User talk:Ktr101

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

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

Orphaned non-free image File:The Boston Globe, April 4, 2009.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Boston Globe, April 4, 2009.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Boston Globe, February 24, 2008.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Boston Globe, February 24, 2008.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you

Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ponca

Hi Kevin, I purposely added images of living Native Americans to tribes' articles to combat the pervasive and insidious stereotypes about Native — the most common being that Indian people aren't alive today. Would you insist that the German people article only depict people in liederhosen??? Brent Greenwood is a Ponca Indian; he's what Ponca people look like today. The 19th-century sepia-toned photographs of Natives are beautiful and romantic but often not accurate representations of Indian people. Edward Curtis, in particular, was notorious for making his models dress in his costumes with props to "look more Indian." If you want to substitute better contemporary images of Native peoples, by all means, but please stop moving/removing photos of living Indians. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Is there any way that we could get someone else? I actually did not look to see who took the photos, but the image that is there could be anyone. The image there is very bright and makes him look more white than Ponca. I don't really care for specifics, but if you know of a better image of someone who is Poncan, that would be amazing. Honestly, if the image of Brent was of better quality, I would have kept it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, please do not rollback my edits as they were not vandalism. An explanation would help explain why you did such a thing, whereas the rollback gives no explanation for that. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I commented at Talk:Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma. This conversation perfectly illustrates why images such as Greenwood's and other living Natives need to be included in articles. But, to reassure you of his identity and tribal affiliation, I have added a US Department of the Interior reference link. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

It does not really need a citation, and I trust you on that one. I was talking about how the lighting makes it appear as though the person is lighter skinned than he really is. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Redirect discussion occurring for the Occupy Boston article

• There's a discussion occurring regarding a proposal to redirect the article you created, Occupy Boston to the Occupy Wall Street article, occurring here: at the administrator's noticeboard. Please feel free to comment regarding this matter there. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Ktr101! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File:The Boston Globe, April 4, 2009.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Boston Globe, April 4, 2009.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 02:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Rollbacks

Please examine your rollbacks of edits, this and this and this were not helpful. Also, per my closing of this TFD, the template "Lists of Russians" should have very limited use, so re-adding it to hundreds of pages wasn't helpful. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Kennedy Center Honorees

I see you have created a single template, {{Kennedy Center Honorees}}, to replace the individual by year templates. The main objection to this single template approach is that it is very large, and smaller, individual templates, are better (see Luciano Pavarotti). One possible compromise would be to have a "year = " parameter in the large template, so that only one row would show. This could be accomplished using a switch statement, but more scalable would be to just move all the year templates to subtemplates of the main template. If you don't think this is a good idea, then let me know, or just comment on the talk page. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That works in theory, I guess. I would rather have a single template because five links on a template is quite silly in my opinion and it doesn't really provide much of a context to the history of the award. I mass-reverted that IP because it was disruptive and the goal is to make things easier to read, not harder. If anything, I would support even breaking things up into subsections that could collapse. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ira Kurzban

Hi there, Can you please explain your decision to blank out entire sections of the Wiki article on Ira Kurzban? I have checked and double-checked the links you deleted and they fall well within Wiki standards. The fact that Kurzban was a registered lobbyist also should be mentioned. The way the article reads now it sounds like an advertisement written by Kurzban himself, not an objective Wiki entry. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.122.179 (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It appears that I accidentally got involved in a content dispute. I was reverting a sock (which is the standard thing to do when they are accused of being a sockpuppet. Either way, it looks like you are the one being reverted and I am no longer going to participate in issue at hand. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Yep, contributions by block evading socks get reverted on sight and the socks get blocked. :) Syrthiss (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Feedback Dashboard task force

Hi Ktr101,

I noticed you replied to some feedback from the new Feedback Dashboard feature – you might be interested in the task force Steven Walling and I just created for this purpose: Wikipedia:Feedback Dashboard. Thanks for diving in on your own and helping the newbies, and I hope you'll sign up! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Lists of Russians

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 14#Template:Lists of Russians 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 14#Template:Lists of Russians 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Kennedy Center Honorees templates

I have been talking with Plastikspork (talk · contribs) about the {{Kennedy Center Honorees}}. Basically, my problem with it is that it adds 250 links to every article. It has become commmon to use interlinking templating systems to cut down on links. E.G., the Academy Awards were one of the early adopters. Many awards followed. Now if you look at a page like Meryl Streep you will see that most of her templates are parts of interlinking template systems. I have made a bunch of these types of systems. Two examples that are by decade are {{AcademyAwardBestOriginalSong 1971–1980}} and {{Grammy Award for Album of the Year 2000s}}. If we just split out each decade into a separate template and interlink them like these each article will only get about 55 extra links. There are some articles that are approaching the upper bound on the number of links included in the article. I think this honor will be less of a problem with decade by decade templates. I am willing to create these, if this is what is wanted. We were talking it over at User_talk:Plastikspork#Kennedy_Center_Honorees. He mentioned that I should really talk with you because it was your idea. What do you think?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Aviation crashes near or on Cape Cod and the Islands

Category:Aviation crashes near or on Cape Cod and the Islands, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

MILHIST Military Aviation Questionaire

Hi Ktr101! As your MILHIST Military Avation Task Force coordinator, I'd like to conduct a short questionaire to give me an idea of what you would the task force to achieve and the capabilities of yours that might contribute positively to the task force. The four questions of this questionaire are:

1. What are your strengths on Wikipedia?
2. Which four military aviation articles would you like to see be promoted to at least GA?
3. What detailed resources (books, journals, etc) about military aviation do you have access to? Please provide the publications' authors, titles and ISSNs/ISBNs.
4. Which three military aviation articles are you wiling to provide assistance? This can be expansion, copyediting, reference formatting, etc.

Please reply by copying and pasting the following at User talk:Sp33dyphil#MILHIST Military Aviation questionnaire and filling it out.

; ~~~
#My strengths
#Articles I'd like to see the task force improve
#:
#:
#:
#:
#Sources which I have
#:
#:
#Articles I'm willing to provide assistance
#:

Thank you for your assistance. Regards --Sp33dyphil © • © 09:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

2011 Oklahoma earthquake

I reverted your addition of states where the earthquake was felt since I think the state or country that had the epicenter or at least some impact should be the only one noted as such...due to the moderate nature of this quake, the impact was zero outside Oklahoma. If you disagree and restore your edit, I won't fight that, but does the WikiProject earthquakes have a ruling on this matter? I screened the project page and didn't see anything that stood out.--MONGO 07:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I keep an eye on the watchlist for articles in WP Earthquakes, so I noticed the addition of 'earthquake in state' categories to earthquakes that neither had their epicentres in that state nor caused significant damage there. I've reverted your various additions and removed several other categories for some of the quakes. It seems logical to me that earthquake articles should only be in the categories of states/countries that either contained the epicenter or were affected by significant damage (at least MMI VI, should probably be VII). Mikenorton (talk) 07:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion on this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Earthquakes#Guidelines for inclusion in 'Earthquakes in country/state' Categories. Mikenorton (talk) 11:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a friendly pointer

I know it's old news now but.. In your edit summary here you stated: "removed the merge tag as no one has suggested to why they want this merged" .. however, the merge rationale was on the talk page all along ;) be diligent! -- œ^™ 11:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that is old. I might have just wrote in the wrong summary as I had standardized my summaries at the time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thank you for your support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 02:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: The Postelles

Hi Ktr101. This one was well above the bar of a speedy deletion, as the subject has coverage in national magazines. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow...I cannot believe that I missed those references. My bad. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Shelly Burch

This one had multiple assertions of significance: a Drama Desk nomination, coverage in the New York Times, a long-running role on an ABC soap opera, and so on... Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Trent Evans

This one appears to have some coverage in third-party sources, found with a quick Google search. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

See, I thought he might be notable, but doing something which might be considered quite non-notable is something which tipped me past that point. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: OVOXO

Hello Ktr101, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of OVOXO, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Zircon (composer)

Hello Ktr101. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Zircon (composer) to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. Guerillero | My Talk 06:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, can I ask who do I speak to about the article I created that's up for deletion please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABaptiste (talk • contribs) 14:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey ABaptiste! Essentially, the article has no sources that would be considered neutral such as media reports. Additionally, I don't think that he himself is all that notable to begin with as he seems to just create video game songs. If he has won a notable award for his works, please place it there as it would help to establish notability, but otherwise this article does not really show why he should have an article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Abaptiste has removed the prod. If you are still concerned with Zircon's notability, you will have to take it to afd. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Piano Concerto No. 1 (Saint-Saëns)

Firstly, please remember to wait at least 10-15 minutes before tagging an article A1 or A3; it's supposed to avoid WP:BITE. Second, WP:CSD#A1 states that articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article qualify under that deletion, while this article had sufficient context. Thanks --Bryce (talk | contribs) 08:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Page patrol

Hi Kevin, I noticed that you patrol new pages at a speed that might be too high. I checked four articles you patrolled within one minute:

1. 18th Screen Actors Guild Awards - only referenced by the web site of the award-giving organisation. That's not an independent source.
2. Chilean corvette Constitución (1851) - ok
3. Kristiansand Boardwalk - only referenced by a blog entry. That's not a reliable source.
4. Affordability of housing in Canada - Issues with copyvio (which I removed, I think), paraphrasing, no incoming links. Down on the page was an entire paragraph duplicated, and a referencing error resulted in a huge red error message.

I think you are around long enough to not need wikilinks to the relevant policies. I am not often at NPP, maybe it is not possible to read the articles before patrolling, due to lack of time. But maybe you could go a bit slower, even if that means that the backlog increases further. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I accepted them trusting that they would eventually be expanded. The boardwalk one missed me, but the other ones were accepted in good faith. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just take care, slow down :p I understand nothing would ever get done if people patrolled pages like I do (one every two or three minutes) but the whole point of NPP is not to let things get through the gaps. (And conversely, not to drive away newbies by being too brusque; both side-effects of moving very quickly.) sonia♫ 19:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The whole point of NPP is grooming new editors. Telling them how to improve their articles, either by placing article tags or by leaving friendly notices on their talk page, can potentially speed up their learning process.

Quality control is only of secondary importance; there is a lot of crap that NPP never sees. This article about a settlement of over a million people soon celebrates its seventh birthday on WP, has had 30 non-bot edits, and has survived five or six displays as "bad example" in public lectures to >100 WP newbies. No-one ever cared to go there and improve it. The editor (funny enough, a former admin) has left, that's why it is in such a sorry state. This version of my first article (admittedly not the most significant topic on WP) remained essentially unchanged for over 2 years, until someone alerted me on its inappropriate style. I had forgotten about it, but improved it after being notified.

TL;DR: Clicking "patrol" or "CSD" is not the most important result of page patrol. It is engaging the author to produce better articles. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Idaho State v. Tinno

I noticed this move just now. What exactly about the article indicated that it was ready for the article namespace? --MZMcBride (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I moved it assuming it would be expanded as one article is better than no article at all. I can move it back though if you want. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Please be more careful in the future. No article is surely better than a misleading article. I went to clean up the article and quickly realized that it was not a U.S. Supreme Court case, as the (blank) infobox might suggest. The case also seems to be named "State v. Tinno," not "Idaho State v. Tinno." The lack of references in the article should've been a fairly large cue to take caution. I've moved the page back into the user namespace (User:Kawasak.kid/Sandbox) and marked the redirects for deletion. The draft seems like it has plenty of potential, but I don't think it's ready for the article namespace at this time. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Ruth Barnes article

I wrote an article about Ruth Barnes - no relation to me at all - who is a prominent BBC presenter in the UK which you have rejected for inclusion. You may not have heard of the BBC but it is the largest newsgathering broadcaster on the planet so people who appear on it, especially on its flagship TV channel, I think are worthy for inclusion in an article on Wikipedia. I wrote the article because Ruth Barnes is mentioned in other entries on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazing_Radio HickoryJohn (talk) 07:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey HickoryJohn! A few of the sources on the article need fixing, but otherwise it checks out. I clicked the wrong button when reviewing it though, so I hope you'll forgive me for that. If you could add a few third-party sources, that would be great. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Good Shepherd Sisters: Omaha Order

I cannot understand why you declined that AFC here, as a 'non-notable organization'. It's 117 years old; the submission had lots of decent sources; it's clear that it is notable. I've accepted it now.  Chzz  ►  13:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I made a mistake, as I am still unsure of the notability of religious organizations in that realm. Thanks for correcting that though, and welcome back! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Two Gomers Podcast

Thanks for rechecking my page so fast. I couldn't believe how fast I heard back from you.

I'm hoping you can provide me with a little bit of guidance on this page. In short, this podcast group has become very important to the running community all across the country. After your first review of "This suggestion doesn't sufficiently explain the importance or significance of the subject," I went back and added more references, mostly focusing on the importance of social media as a successful training tool for marathoners, as well as the affects that slower runners have on the running community. See added text under "Inspiring a Nation to Run" and "Social Media", as well as the added note about their presence on itunes found under "Featured On...".

I'd hoped that the additional content would directly justify the article, but I see that it hasn't. As a new wikipedia user, I am completely stumped at this point what else to do. I feel like I've been working on this article forever. Do you have ANY suggestions? HELP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwoGomers (talk • contribs) 13:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't actually aware that we had podcasts on this site until now, and I have gone ahead and accepted it in light of the changes that you made. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If you could, would you be willing to follow my lead on removing line breaks? Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks a lot for your help Kevin. I really appreciate it. TwoGomers (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Evangelical Times

Hi Kevin,

I am a total beginner so forgive me if I do this all wrong...keen to learn! :-) You rejected the above article. I know that I need to sort out the copyright email for the images but you rejected it as not sufficiently important for Wikipedia. Wikipedia already has an article stub on Evangelicals Now (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicals_Now) which has no 3rd party references and a smaller circulation than Evangelical Times. There is a link from within that Stub to Evangelical Times which redirects to Evangelical Press. If 'Evangelical Press' and 'Evangelicals Now' warrant pages then I cannot see why Evangelical Times does not.

Andrewprowell (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Andrew, I'm going to get back to you on that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, These are the current Wikipedia Articles that refer to Evangelical Times: British_Conservative_Evangelicalism Steve_Chalke Wales_Evangelical_School_of_Theology John_Stott John_Kensit Carey_Baptist_Church Fellowship_of_Independent_Evangelical_Churches Jonathan_Skinner E._J._H._Nash Fountain_Trust Martyn_Lloyd-Jones Evangelicals_Now Church_Society Michael_Haykin Prospects_%28charity%29 New_Apostolic_Church — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewprowell (talk • contribs) 00:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Andrew, it appears as if it is notable by Wikipedia standards. I'll go ahead and create it now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Apologies re. my bot

Sorry. See User_talk:ChzzBot IV#Issue. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  18:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

contributions about writer, surfer, skier ronnie lees

I may have submitted to soon, was confused about the directions but I believe I have it now. I follow this persons career and he is very famous in the Northeast Surfing and Snow, communities. He also writes and I have read both his novels. I found more sources of online information about Ronnie Lees, news papers, Television, and placed them in the references. I am still adding to this now that I figured it out. Love your site, I plan on donating to it. Should I add more to this contribution? Steve.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpkin2011 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Pumpkin. I am really unsure of this one, so I will let someone else review that article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Original contract

Hello, Ktr101. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

In checking my email received from Wickipedia advising my article has been rejected by the reviewer; I note that you are the reviewer; activating the link provided I arrived at this page.

I note also that you are an American; You are very lucky; you do have the proper provision of both Citizenship and the protection of law. My misfortune is that I have none of this. I am a mere "Subject of the British Crown"; that provides me with no protection of LAW, at all.

That, with my article, is what I was attempting to convey to the resders of Wickipedia. Particularly the British, but, nevertheless, all, need to fully understand, all there is to know about the "ORIGINAL CONTRACT".

Were the "ORIGINSAL CONTRACT" to be properly understood and enforced in my country; it would provide all our People with far greater protection of LAW, than the American's have with their 'written constitution' and, their 'Bill of Rights'. It would either force the 'Reigning Monarch' to provide their protection; or, it would end their 'subjugation' to the Crown, omce and for all. It would also reform Parliament, so that we had a true People's DEMOCRACY.

Birdsaflying (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Birdsaflying, I am happy to help you. Sorry for the response which you considered rude, as I had was busy when I was doing it and did not think to respond in more detail. Essentially, the article is very notable, the references are amazing, and you mave most of the context there. What is the issue is that it is written in a way which is not how normal Wikipedia articles are created, although it can be fixed with a lot of time placed into it. I'm going to talk to another editor now to see what we can do, but there is hope for the article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

New article - Stephen Hill

Hi Ktr101 - thanks for getting to this new page for review so quickly. I understand your concern about Wikipedia:Notability of the page's subject. I'm also doing a page on his brother, Peter Hill at the moment and I may have gone to far in playing down their notability in an attempt to maintain a neutral tone. There are three brothers, Stephen, Peter and the youngest Matt Hill (CEO) but there are fewer reliable references for the older two, but I'll have another pass at the page and resubmit. Thanks, Jbro68 (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking back at it, I fluked and declined that article. I have gone back and created it for you. Sorry for the inconvenience. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No worries, understood, I was racking my brains on how to re-write it ;), thanks again Jbro68 (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Crowdsourced translation of the Bible into LOLcat

Thank you for your helpful comments. I have taken your suggestion of incorporating the page into LOLCat Bible Translation Project as a level-2 section, cutting material that would be repetitive there and otherwise adapting it to its location.

Will it be OK for me to delete the draft page and its discussion page, or does that get done by bots or admins?

Sure, just go right ahead and request a speedy deletion. Good job with your article, though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Bodhidharma's birthplace

Hi Ktr101. I saw you moved my draft on Bodhidharma's birtplace to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bodhidharma's birthplace, at the request of Madi Carlo da Silva. This article has already become a subpage of the Bodhidharma page: Bodhidharma/Birthplace sources. It is intended to provide an overview of all the different birthplaces which are mentioned in the discussion on Bodhidharma. Madi Carlo da Silva has first removed three possible options, before requesting review, without any discussion with me - an utterly unpolite move, to my opinion. I would like to have it restored to the original draft in my user-space, since it was meant to be kept as a back up-notebook for the Bodhidharma/Birthplace sources. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ktr101. Regarding the above request by Joshua, please read Talk:Bodhidharma/Birthplace sources as that may help put the circumstances into perspective. Regards, ClaretAsh 12:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Joshua, I actually made that move on my own as subpages aren't allowed on Wikipedia at the mainspace level and I never saw the page move request before I moved it. I would strongly urge that you go ahead and move it back as it will probably be done anyways. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. I was really pissed by the unpolite behaviour of da Silva. I copied the contents back to my userspace. It is a tricky subject anyway, but the edits that da Silva made also show what's the issue here. Let's see if there are more objections to a subpage to the Bodhdiharma-article; if there are I'll keep it in my userspace, not as a draft but as a 'notebook'. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Josh, let me clarify my comments. The article itself is not what is at issue, but the fact that you had a subpage that was titled XXX/XXX. "/"s are not allowed in pages in the way that you used them. I made the move to the new title to remove the forwardslash. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. But what was not correct about it then? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Basically, forward slashes are not used in article titles for the most part, and the article would be better at the title that it was moved to by me (or some other similarly-named title). Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Oaky, thanks. Sorry for eventual itchy undertones. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kevin. Sorry to poke my nose in again but, just to check whether I may have given Joshua faulty advice, when you say "subpages aren't allowed on Wikipedia at the mainspace level", does that also apply to subpages of a mainspace talk page? Also, in the absence of subpages, where is the usual location for collating sources useful for a particular article? Thank you. ClaretAsh 12:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi both of you. This issue is getting really messy: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bodhidharma's birthplace Take notice of my line right under the review-template. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CHRIS SNELL

Hello Ktr101. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CHRIS SNELL, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Johnny Joplin

Hi there...what specifically needs to be addressed on my Johnny Jolin submission? Thanks!Aswgoblue (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

He never won any notable awards and he seems rather trivial at this point. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Helena Espvall

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article.)

• To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the reviewer's talk page. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! JamesDHenderson (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Ktr101--

I'm new at creating articles, so I hope this is the right place to write these comments.

The submitted article for Helena Espvall meets the notability guidelines on music-related topics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MUSIC), specifically points 5 and 6:

5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable).

• Espvall's albums Helena Espvall & Masaki Batoh and Overloaded Ark were both released on Drag City, an independent label with a 21 year history and a roster of numerous notable artists. Espvall also released three albums as part of Espers (band) on Drag City.

6. Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.

• The ensembles which satisfy this criterion are the following: Espers (band), The Valerie Project, and the trio comprising Espvall, Meg Baird, and Sharron Kraus.

14 other articles contain red links to Helena Espvall, which demonstrates that there is already demand for the creation of this article. A WP search for Helena Espvall verifies this.

Peace,

James

To me, Helena looks like she isn't notable, but I am always welcome to be questioned, as I am bound to have made mistakes today. I'll go ahead and create it as the second look that I have given it has given me a new view of it. Thanks for your contributions! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, Kevin. --James — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesDHenderson (talk • contribs) 05:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Some golden kiwifruit for you!

	Happy birthday
	It's brown on the outside, yellow on the inside, and fuzzy. (Also, I really should get a better picture of them; there's no decent ones of golden kiwifruit.) Anyway, birthday, hope you had a good one, etc. sonia♫ 07:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Aww, thanks! Also, why aren't you taking a photo of them? Chop! Chop! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

About new article of creation

Hi Kevin,

Recently you posted this message for an article of creation:

"This suggestion doesn't sufficiently explain the importance or significance of the subject. See the speedy deletion criteria (A7) and/or guidelines on notability. Please provide more information on why the subject is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Thank you."

To this respect, I just want to inform you that 'The Incredible Change Bots' is the best known book done by his author, Jeffrey Brown. In fact, the release of a second edition was done in April 2011. In Wikipedia there is an article of another book from the same author, 'Bighead', but it is not understandable, because the success and importance of 'The Incredible Change Bots' was greater.

Just an example: if you see in 'Amazon' the comments and global valutations for 'The Incredible Change Bots', you will confirm this is the most valued book of this author by the readers, while 'Bighead' has not any comments neither valuations.

Thanks in advance, Regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msagarra (talk • contribs) 10:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The references work now, so I see no problems with submission. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

So, how can I do to include the article definitively in Wikipedia, Kevin ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msagarra (talk • contribs) 09:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

AFC reviews

Check Derek Brin. Please, do take some more minutes next time and either trim down the draft/article or mark some of the statements. Please read WP:BLP: every fact (esp in this case about the parents/his private life) should either be removed or cited. I marked it and I hope that the submitter is doing some work on it. mabdul 13:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I was just going through and giving the article a quick look-over, but I never saw that as I would have probably removed the more problematic material. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Gabriel deGrood Bendt Entry

Thanks for reviewing my entry, Kevin. I modeled the entry after other advertising agencies based in Minneapolis (Fallon Worldwide, Campbell Mithun, Martin Williams and Clarity Coverdale Fury) that are on Wikipedia. Is the determination of their significance based on revenue or how much they are written about in the media? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanJHauser (talk • contribs) 14:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I had no idea we had many marketing agency pages here. I have tended to be grading articles a little more toughly than usual with companies, but I would encourage you to resubmit it in order to have someone else grade it, as I am prone to mistakes when reviewing and welcome feedback. The article does appear a bit promotional though (then again it is an advertising agency), but I would also suggest that you move the references to exist more within the article, an not at the bottom, where they currently are now. Again, sorry about that and I look forward to what your next submission will be like. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/We Should Be Lovers

There is more than one reference? Can't you see it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.110.232 (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but you still need to place the reference text within the article, not at the bottom like it currently is. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It's after the sentence. What do you mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.110.232 (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Follow the lead of the edit which I will do there, and then it will make sense. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

What edit? You're really not making any sense at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.110.232 (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't it meet all requirements right now? I don't have other information apart from most played song of the year and if that isn't notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.110.232 (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It has one more sentence now. Will that do? Didn't know it had to be finished to be published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.110.232 (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought you were editting another article as there was no header for your section and I was responding to the article in the section above this. Yes, it looks better and it is ready to go. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

page not notable?

I am a newbie and confused. I am trying to post a Wiki Article about the College and Association of Nurses in Alberta, and the block seems to be that it isnt' noteworthy enough, and yet here is a very similar organization from Ontario that is live. What am I missing or supposed to do? Please help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Nurses%27_Association Dazzle14 (talk) 03:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe what is being asked is why does this article need to be posted? I would say because the general public should be able to find the organization that is responsible to accrediting 30,000 nurses in the province of alberta. This helps with public safety. Nurses can be looked up by name on line for currency because of the responsibilities of this organization. Dazzle14 (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am always open to suggestions to review it, and looking at again, and realizing that there is one for a neighboring province, I will accept it. We all have different interpretations of what fits on this site, so thanks for bringing this up to me, as I would not have thought of this otherwise. Please add the citations within the text, though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

bigmembrane

Hi Kevin,

I was looking for more guidance about the bigmembrane article. I added some usage stats of desalinated water, provided by bigmembranes. Could you please give more specifics. The 6.5 of water usage in the US seems pretty big, especially in light of municipalities from ATL to LV and Tampa to Sacramento struggling to meet their water needs.

Thanks Dan Pasulka — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danpasulka (talk • contribs) 03:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Dan! Basically, the article is in that gray area of notability. I'll go ahead and create it as it probably won't be deleted, but I would suggest re-writing it as it so that it provides more info about what it does and includes citations within the text. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Part of the article is missing after submitting

Hello, Ktr101. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Incredible Change-Bots article

Hi Kevin, if you agree with my new references for the article mentioned in headline, how can I do to include the article definitively in Wikipedia???

Thanks!

Msagarra (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The article just doesn't feel notable, although someone else might have another opinion of the article, and I would encourage you to re-submit it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ktr101. You have new messages at Nikhilchandra81's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nomination of Lethal Lady for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lethal Lady is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lethal Lady until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

US SIF Wiki Page

Hi, hope you're doing well. Thanks for reviewing the new wiki submission.

This organization's page links in with the Socially Responsible Investing wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socially_responsible_investing), because their biannual report is used by Wikipedia as a source and other organizations as a resource for trends in SRI. I'm afraid I'm a little new at posting/editing content on Wikipedia, so I wanted to ask a question.

If we were to find some additional third-party sources to corroborate the information posted in the article, do you think the article would be accepted?

Conversely, because it's a reliable source for Socially Responsible Investing data, do you think the article could be accepted anyways considering the high profile of the organization.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CallCbd (talk • contribs) 13:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That would probably be good so it could establish outside views of notability. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on the outside sources, however, I would like to ask that the article be reconsidered for submission. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CallCbd (talk • contribs) 16:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Article for Submission - Gendis Inc.

Hi there: I have been working on my article for submission "Gendis Inc." The last review I got suggested that my article doesn't sufficiently explain the significance of the subject (i.e. Gendis Inc.). With that in mind, I have edited the article and re-submitted it, but I remain somewhat confused as to why the company, Gendis Inc., doesn't warrant it's own Wikipedia page. If you search for "Gendis Inc." in the search engine of Wikipedia, you will note that the name comes up 6 times in already published articles, namely under (1) Albert D. Cohen (2) SAAN Stores (3) Alastair Sweeny (4) Companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (5) List of people from Winnipeg (6) Sony Canada. I feel that these "mentions" warrant Wikipedia having an article on Gendis Inc. - what the company does, it's background, etc. For instance, Gendis Inc. created Sony Canada - I think that's of importance as was their creation of SAAN Stores. In any event, could you please re-visit my "Revision" (Dec. 21st, 2011) and advise? Thanks. Winkerton (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Kathi (aka "Winkerton")

The article needs more independent citations, a removal of the Wikipedia pages as citations, internal links, and an intro. Otherwise, the article is good. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Article for Submission - CHAMPS2

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for looking at the CHAMPS2 article earlier this week. I've since re-read the guidelines on notability and if you have time I would really appreciate clarification on which part of these the current references are failing to meet so that this can (hopefully) get sorted. I've compared the references on the draft CHAMPS2 article with those given for OBASHI but didn't find this as enlightening as I'd hoped! Any advice will be really appreciated. With thanks --Elfthryth (talk) 12:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I feel as though it has too small of a scope of notability due to the references that are being provided. The article still reads like an advertisement though, so that's another issue. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect Title

The correct title for my recently published article is "Neutral Buoyancy...", not "Eutral Buoyancy..."

Please correct the title.

Thanks for publishing my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DM18HD (talk • contribs) 19:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for catching that mistake! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Eutral Buoyancy Simulation as a training aid

A tag has been placed on Eutral Buoyancy Simulation as a training aid requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ktr101. You have new messages at OlYeller21's talk page.
Message added 03:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OlYeller21^Talktome 03:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Happy new year!
	We wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year! Pass a Method talk 20:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and the same to you as well! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

File:6th Space Warning Squadron emblem.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:6th Space Warning Squadron emblem.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 22:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Main Building at Naval Group Support Activity, Winter Harbor.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Main Building at Naval Group Support Activity, Winter Harbor.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 22:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Your review on Holiday Inn Glenmarie Kuala Lumpur

Hi Kevin,

I really hope you can explain some things to me. First of all, why is this hotel/resort considered not notable? I mean, it has been covered by the newspapers and stuff here. And this article has been tagged with blatant advertisement. T_T Then why are articles like Sheraton Imperial Kuala Lumpur, JW Marriott Kuala Lumpur, Shangri-La Kuala Lumpur, etc. are not? @_@ I'm confused. Please help! Thank you.

Black91rose (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, all of the articles in Category:Hotels in Kuala Lumpur are not notable and probably should be deleted. If anything this article is what you should strive for, and remove all of the promotional stuff. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Macnification Revised

I would like to know what parts of my submission require editing, what needs to be changed? Thanks