User talk:GordiasAchos

C-SPAN

Hi there, Nimuaq! I apologize for only just noticing today that you had added a link from my list of C-SPAN Exernal links, back in mid-March. Thank you, very much! Please accept this barnstar-inspired award as an expression of gratitude. Plus, if you do 9 more (and if you live in the U.S.) I can arrange for C-SPAN to send you a logo-embroidered C-SPAN baseball cap. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

		C-SPAN award
		For assistance in adding missing C-SPAN related links to relevant External links sections.

Francine Van Hove

Hi, Thank you for your time reviewing my article. Can you please help me understand why it has been declined? After it had been declined the first time, I have added ISBN and ISSN numbers to the sources (published books and published articles I had found). Francine Van Hove is a well known French painter and she is represented in North America by a Canadian Gallerist (De Bellefeuille Gallery as stated in the Article) and by Alain Blondel Gallery in France. The article I proposed for WIkipedia US is an English translation of the French page + ISBN and ISSN references that have been asked. How can my sources be more reliable? You can check the ISBN at least in the browser listed by wikipedia for french books NiceBooks.com book search engine and price comparison service.

Thanks in advance for your time and your help.

pascaledesign : 021013 : 11:06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascaledesign (talk • contribs) 19:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello! The sources are usually listed under the section References and I assumed the Bibliography section lists the works by the subject and not about her (as that section usually include literary works written or edited by the author). After I saw the References section empty, I -again- assumed there were no sources about her, thus I declined the submission for inadequate verification. I can see now that section actually lists the sources (general references without inline citations, but since I can't see any contentious material about her, inline citations are not a must). I'm not sure about the French wikipedia article since it seems there were conflict of interest (see: [1]. In any case, I apologize for my lack of attention, I will revert my edits and review the article -but first I will move the sources under the section References. Nimuaq (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Ponta II

I know my article doesn't have much information but I have seen created articles with about as much if not less. I have almost no idea what I am doing but I know for certain that that article needs to be created. There is a Ponta I article that is out of date and basically incorrect because of it. If you allow the article to be created then won't it attract people to edit it? Plus, isn't an incomplete but accurate article better than one that is outdated and incorrect but complete? What if we had no article on a new cabinet for the David Cameron and someone created a skeleton page for that? Wouldn't it get accepted? I think just because the country is Romania instead of the Britain doesn't mean that their government should get ignored by Wikipedia. I am just trying to get people to do what I can't do myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fshoutofdawater (talk • contribs) 09:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Fshoutofdawater! I declined the submission based on its content and nothing else. According to the general notability guideline, articles need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject -regardless of what they are about. Note that if you're a registered user, you can crate the article yourself without AFC. I can check if there are reliable sources with significant coverage about this subject, would you like me to do that? Nimuaq (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah go ahead. I don't know if you know anything about politics but seriously there must be "reliable sources", I just don't know how many are in English. But Romania is not some third world country, they are a developed country and a member of the EU. There must be sources regarding their current government. Like I said, I don't really know what I am doing and I really don't care who does it or gets credit for it. I just think it is ridiculous that the government of a sizable sovereign state in Europe has no English language page.(Fshoutofdawater (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC))

We need reliable, third-party, published sources, but these sources can be in any language, not just English (especially if English sources of equal quality and relevance are not available). You can read more about it at Wikipedia:NOENG. Nimuaq (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Element Pictures

Hi Nimuaq

How do I appeal this decision?

ant_ie (talk) 11:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello ant_ie! If you think the article should have been accepted in its current form, you can re-submit the article for another editor to review or, as you're a registered user, you can just create the article without using Articles for Creation. I declined the submission since the golden rule states: "Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." and while there are three sources in the article, the first one is an imdb entry, the third is not an independent source, thus the second source ([2]) is the only reliable and independent source with significant coverage. However, a single source is never enough to establish notability (see: Wikipedia:CORPDEPTH), but I'm sure it will be accepted if you can find more sources like the second source. Nimuaq (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the update ant_ie (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Articles for creation Needs You!

Hello GordiasAchos:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 900 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! ~~~~

Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of Wikiproject Articles for Creation at 13:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

And to you...

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for your tireless work at AfC, and your intelligent approach to recognizing valuable topics which may have been obscured by new editors' unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's style and labrynthine ways. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: dialogically organized instruction

I originally wrote my piece as a revision of "dialogic learning," which is near total bullshit, as reflected in the ratings of readers. I understand my serious emendations of that entry is verboten, so I submitted my own contribution as a new submission. But I'm not willing to put anymore time into this.

Martin Nystrand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.198.118.207 (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Your first revision ([3]) was reverted by a bot for possible vandalism, (it might become suspicious when an IP address changes/removes nearly half of the article content at once). Your second revision was reverted for reading like original research. I declined the submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dialogically Organized Instruction for it was written like an essay. You might think that your input was not appreciated, but it is the other way around, it is written like a published source which another editor could use to improve the article further. You can write to the article's (Dialogic learning) talk page (Talk:Dialogic learning) for the proposed changes if you don't want to re-write the content with an encyclopedic tone. Nimuaq (talk) 07:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kirsten L. Abrahamson

I have made a number of edits to this article taking into consideration the comments you made. The notability of an individual has to be taken in context. The subjects resume is posted by the University of Waterloo and a summary by Fleming College. A visual artists notability is established by the fact that their work is exposed to the public. Public gallery acquisitions denote the fact that the artist's work is notable. The Bancroft-Snell gallery used the subject's work in an two page colour advertisement for their gallery in the Ceramics Monthly. A commercial gallery does not randomly use some artists work for this purpose, they use notable work. The National Biennial of Ceramics during its years of operation was the showcase for ceramic artists in Canada. The final show was a juried show by invitation. The Alberta/British Columbia region had 8 representative artists. Ms. Abrahamson was awarded one of the prizes. It was the Prix du Public, the award granted by the choice of the viewing public. Not only was her work appreciated by her artist colleagues but by the gallery attending public. She had another prize at a juried show at the Gardiner Museum. This is the foremost ceramics museum in Canada and is highly rated as an institution devoted to ceramic art. Ms. Abrahamson has a thirty year history of gallery exhibitions both commercial and public. Prominent authors have chosen her work for inclusion in books that are widely recognized as authoritative in the field. As I understand it Peacocking is making unfounded claims of notoriety. When numerous galleries are prepared to show ones work, when the experts choose one's work to exemplify how things should be done it must be a measure of the notability of the subject, it is not a mere matter of reflected glory. I would appreciate your reviewing the revised submission. Kanuk (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Kanuk! The basic criteria states that "a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." and I do believe that the article meets this criteria. My main concern was reading sentences like "She is currently represented by Jonathon Bancroft-Snell Gallery, a commercial ceramic art gallery in London, Ontario." which are cited with sources like [4] - that is neither a reliable source nor has anything to do to prove the claim that she is represented by this gallery. By peacock terms, I meant words like "also used for illustrative purposes in two influential books".

You might want the article to be reviewed by another reviewer, and if you think my long comment will have a negative impact on others' decisions, I can remove it from the submission. Furthermore, as you're already a registered user, you can move the article to the article space yourself if you think it is already a well-written article satisfying the inclusion criteria. In any case, if you like me to help you fix the issues I've mentioned before, and/or improve the article, I can do that as well. Nimuaq (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Despite being a registered user, one must always be wary of one's own opinion. I would rather work on this article. I appreciate your offer to remove the comments but for now we should just leave them. I had put in the links to the book reviews because they are indicative of the fact that they are standard texts, the one is in its second edition. Unless a reader is familiar with the ceramics community how could the reader judge whether an artist being notable. It is a bit of a chicken and egg thing. If you feel that the use of 'influential books' is overstatement then I would take that advice.Perhaps readers can look at the citations and make their own judgments. With regard to the trip advisor, it is not the best source but the article has been contributed to, according the notes on the site, by two independent individuals. The booklet cited is 7 pages, about 4 pages are text the other three are photos of the work. The ESPACE article is two pages. I have only put in the essence of those commentaries. Would it be better if I digested more of their comments? Other items in the bibliography I do not personally have nor are they available on the web. I will consider carefully any suggestions you might have. There is not rush.

Thanks Kanuk (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I have made some revisions to the article, I will be holding off any further revisions until I have your comments. Thanks Kanuk (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I think it has a good number of reliable sources and has no notability issues, but it needs some cleanup which can be done in the article space. Nimuaq (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Response to the review notes

This is my own material that I have previously published on the other site. I just wanted to clarify that.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormynights10 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Dialogic learning

(discussion is moved to User talk:Mnystrand#Dialogic learning)

Tears of Jesus

Hi,Thank you for your time reviewing my article. Could you chek it again please, I have add source. Antu2 (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Antu2! You can re-submit the article for review using this link for another editor to review the submission. However, I don't think the notability of the book is established by that single source, since it is the book's publisher's website. "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its author, publisher, vendor or agent) have actually considered the book notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." You can read more about notability at Wikipedia:Notability (books). Nimuaq (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sandhani

Hi,

Thank you for your time reviewing my article. Can you please help me understand why it has been declined? After it had been declined the first time, I have added several references from Website and facebook source. I see lot of article where not any reliable source. --Anowar 12:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anowarul Islam (talk • contribs)

Hello Anowar! As a general rule, articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are also independent of the subject. The last part is important since "[T]he barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it". Facebook and the organization's own website are not independent sources. I can also see that you are a member of the organization, you still need to write a neutral article, and words like "famous" or "pioneer " needs to be supported by reliable secondary sources. You can read more about this at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.Nimuaq (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

hi,Nimuaq,

thnx al lot for ur kind explanation. have you any suggestion that how can i prepare this article for accepting in wiki??? thnx again.--Anowar 15:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello again! If it is a non-profit organization, then it should meet the criteria at WP:NONPROFIT in order to have a stand-alone article. If there is no multiple, third-party, independent and reliable sources about the organization, then it shouldn't have its own article. In that case, you can add the information to a relevant article: Cox's Bazar Medical College, under a new section, eg. "Sandhani". By the way, Cox's Bazar Medical College currently does not cite any references or sources, you can help improve it as well during the process. Feel free to ask any questions you might have here. Nimuaq (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Emeraz

Hi Nimuaq,

Thanks for reviewing the article for creation - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Emeraz. I was wondering if you could go into a little bit more detail about which of references were not up to Wikipedia's standards. As you can see it was also declined once before and I have changed a lot of the article since then, does it read like an encyclopedia entry now? Thanks, Steve. S.champion1989 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.71.98.67 (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello! As Wikipedia:WEBCRIT states "[T]he barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site worthy enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." Furthermore, "trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content" is not enough to establish notability. If we check the sources of the article, [5] and [6] are self-published sources, [7] is a brief summary of the nature of the content and [8] is not an independent source, which leaves us with [9] and [10]. I don't think the last two sources alone is enough to support the subject's notability and the article needs more sources like them. Nimuaq (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

FIRST ROBOTICS?

So Nimuaq,

why did you shoot down my article without even the slightest hint of a suggestion of why? Thomasfromriverside (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Thomasfromriverside! The reason for decline can already be found at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Innovation First International. Specifically, articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are also independent of the subject. The only reference of the article was the company's own website, which is not enough to establish notability. You can read more about this at WP:CORPDEPTH. Nimuaq (talk) 06:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

So why did you not add a source instead of "flunking" my article. FIRST is huge and notable. It is infiltrating school systems all over the USA. Why do you discourage writers?

(google news search on "FIRST"

Region 7 Gearheads will put robot to the test at FIRST Robotics ... Torrington Register Citizen-6 hours ago The Gearheads, who participated in the competition for the first time last year, have completed an intense build in preparation for the robotics ... CWU Hosts FIRST Robotics Regional Championship March 21-23 Central Washington University-Mar 19, 2013 FIRST Robotics Competitions, designed for students ages 6-18, combine the excitement of sport with the rigors of science and technology. Notre Dame, international Academy among top teams in FIRST ... Oakland Press-1 hour ago ... Dame Preparatory Academy and International Academy in Bloomfield Hills were in the winning alliances in recent Michigan FIRST Robotics ... Palmyra Area High School Krypton Cougars robotics team logs first ... Penn Live-Mar 19, 2013 Palmyra Area High School's Krypton Cougars robotics team had a first place finish in a regional robotics competition last weekend outside ... FIRST Robotics Team Sponsored by Clarkson University Advances ... Clarkson University News (press release)-Mar 7, 2013 Team 4124 (above), one of the two FIRST Robotics teams sponsored by Clarkson None of it compares to the intensity of a FIRST Robotics ... Crash Forces Robotic Rebuild for Competition NASA-Mar 13, 2013 Image above: Robots built by high school students compete against each other in the Orlando Regional portion of the annual FIRST Robotics ... High schoolers build frisbee golf playing robots and compete in First ... OregonLive.com-Mar 9, 2013 The student-built 6-foot robots and competed playing Frisbee golf in an arena the size of a basketball court during the First Robotics regional ... Evening Sun (subscription) Local schools compete at FIRST robotics challenge Foster's Daily Democrat-Mar 12, 2013 MANCHESTER – Attended by thousands of fans, families, educators, and industry leaders, the FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of ... Robotics team makes history with win ThisWeekNews-4 hours ago Members of Grandview Heights High School's FIRST robotics team show off the banners they won during last week's regional competition in ...

Thomasfromriverside (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello again! I do fix problems found in submissions through editing, but establishing the notability of the subject is not a minor problem that can be easily fixed by the reviewer. If you want other editors to write the article, please consider submitting it to Wikipedia:Requested articles instead. I also did not decline your article indefinitely, you can improve the article with the sources you have found above (as long as they meet the criteria at WP:CORPDEPTH) and re-submit it anytime, as it is written under the decline reason:

"You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page. When you are ready to resubmit, click here."

Discouraging editors is a serious charge, if you think your article is not reviewed fairly, please report me to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Feel free to ask any questions you might have. Nimuaq (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm not about to report anyone. I just thought I could create a stub that someone else might edit. I supposed I just don't know enough about boldly editing Wiki. Perhaps some day I'll make the time needed to be a proper Wiki author. Until then. Best of luck Thomasfromriverside (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

ASBIS

Dear Nimuaq, Thank you for your reviewing of the created article about ASBISC Enterprises PLC. As far as I understood it was declined because of lack of references to reliable independent sources. Today-tomorrow these references will be added to the article in the relevant section. If there are any other reasons for declining, please, let me know. Thank you in advance for explanation and your competent support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASBIS.cmg (talk • contribs) 08:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Asbis! The main issue was the lack of independent sources, you can check here to see the kind of sources the article needs: WP:CORPDEPTH. Since your username is the same as the company name, I think you might want to read WP:COI too. Nimuaq (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Nimuaq! We improved the article according to all your recommendations on the 19th of March and were waiting for reviewing. The status was "review waiting" but today it disappeared and I see just "Submission declined on 6 March 2013 by Nimuaq". Could you please, comment what it can mean and what we should do now to have this article approved? Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASBIS.cmg (talk • contribs) 08:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello! It seems the "review waiting" template was left there after the decline. You can re-submit the article by clicking on the link inside that decline message, specifically the part: "When you are ready to resubmit, click here." If you cannot find the link, follow this link and press the Save Page button bottom of the page to re-submit the article. Nimuaq (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Nimuag, thank you for your support. But please look through what I see at 'Articles for creation/ASBIS: Revision history'. Does it mean that Charon123able and ArticlesForCreationBot mistakenly removed 'review waiting' template? What should I do regarding to this situation?(cur | prev) 01:53, 12 April 2013‎ Charon123able (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,557 bytes) (-55)‎ . . (Submission declined on 6 March 2013 by Nimuaq , remove pending tag) (undo) and (cur | prev) 17:25, 7 April 2013‎ ArticlesForCreationBot (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,612 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Cleaning up the submission of afc (general cleanup) (bot)) (undo) and (cur | prev) 12:49, 19 March 2013‎ ASBIS.cmg (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,612 bytes) (+438)‎ . . (undo). ASBIS.cmg (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Femme Fatale album

would you mind creating a redirect from Femme Fatale album to Femme fatale (disambiguation)] then? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Femme Fatale (album) has a redirect to Femme fatale (disambiguation)#Music. Nimuaq (talk) 05:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The implication of "Femme Fatale (album)" is that the album is called "Femme Fatale", while "Femme Fatale album" is that it is an album released by "Femme Fatale" or an album named "Femme Fatale", so is a broader term. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Creatrix Innovation Assessment Submission

Hello and thank you for reviewing my submission for the Creatrix Innovation Assessment. Please note that I reviewed the Myers-Briggs (MBTI) Submission before writing mine. Perhaps I am missing something but I do not see differences in tone or presentation between the two. Could you clarify a bit more about the advertising piece. This is in fact original research that was developed and I'm citing the authors because of this. Please advise. thank you. Dr. Janet Polach (talk • contribs) 21:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Original research refers to something different in Wikipedia: it means "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources". Thus, if you are citing the authors, then it is not original research, I think you meant genuine research done by the authors.

As far as I understand, Creatrix Innovation Assessment is both patented and trademarked, thus when the article has a section titled "Creatrix Enhances Leadership’s Ability to Think Differently" and it includes sentences "One of the most powerful areas of impact is the ability of Creatrix to create an understanding of how innovative a team actually is.", "It’s the PEOPLE who transform a company to be more innovative! What impact Creatrix has had on the culture of organizations? Awareness of the importance of innovation across the organization has grown significantly...", it both reads like an essay and its tone becomes promotional, as if it is an ad rather than an encyclopedic entry. You can read more about it at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Another problem is the lack of inline citations. Inline citations are necessary when you are using direct quotations and also for statements that are likely to be challenged. Furthermore, a good number of sections are directly copied from http://www.creatrix.com/background.html. Please read Wikipedia:Copy-paste.

And lastly, I can't find anything about Creatrix inside some the sources. Risk Taking: A Managerial Perspective is added to the general references but the book doesn't have anything about creatrix: http://books.google.com/books?hl=tr&id=HuIaCKWhyd4C&q=creatrix#v=snippet&q=creatrix&f=false I hope they are not "[s]ources that do not reference the main point of the subject, but rather trivial details that may not even belong."

Feel free to ask any questions you might have here. Nimuaq (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

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

—Anne Delong (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Happy Easter!!!

Happy Easter!

So a print encyclopedia, a strawberry shortcake, and a sycamore walk into a bar - wait, have you heard this one? (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

What now?

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

—Anne Delong (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dwayne Buckle

Hi Nimuaq,

I would like to know why the Dwayne Buckle Wikipedia Page

submission was denied for not being notable when

Dwayne Buckle's name is mentioned 20 times on the

Greenwich Village Assault Case Wikipedia page?

Dwayne Buckle Wikipedia Page submission: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dwayne_Buckle

Greenwich Village Assault Case Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Greenwich_Village_assault_case

--Cybornetics (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Cybornetics! I declined the submission since its "references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability" and suggested to "improve the submission's referencing, so that (..) there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.". Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are also independent of the subject. Imdb entries and Wikipedia articles should not be cited as reliable sources. The website of the movie the subject directed, or the website of the movie's producer are not independent sources. Significant coverage means more than a mention is passing, and not just routine directory listings. Furthermore, if he's only notable for the 2006 Greenwich Village assault case, then it should be checked whether WP:SINGLEEVENT applies or not. Please feel free to ask any further questions you might have here. Nimuaq (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)