User talk:StarryGrandma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Advice? - July 2014[edit]

Hello. Lightbreather recommended speaking with you in regards to mentoring. She and I were working on the Gun show loophole page. I would appreciate any tips or guidance on improving the this page and dealing with other editors there. Thanks. (DN) Darknipples (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Darknipples. I've been staying away from pages in areas where the topic is a current political controversy. It is very hard for editors to focus on facts in those areas, rather than campaigning for their own causes. I have given up on trying to get editors in those areas to address structural problems with articles.
As for the article you are working on, the name "Gun show loophole" is inherently one-sided. However, that is also the name given to legislation so there may be no help for it. An example of one of the problems these political articles face is shown by the section Gun show loophole#Controversy. I have come to believe that quotes in articles like these are just a way to campaign. Here you have a couple of random quotes that were added to support one side or other. Articles get loaded down with these quotes and cause a lot of argument among editors. An article like this doesn't need any quotes at all, just summaries of positions. The section Gun show loophole#Closing the gun show loophole has a similar problem. Again random things are in there without any structure to the section. However editors resist taking these things out.
I would be glad to answer questions about general editing and to help in non-political areas. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year StarryGrandma![edit]

Fireworks in Jaén (cropped).jpg
Happy New Year!
Hello StarryGrandma:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Frze > talk 20:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Peace sign.svg

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Another editor is WP:WIKIHOUNDING me[edit]

Hello, dear StarryGrandma.

I've been wondering about this for awhile, but it's become clear to me in recent days that another editor is WP:WIKIHOUNDING me.

No other editor seems to find it necessary to follow me around and revert my edits but this one. It has happened more times than I can count now, and on numerous pages. Would you like me to provide some links?

Please advise.


--Lightbreather (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Electrostatic Spray Ionization[edit]

Dear StarryGrandma,

I am the author of the Article Electrostatic Spray Ionization that you kindly refereed. Thank you very much for it. However, before adding it to Electrospray Ionization as you proposed I would like to know why Laser Ablation Electrospray Ionization (, which is a comparable technique and article, has been accepted to be an article for its own and Electrostatic Spray Ionization not.

With my best regards,

AnSteLe (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi AnSteLe. It's nice to see work being done on good science articles for Wikipedia. I suggested adding the material to an existing article because the first paragraph does not provide enough of an explanation for anyone but an expert to know what the article is about. I find it is often easier for new editors to add material to an article that has a good lead paragraph or paragraphs in place than for them to try to put the material into context.
The article Laser Ablation Electrospray Ionization did not go through the Articles for Creation process. The page was written directly into Wikipedia by the original editor, and rearranged a bit by later editors. It had an overview section that became the lead paragraph and describes what is going on enough for physicists at least to know what is happening. It should be made clearer for a wider range of readers, however.
If you wish, write a lead paragraph along the model of the one in Laser Ablation Electrospray Ionization, explaining what happens in the process and what the advantages of using it are. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section for an explanation of what this section should do in a Wikipedia article. Happy editing. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear StarryGrandma,

thank you very much for your response and suggestions! I will work then on a well written lead paragraph! Thanks and with my best regards, AnSteLe (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


This was a very nice example of everything that I love about this project. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for helping me add just a slash. --Nahnah4 (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Skin Absorption edit[edit]

Combined my page with existing page via edit. I hope this works. 570lah (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Very nice. Now we have a good article on the subject. Thanks. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

OMG you're in The New York Times[edit]

Did you already know this? You're in The New York Times. ""

Get ready for your 15 minutes!  ;-)

Lightbreather (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Digital ceramic printing on glass may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • making printing of all sizes and replacement of any panel simple, in high resolution, full color]].<ref name=Davey2010 /> Unlike UV printing it is suitable for both interior and exterior

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Help, on a 3rr thing[edit]

Dear StarryGrandma,

I reported Sue for edit warring today. I thought that process was just between the parties involved and the admin, but I see another editor has weighed in on the issue, so I am asking for your help. The discussion is at "" (Trying to insert links on my phone causes problems, so I hope that works.)

As a follow-up to the BLP issue, she finally quit pushing that activist/advocate thing and the article looks pretty good now. The last admin to comment on it, Newyorkbrad even said so. (Thanks, NYB.) And the subject hasn't complained any further, so I think he's satisfied, too. Thanks for your support during that. Lightbreather (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


Could you give some additional mentoring to LB please? she is doing mass deletions of content [1] [2] [3] in at least one case directly contrary to a consensus discussion she started. Talk:Gun_politics_in_the_United_States#Split_proposal There is an ongoing ArbCom on gun control and gun politics ongoing. Im very tempted to add her as an involved party, or take her to ANI for WP:DE but want to avoid more drama if possible, but she cannot continue editing like this unchecked. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I will see what I can do. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

CLASS Telescope page[edit]

Thanks for approving the CLASS page! I have linked to the article from the List of Cosmic Microwave Background Experiments page. The List of Radio Telescopes seemed to all be deployed telescopes, whereas the List of CMB Experiments included future projects like CLASS. Tom.essinger.hileman (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited APM 08279+5255, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Starburst (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) 08:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

APM 08279+5255 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to IRAM
Deep-focus earthquake (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Mantle

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
I award you this barnstar because, every time I run across one of your contributions, I think to myself, "I am glad that StarryGrandma is a Wikipedia editor." Thank you for all that you do. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Thankyou Cullen328 for the encouragement. I really appreciate it. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
You are welcome. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Solveig Hisdal) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Solveig Hisdal, StarryGrandma!

Wikipedia editor Carriearchdale just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:


To reply, leave a comment on Carriearchdale's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rachel Whiteread may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[Image:Rachel Whiteread - House.jpg|thumb|right|''House'' (1993], London]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rachel Whiteread, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DAAD (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) 08:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

08:24:06, 12 July 2014 review of submission by[edit] (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

My entry on the French-Swiss artist Janika Fabrikant for Wikipedia was rejected. I accept the criticism of the article being "too romantic" and insubstantial. I will rewrite it. I am still convinced that Janika Fabrikant's work merits a Wikipedia entry. My question to you at this stage is: should I enter all her exhibitions, combined and solo that she held throughout the years? Regards Ute Ben Yosef

Hi, (or Ufdermuur). It is not a matter of an artist "meriting" an entry. Her art is wonderful. An artist just needs to be well enough known, with published sources to show it, even if all those sources say the art is terrible. Many of your references, especially those which are databases, only show that she exists. They aren't necessary. A link to her curriculum vitae will be enough. Instead talk about her work and its development in chronological order, using reviews or other analysis of her work as sources. Some of sources need to be in publications independent of her galleries. A source I found is But the published sources don't have to be online (or in English).
Don't put in her exhibitions except as part of the her artistic development. She is also listed at, a curated site. Is the quote from you given there published somewhere? StarryGrandma (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, StarryGrandma. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.


Hello, StarryGrandma. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
Didn't get the ping. Got the mail. Things are going well here medically, but its going to be a long process. Thanks for asking. StarryGrandma (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

15:29:58, 16 July 2014 review of submission by Janvermont[edit]

StarryGrandma said she would be glad to help. I have followed her suggestion with respect to notability and have prepared documentation for her review. Please tell me how to submit it. Thank you, Jan Richmond Lourie

Janvermont (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jan. Tell me what kind of sources you have found. Have they been published and where? I've managed to find enough online to establish notability:
  • Goldstine, Herman H. (2008). The Computer from Pascal to von Neumann. Princeton University Press. p. 20. ISBN 1-4008-2013-8.  has a nice mention of you.
  • Hu, Jinlian (2011). Computer Technology for Textiles and Apparel. Elsevier Science. pp. 258–. ISBN 978-0-85709-360-8.  refers to your "revolutionary system".
  • Machover, Carl (1998). "CG Pioneers - Looking Back to SIGGRAPH's Beginnings". ACM SIGGRAPH 32 (1): 25–27. doi:10.1145/279389.279427.  is an interview with Sam Matsa of IBM which says "The Geospace plotter was used for many graphics projects. One of them is discussed in a book entitled Textile Graphics/Computer Aided by Janice Lourie and published by Fairchild Publications in 1973. Janice is in Vermont enjoying the good life of nature. At that time she was living right near the United Nations in an apartment in Manhattan on 1st Avenue and 44th Street. But, because of Janice's involvement with textile design, IBM eventually donated that Geospace plotter to the Fashion Institute of Technology in New York City."
Let me know what information you have. Do you have a curriculum vitae anywhere? I'm going to make some changes to the article to make it more of an encyclopedia article. Anything I take out won't be lost; it will be available in the article history. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

18:52:30, 16 July 2014 review of submission by Janvermont[edit]

I wrote this before your prompt response on July 16, so it will, in part, be redundant. StarryGrandma, I would like to take advantage of your help. I appreciate your offer. The Janice Lourie submission was prepared by three people -- by me, a colleague and the wife of my former IBM manager. I am a first responder. I reread the notability criteria as you suggested. I believe I can define sources that meet the criteria.

I believe sources 1 and 3 (listed below), the Goldstine book and US patent, meet the criterion of Wikipedia Creative professionals 2. – “The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique”. The patent emphasizes the new or original aspect of both concept and technique and the Goldstine reference alludes to its economic and historic significance. source 2 complies with Wikipedia Creative professionals criterion 4.b – “The persons work has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition”. (In this case it was the entire exhibition at the Durango pavilion.) I think that source 4 does not meet criterion 4d yet –“represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums”.

Other works which I think reinforce notability are the Stewart Kranz book: Science and Technology in the Arts (good section on me and my work), the James martin book Design of Man Computer Dialogues which uses my system illustrations to show interaction, the Korte, Peche book Downtown San Antonio which has a description of my system working at the Hemisfair.

The three outstanding scholars in Transportation theory list my topology paper in their books – Dantzig, Charnes and Gass. I don’t have copies so until I get them we can leave that out if you like.

    source 1

Herman Goldstine, in his book Computer History from Pascal to Von Neumann (my ref 12), tells about the relationship between the Jacquard loom and the computer. Then, in a footnote he writes: It is interesting to note that until recently the process of making the Jacquard cards was itself an arduous task. The textile designer in fact drew on paper the threads of the warp and the weft showing at each intersection their relative positions and from these the holes were punched. Then in the mid 1960’s a very ingenious method was found by Miss Janice R. Lourie of IBM to automate the whole process with the help of the modern computer. This was displayed on a working loom at the HemisFair in San Antonio, Texas in 1968. Thus the progenitor of the computer has become its child.

source 2 I went to the HemisFair 68 page in Wikipedia, checked companies with pavilions and found IBM among them. For the content of the pavilions I had to go the first external link of the HemisFair page. There I found the IBM Durango pavilion which was dedicated to my Textile Graphics system. It described the interactive functioning of the display and subsequent instant manufacture by the loom. This description combined with the Goldstine note, I believe identifies the exhibit as my work. Perhaps the fact that my name is not associated with the invention in this article at the first external link is what you mean by documentation is hard to come by.

source 3 GRAPHICAL DESIGN OF TEXTILES US Patent 33,529,298 1970 Janice Richmond Lourie. This is IBM’s first software patent. (backstory I scheduled an appointment with the director of patent operations. He explained that they were not pursuing software patents. I put forth that creativity should be honored. I did not realize that I was making the basic argument for intellectual property. (There was no such IBM department at the time.) We shook hands and I left pleased that I had been able to express my viewpoint. A month later I received a letter saying that they would make my system a test case for software patenting. (It is not just IBM’s first software patent; it represents a turnaround in their thinking.)

(source 4) Artwork in Collections Four images in the Museum of the New York Historical Society. One image in the Brooklyn Museum Six images at Tufts University requested by the curator of the Aidekman Art Center Twenty-four brushed aluminum prints on display at the 58th Street Library branch of the New York Public Library

Janvermont (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for putting all this together. You only need to meet one of the criteria I believe. Also you meet the criteria for a researcher who publishes - your book and early papers turn up as references in all sorts of places as computers started running looms and knitting machines.
I've also found:
StarryGrandma (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

13:25:31, 18 July 2014 review of submission by Janvermont[edit]

Good morning StarryGrandma, Your searching turned up things that I didn't find! I appreciate your making changes to the article to make it look more like an encyclopedia article. Jan Janvermont (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

22:19:43, 18 July 2014 review of submission by Janvermont[edit]

StarryGrandma, I would like to request your guidance for my next steps. I reviewed your changes and I like the new tone. I'm not sure if you have in mind to do more on this, or am I to begin now to modify the text following your original notes. May I still communicate with you? Jan Janvermont (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It's best on Wikipedia not to edit articles about yourself if you can find someone else to do it. So I will keep on making changes. However I will need your help. Everything in a Wikipedia article needs to have been published somewhere else. So I will need your help finding sources.
Question 1: I can only see the first page of your 1964 paper here: Does the paper say enough about the generalized transportation problem that I can use it as the reference for the technical material in the "Operations research" section?
Thanks. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

19:09:03, 19 July 2014 review of submission by Janvermont[edit]

I begin with thank you. Answer to question 1: yes, the paper is about the move forward from the basic transportation problem to the generalized problem. Sections following the page you have are: "Relationshp to the General Linear Progamming Problem", "Relationship to Transportation Problem", "Topology of the Generalized Transportation Problem", "Outline of the Solution of the Generalized Transportation Problem"...

I believe I used a published reference for everything I referred to except the current show "The first internet -- the alphabet" which is on now. ( I will take care of that.) All the sources are in the "Publications" or "References". I have copies of almost everything -- my publications in IFIPS, IEEE, ACM the original volumes. If anything I am missing is necessary I will download it for their modest fee.

I am amazed at what you have done so far and I will enlist one of my colleague to do anything else necessary in her sandbox when you give the word. Please let me know when you come to the next resource question. Jan (appreciatively) Janvermont (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

19:03:27, 23 July 2014 review of submission by Janvermont[edit]

Hello StarryGrandma, I was checking our interactions and did not find any additions from you, but when I went back through the sandbox path and scrolled down I found a notation that you had made a modification 37 minutes ago. Am I looking in the wrong place? Janvermont (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I've just sent you an email. I think we can work on this faster by email if that is OK with you. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Florence Mildred White[edit]

Hello StarryGrandma, Thank you for your informative guide on the removal of text from my article to another article. I appreciate now the move was in order and I have written to the person who did it. He has offered help for the future should I need it which I might well take up. I continue to try to improve the article as suggested, but it is slow and time consuming ! TimothyWF (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you are going to keep working on it. I have the same problem when I want to add new information to an existing article. It is time consuming to figure out how to add it in smoothly. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

10:32:35, 24 July 2014 review of submission by Janvermont[edit]

Thank you StarryGrandma. Email will be great. I have to check frequently. I did not receive the email you sent on the 23rd so promptly after I used this messaging means. I checked everything I had deleted on the 23rd and did not find it. would you please resend. I'm sorry to bother you. Jan

Janvermont (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

00:20:26, 28 July 2014 review of submission by Janvermont[edit]

Hello StarryGrandma, you may be expecting an email from me and I am anxious to pursue that form of communication. However, I did not receive the email you sent to me. I checked my spam, my trash (during the period in which you sent it) and my Wikipedia preferences, but I did not find the reason why I didn't get your email. I hope you get this message on your talk page. If you send another email would you please also comment to me on your talk page so that I know when it was sent.

My colleague and I greatly appreciated your rewrite of the operations research section. Jan Janvermont (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

15:04:59, 30 July 2014 review of submission by Janvermont[edit]

Hello, StarryGrandma. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

teahouse told me how to send an email to you. hope all is well. janvermont Janvermont (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, StarryGrandma. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

16:31:46, 1 August 2014 review of submission by Janvermont[edit]

Hello StarryGrandma, Thank you for resuming. I get it that you didn't get it, but that you got it that I didn't get it. I did get your reassuring message on my talk page and I do know how to "speak" to you with this messaging means. We'll make do. Jan Janvermont (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, StarryGrandma. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
I had already noticed that. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

topic ban[edit]

You stated Since Lightbreather was topic banned from articles relating to gun control in this edit. Can you point me to where that ban was enacted?

I reviewed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control, which handed out some topic bans, but not to Lightbreather.

I reviewed this request for a ban but it was closed without enacting a ban.

I ask because topic bans are supposed to be recorded at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions and I do not see it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It was an enforcement request which banned both Lightbreather and Scalhotrod: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive152#Scalhotrod. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Goodbye, StarryGrandma[edit]

Hello, dear StarryGrandma. I am retiring from Wikipedia and I wanted to make my last edit a goodbye to you. There have been others who have helped me over the months, but you were the first good thing to happen to me me, and I will be forever indebted to you for the generosity, kindness, and patience you showed me when I needed it most. Live long and prosper, starry lady. Lightbreather (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Eiffel Tower -- Another correction[edit]

Could you please make the other correction I requested on 24 May 2014? In the Tourism / Transport artiicle, the nearest RER station is not Pont de l'Alma. The nearest RER station is Champ de Mars-Tour Eiffel. Retrieved 23 October,2014--Tvbanfield (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews[edit]

Hello StarryGrandma. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean[edit]

about Jane Rosen. There is no doubt in my mind that she is notable and that there should be a article about her, but the while thing (article) was pretty much done by one editor, User:Weiwillwang, who appears to be a new account and has only worked on this one article. The references that I have looked at also seem to be ones that might have a financial stake in advancing her reputation. A sticky wicket to be sure. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Yet, it sounds like it may have been written by a gallery. But the interview and award are enough. I left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women artists in hopes of getting someone to clean it up. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I saw your note at the Women's artist project that's what got me butting in. Still the cut & paste stuff needs to be dealt with in some manner, and if it is removed, there is no article, just a list of shows, etc. Also lifted from somewhere.
As the King says in Anna and the King of Siam, "It is a puzzlement." Carptrash (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Oops, forgot to check for copy-paste. Ironic, given the notice from AfC just above. I guess the thing is to clean it up and leave a stub, with her CV and website in the external links. Are you willing to do that? If so, thanks. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I have a cup-runnith-over situation with my editing and life in general, so won't do much here but i see that the person who wrote the article in now a blue link, a very good thing in my book, and is adding more sources. Another good thing.Carptrash (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

20:55:49, 21 January 2015 review of submission by Millstei[edit]

Hi StarryGrandma. Thank you for reviewing my article, however, I am somewhat confused by it. The review states that Wikipedia does not publish theorems or "how to's". However, the article does not describe how to do anything. Also, there are many Wikipedia articles about statistical theorems ( and statistical inequalities ( that include proofs, for instance (just to name a few), there is Chebyshev's inequality (, Bernoulli's inequality (, the Cramer-Rao lower bound (ér–Rao_bound), and many more. Would it help if I changed the section title from "theorem" to "probabilistic statement", like in Chebyshev's inequality? -Thanks again. Millstei (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Millstei (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are rignt. I see that math articles do contain proofs, though there has been a lot of discussion on this (whether only notable proofs should be here). Just look at and List of mathematical proofs. I wish this stuff had been easier to find when I went looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics while reviewing your article.
Revise the article so that "Binomial_sum_variance_inequality" is defined in the first sentence of the article as it is in the articles you gave as examples. Look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs for how to arrange the proof. Calling the section Proof should be fine. Then I will approve the article. It will be helpful if you can link it into other articles on the same topic, so it doesn't stand alone as an orphan. Happy editing. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I will revise as you suggest and submit when I am happy with the changes. Regarding linking it into other articles, I assume that I can only do that after it is approved. Millstei (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi StarryGrandma. I have submitted changes -- please take a look when you get a chance. -Thank you! Millstei (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Request on 09:31:25, 2 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Phill.Christie[edit]

Hi StarryGrandma, I looked at the web page that I used as a reference and that you associated with copyrighted material. Indeed you are correct,as the website says material cannot be re-used without permission. If I contacted the DSP Valley website and asked for permission to include thier article in a wikipedia article, would that be sufficient to allow the article to be published?

Phill.Christie (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Phill.Christie (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

To begin with, the article is great on the DSP Valley site, but it is written as an informative essay, not as an encyclopedia article. See Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Information style and tone. The article's tone needs to be formal, impersonal, and dispassionate, not characteristics organizations want on their web pages. Secondly, it is not enough to ask permission to use text from another source on Wikipedia. The copyright holder must be willing to let the material be much more widely used. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. It is better to rewrite material in encyclopedic form.
There is another problem with the article. To have an article a topic must already be well-known (that is, notable). There have to be papers, articles, and/or books independent of the original source to show this. I can't find "substream innovation" used anyplace else than in your article, though my view inside trade publications is limited. Once it is widely used there can be an article, but it is too soon. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Request on 22:33:58, 3 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Blake.gillespie[edit]

I'm following up on my rejection. I wanted to point out that I have 2 (50%) citations from an news source, not from my University. Additionally, I have another citation (#4) from the CSU Chancellor's office, not my own University Campus. When I look at a colleague's page:


I note that the references there are no more extra-ordinary than my own, and so submit that my notability should perhaps be deemed high enough to merit an entry. Thanks!

Blake.gillespie (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Blake.gillespie (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

We probably do have articles on professors who aren't well-known enough to be here. They don't all get seen as created, but end up being questioned later. But that's not an argument for adding another. The Sean Anderson (scientist) is another case completely. He was portrayed in a movie seen by millions of people. That puts him in the entertainment area also, which has different criteria.
Wikipedia is like having multiple encyclopedias all in one place: Popular culture, sports, aviation, medicine, science (articles get quite technical here), geographic (every organized town in the world). On the academic side the criteria are strict (hot discussions occur at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)), in part to prevent it from becoming something like LinkedIn. An article about an academic should talk about his work, with references that show what other people in the field have said about it. Some don't because whoever wrote the article didn't understand enough to write about it. But in yours you haven't said anything about your research. I know what you worked on because I looked up your papers on Google Scholar.
I'm sorry not to be more helpful. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Sexuality of Lewis Carroll[edit]

Thanks for your comments when declining this new article. I've been editing for getting on for 8 years now, and there are still WP rules I've never heard of, but I've never created a new article before. However, I was a little confused by your saying that the introduction reads like a magazine article and that there were conclusion in there by me. I used the beginning of Sexuality of William Shakespeare as a guide for how to start the article, and that reads in a very similar way to me, as does Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln. Also, I don't see where the lack of facts is shown. There are three points made:

The Sexuality of Lewis Carroll has been the subject of recurring debate. Scholars and biographers have argued about whether or not he was a paedophile or at least had paedophilic tendencies.[1][2]

- this is surely a fact: see the refs.

Lewis Carroll, the pen name of Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (1832 - 1898), was an English writer, mathematician, logician, Anglican deacon and photographer. His most famous writings are Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and its sequel Through the Looking-Glass.

- surely factual.

However, it is mainly his photographs of naked or near-naked children - particularly girls - that have caused concern. The fact that Carroll is one of the most famous children's authors in English literature means that his sexual proclivities towards children have been the subject of heated debates for many years.[3]

This is the point of the whole article. He did take those photographs; he is a famous children's author; and his sexual proclivities have been debated. What am I missing? Myrvin (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Myrvin. In a magazine article the first paragraph serves as an introduction, drawing the reader in and explaining why the article was written. In an encyclopedia article, the first paragraph is a summary of the article. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. The first paragraph of Sexuality of William Shakespeare and its table of contents provide a good example.
The sexuality of William Shakespeare has been the subject of recurring debate. It is known from public records that he married Anne Hathaway and they had three children; scholars have analysed their relationship through these documents, in particular through the bequests to her in Shakespeare's will. There has been speculation that he had affairs with other women, based on contemporary writings of others anecdotally recounting such affairs and possibly on the "Dark Lady" figure in his sonnets. Scholars have also speculated that he was bisexual, based on an analysis of the sonnets, many of which, including Sonnet 18 "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day", are love poems addressed to a man, the "Fair Lord", and which contain plays on words relating to sexual desire between men.
1 Marriage
2 Possible affairs with women
3 Possible attraction to men
4 References
5 Additional reading
That opening paragraph is a series of statements that summarize the contents of the sections of the article. There are no references. Those will be in the article sections. There is no description of William Shakespeare as a playwright. This is a sub-article of Shakespeare, and the wikilink in the first paragraph is enough.
In your opening paragraph, "The sexuality of Lewis Carroll has been the subject of recurring debate." is fine. In the second sentence, leave out anything about "arguing". "Analyzed" is better. Leave out everything about his background. The final sentence, "The fact that Carroll is one of the most famous children's authors in English literature means that his sexual proclivities towards children have been the subject of heated debates for many years." is what makes the opening sound like a magazine article. Follow the first sentence with sentences summarizing what the sections of the article say. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah I think I'm beginning to see. I put that last sentence in because of the idea that I should "say something important about the topic". Words to that effect are from the help you get when creating a new article. As you say, I suppose it's meant to make the article notable. I see that wp:lead#elements of the lead says "The lead should establish significance, include mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more"; and , at the top, " the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at content that follows". Myrvin (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, I've had another go: Draft:Sexuality of Lewis Carroll. Myrvin (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

12:41:05, 19 February 2015 review of submission by Blake.gillespie[edit]

I'm asking why this page does not merit inclusion, since it now includes references external to my institution. The criteria seem to indicate that this is sufficient. Similar, allowed, pages meet no more this same criterion. e.g.,

Blake.gillespie (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. There are nine numbered criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria. You will need references showing you meet at least one of them. Winning an award from your own university is not enough. Yes, there are articles on Wikipedia for people who do not meet these standards, but only because no one has gotten around to removing them yet.
You have essentially created a directory listing, your degrees, positions, and awards. Nothing about your research or what you did to get those awards. Wikipedia does not serve as a directory of academic personnel. There are other locations for that. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Request on 22:01:50, 26 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Karochka70[edit]

Hi StarryGrandma,

Thank you for reviewing my post! I'd still like to see a page created for Carol Brown Goldberg. I think although the artist is most extensively known locally, she does have a national and international presence (she's had national and international exhibits). Perhaps if I added in references to Goldberg from articles written about her in the Washington Post? Although the Washington Post is a "local" newspaper, it still has a national and world-wide I think that would show more of Goldberg's prominence and emerging prominence as well. Please let me know if that would make Goldberg more notable and worthy of a page. Thanks!

Also, you can see what's been written about Goldberg in the Washington Post here: Karochka70 (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Karochka70 (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

21:10:34, 2 March 2015 review of submission by Crobben[edit]

Dear reviewers,

Sensor-based sorting is applied in four business streams: mining, recycling and food. Therefore I have created a mining specific topic in which I have obtained my PhD (you find the title in the references). I volunteer to update the sensor-based sorting article to reflect the terminology and application in the market segments to adress your comment in the next weeks. Since sensor-based ore sorting is a very polupar main stream topic I kindly ask you to accept my contribution.

best regards from germany


Crobben (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Body plan[edit]

Hi, and thanks for your 'see also' in Body plan. The argument for Precambrian body plans is important to the article and ought therefore to go in the main text, suitably cited, near where the Cambrian explosion is discussed, instead of a 'see also' link. I'd be really glad if you could do that. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)