc header, just the actual draft) from User:Dcgreene88/sandbox over the content in Draft:The Order, and then resubmit. The software will then only consider the things you actually changed to be the 'net' edit, attribute those changes to you, and attribute the other content to the other account. My declining your draft was much more a 'technical' thing than due to any assessment of the actual content submitted (your draft is 'technically' an unintentional copyright violation). Thanks. Reventtalk 02:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

05:07:10, 16 August 2014 review of submission by Edmundtee[edit]

Hello Revent,

Thank you for taking the time to review my first try at putting up a page. Also, thank you for the comments on the MightyCall draft.

My name is Edmund Tee and I am the VP of Comms at MightyCall.

I apologized for if I caused offense - my intention is not to promote the company, but to provide information on our company just like what our competitors have done on Wikipedia. What I did was studied what Grasshopper and RingCentral did, and emulated the tone and style they had. I figured if they were allowed to talk about their companies, we would to. I guess I missed something!

What can I do better?

1. Remove all reference to a rebranding? If so, done! 2. Remove product information? Here I referenced Grasshopper's product information, and followed suit. I can certainly remove our product information, but could you help me understand what Grasshopper did right, and what I did wrong? 3. Wait till we get more third party coverage to cite? If so, we'll try again in six months when we have grown up some more.

Thank you again for your time.

Edmund Tee Edmundtee (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Edmundtee:While I have not looked at those other specific articles, the 'generic' answer would be that they have probably written unacceptable articles without going through the review process that have not yet been noticed (we have over 4 million articles, and many fewer active editors). It is perfectly allowable to write about a subject you are connected with, as long as you disclose the conflict of interest, and especially if you disclose any paid connection with the subject.
As far as the specific article, Wikipedia articles are required to be written in a neutral, factual can't make statements that indicate the 'importance' or 'quality' of a subject without them being directly cited to a reliable, independent source that makes that exact statement. You can't say "MightyCall is an innovative company", for example, but you can say "According to Whosis, MightyCall is an innovative company", followed by a citation to the independent source that makes that statement.
The 'factual' information about the rebranding is itself fine... it's merely that we often see new articles written by companies as part of the advertising they engage in after a rebranding, and so the fact of it having just happened is a good indicator that the draft (or new article) was written by someone who is associated with the company. Again, this is allowed, as long as you disclose the fact. It so happens, also, that we see a lot of articles written about startup companies that are seeking investment funding written by people associated with the company, and, while I am not a lawyer, such statements without disclosure can actually have legal implications (at least in the US). So, disclosure is best all around.
Basic product information is allowable, as long as you are, again, neutral and factual, and do not provide specific pricing information.
It does seem, though, that you should probably wait to try to push the article live until there is more third party coverage. The draft as it stands would probably (though it might take a while to get noticed) be deleted as a article, as being about a company that is not notable. Once you have been 'taken note of' by third parties, however, then cite those sources and you won't need much work... the draft is not 'itself' particularly objectionable. FYI, draft articles are allowed to 'remain' until they have not been worked on for six months straight, so you will be able to update the draft over time with sources as they become available, and resubmit once you have enough to show that the company meets the requirements for notability given in WP:NCORP.
Just as a quick explanation, 'notability' in Wikipedia terms is not the same as the 'common' meaning... it largely is a measure of if there are enough independent sources about a subject that the article content can meet Wikipedia's content policies on the verifiability of information.
Thanks for your honest, and reasonable, response. It's unfortunately rare for companies that want an article to admit that they might not be, as you put it, 'grown up' enough for one. :) Reventtalk 05:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Just as a follow-up comment, I have now looked at the other articles mentioned, and they are, unusually, not bad at all. Sorry if my initial response came across as a bit cynical, but in most cases when people writing new articles about companies make statements such as yours, the articles they are looking at for comparison are appallingly bad. This is true enough that we have an entire page written about "do not try to use other articles to argue for the existence of yours" for the purpose of citing in such cases. In this case, though, you chose quite reasonable 'company stubs' to look at, and you should feel free to model yours after those (the sole exception being eVoice, where the list of 'features' should probably go away). I would simply say again that you should continue to update the draft article as you get media coverage, and once you have enough sources to show that MightyCall has been 'taken note of', feel free to resubmit the draft. We actually want content such as this, as long as the subject is notable and the content is not advertising, it's just very rare that the content submitted by companies about themselves meets those criteria, and the determination of some people to use Wikipedia as a free webhost for such content is sometimes frustrating. Reventtalk 05:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Vitruvian Barnstar Hires.png The Technical Barnstar
Your template work will help make all those Mexico TV lists so much better. Thanks for the advice and the templates! Raymie (tc) 08:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio needing attrib[edit]

Could you please help me with this one if you get a chance? [5][6] Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: Looking now. Reventtalk 10:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
@Anna Frodesiak: Done,[7] though I put the wrong license version at first. That license is explicitly described as CC-BY compatible, so it's not a problem even though it's 'technically' under Crown copyright. :) Reventtalk 10:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
@Anna Frodesiak: Er, not done, derp, didn't actually read and didn't realize you had removed it. Putting it bck now that the attribution is in. :) Reventtalk 11:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, thank you, and thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Nerilie Abram copyvio still present[edit]

IMHO the copyvio re Nerilie Abram and is still present. I haven't attempted to mark the article because of the deleted revisions. Mark Hurd (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Markhurd:I saw the 'similarity' there also at the time, but since the content was somewhat rewritten I didn't actually tag that part... it's poorly sourced, as it's her own comments, and uses 'fragments' of sentences directly, but it is cited, and it's not the kind of 'blatant verbatim' copying that was present in the revdel'd material. Unfortunately, a lot of the "Wikibomb2014" content is questionable on the same grounds... I've gotten sidetracked, but I still intend to go through the whole list and specifically check every article (sigh).
You shouldn't feel 'blocked' by the deleted revisions, as they were due to (verbatim) copying from entirely different sources, but I think a better solution would be to just reword things slightly so as to avoid the issue instead of actually removing the content. Reventtalk 19:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

UE 900/900s[edit]

Hello, you have helped me in the past to copyedit Bose SoundLink Bluetooth Mobile Speaker II. Could you please help me again? I have written an article at Since I'm a native Russian speaker I always make grammar and structural errors in English, though I'm constantly trying to improve. I have also tried my best to be NPOV, but if you see anything that should be changed in this regard, your advise would be much appreciated. (And you have also my full permission to change anything in my sandbox.) Dmatteng (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm, tbh, a bit backlogged at the moment, but will take a look when I have time. Reventtalk 04:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for a reply, and thank you in advance for your input. Dmatteng (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


freenode seems to be down and I'm going the same way but please look at that userpsgae you had me draft, user readded some stuff ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  06:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on their contributions, to see if they figure it out. Hopefully I can get it sorted before they get too confused. Reventtalk 06:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
@Salvidrim!: See the contributions of Axshah95, they figured it out, might want to re-zap the user page. Reventtalk 22:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #122[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #114

The Signpost: 13 August 2014[edit]


The sock drawer is more than IPs:

Those are just the ones since August. This is a long term SPI obsessed fan. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: I am aware, I'm simply stating that I don't think "I-am-unwritten" is actually the same person as the others, because the IP behind that account was making edits to other unrelated articles (from their IP) as well as simply trying to add a photo of him and his second wife to her article during the time period that the others were socking. Also, the person behind "Nkapoor21" also came to IRC during that time period, and came across in a completely different manner (much more argumentative, for one thing). I think this is a case of two fans who attend the same university and know each other, and the sockmaster told the other about being in a 'war' on Wikipedia about him. Again, I could be wrong, I just think this (newer) editor is somewhat clueless about what is ok and what isn't, and I'm trying to 'salvage' them before they get escalated to the same level of drama. Reventtalk 05:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Luciano Darío Vietto[edit]

Hi. The page under User:Kushalchavan/sandbox was not meant to be a AfC and the page Luciano Vietto currently exists in mainspace. Any edits done in the sandbox was meant to improve the article under the editor's course work. Please remove all AfC tags and return the page to the sandbox to avoid a duplicate of an existing page. Thank you. LRD NO (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kushalchavan: @LRD NO: Fixed, it's back where it belongs and the AfC header is removed. Sorry for the misunderstanding, it popped up in the "AfC submissions in userspace" cleanup category, and the script did not indicate it was a version of an existing article because the pagename was 'sandbox' instead of 'Luciano Vietto'. I also changed the {{user sandbox}} to {{draft article}}, which doesn't have the 'submit' button. Reventtalk 00:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Cheers for the revert. LRD NO (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ronn Torossian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gray Line. 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) 09:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of best-selling music artists[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of best-selling music artists. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The L235 quarterly everything barnstar
Hi revent. Please accept the quarterly L235 "Everything Barnstar" for being helpful on IRC, doing tons of maintenance work, like clearing out Category:Pending AfC submissions in userspace, and for being, in general, a great person. Thank you, and congrats. Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 04:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for Article Creation feedback[edit]

Hello Revent, thanks for your feedback on my article. As a newbie who's still learning to "walk, talk & breathe" around here, you helped clarify a lot for me. I am now currently working on the improvements you suggested. (PS: Sure hope I posted this in the right place! Haha)

WrittenInHeart (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback[edit]

Revent, thanks for the feedback - I've updated my User Page now. Digitalandrew (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Digitalandrew: Thanks. It's always nice to see subject 'experts' that are willing to be honest. :) Reventtalk 16:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback[edit]

Thanks for your comments on Evolution’s second law of thermodynamics fallacy. It is very helpful to have made clear the reasons for refusal. You are correct; the subject is covered in Entropy and life. The “open system” argument is given there to explain “Schrodinger’s paradox”. Lehninger’s argument “that the ‘order’ produced within cells… is more than compensated for by the ‘disorder’ they create…” (excess entropy) is also given to reconcile the second law and evolution. What is lacking is this new understanding, that the above arguments, while correct, are not sufficient to explain what they purport to do. This leads to an important misconception. That evolution is able to overcome the second law is worthy of full understanding. It is noteworthy that the author of the main reference and one of the references used for this submission are cited in Entropy and life. That there is only a single main reference can be attributed to the newness of the insight (February, 2014) and the information has not had time to be disseminated. Is not asking for more than a single peer reviewed journal reference a very high standard? LEBOLTZMANN2

@LEBOLTZMANN2: Your draft article, User:LEBOLTZMANN2/sandbox, is written more in the form of an essay than an encyclopedia article, and Wikipedia is not the place for that. Also, you cannot use other Wikipedia articles as references. To be useful to readers (to be in context) the information you want to convey should be added to the existing article. Having a new article will do noting to correct the 'misconception' you are referring to, and I suspect the same thing is probably mentioned in several other articles without being fully explained.
By the way, please don't think I'm trying to be difficult on grounds of not 'understanding'... that the fallacy you are writing about is based on a gross misunderstanding is fairly obvious to anyone with a decent understanding of physics. That the article you're using in a source is in The American Biology Teacher instead of a scientific journal, also, makes it pretty blatant that it's just an explanation, and not 'original reseaarch'. It's simply that this is a case where your goal would be better served by improving the discussion of the matter in other places instead of writing a new article.
@FireflySixtySeven:, since you had previously declined this also, any comments? Reventtalk 23:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2014[edit]

A Barnstar For You[edit]

Vitruvian Barnstar Hires.png The da Vinci Barnstar
For the wonderful help you provide with all that code that I don't understand and never will. Thank you so much! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #123[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Mesrop Mashtots[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mesrop Mashtots. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

07:37:27, 26 August 2014 review of submission by LexieHoskins[edit]

The page got rejected because it already exists. I edited the existing page but the edits were rejected. Theroadislong suggested that I should draft the revised article before submitting and then ask him/her or another editor to proofread it. I thought using userspace drafts would be a way to do this but now the page has been rejected because it already exists.

Please could you look at the content I provided and tell me if it will be approved if I edit the existing 'Cambridge International Examinations' page?

Thank you

LexieHoskins (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, the actual 'submission' process you used is specifically for brand new articles, not to ask someone to look at your proposed changes. The best place to do that would be on the talk page of the article itself, though I am willing to reread it (and will). I can't speak for what other editors will think, though. Reventtalk 07:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
After reading... I don't think any of the changes that the text you want to make are objectionable, other than a bit of copy editing for missing spacing. The only thing that Theroadislong seems to have been objecting to was your using an external link in the text of the article (which is not done). I think your changes to the text are an improvement. Reventtalk 07:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
@LexisHoskins: Ok, I did some quick fixes to your version, if you want to apply them to the 'live' one by cut-pasting over it should be fine. I don't think anyone will specifically object to the text changes, and I also ran a couple of scripts to fix the reference formatting. Just don't wipe out the headers, as it still is all primary sources Face-smile.svg Reventtalk 08:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
You are true helper. Thanks for helping me at IRC. CutestPenguin (Talk) 13:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

01:45:25, 27 August 2014 review of submission by Dave H Franks[edit]

I am not "requesting a re-review"; I am asking for further guidance from the reviewer who declined my submission of "Sword-grip and Scabbard-grip" on 25th August 2014. I thought that my article, which defines a pair of terms, which are applicable in many martial arts, and explains their derivation, was of a similar format to the articles on martial terms like "Horse stance", "Pinch grip tie" and "Knifehand strike" which already exist on Wikipedia. What need I do to get my article accepted ? Dave H Franks (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dave H Franks: I find it a bit hard to explain, exactly, except that your draft is very heavy on illustrations that essentially show the same thing, in lots of variations. It comes across as less of an encyclopedia article than what you would expect to see in a text on martial arts, in that there is more an illustration of 'how' in the second half than a discussion of 'what'. Also, as I'm not a member of the martial arts project, I would suggest you enter into discussion with them. I'm going to ping @PRehse:, as the member of the project who responded there, and see if he can give a clearer explanation.... he had essentially given the same response that I did in my decline, and he might be able to give you a better explanation, or point at how you can improve it. Reventtalk 02:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)