Jump to content

User talk:Wiae

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 88.212.206.110 (talk) at 03:05, 10 December 2015 (→‎Barnstar for yuo: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

09:15:44, 3 December 2015 review of submission by Sjscott80


Hello! Thanks for taking the time to do a review. I added a several new, major external source (see CB insights, StackOverflow, and more) and replaced some Logz.io citations with external ones. Also, as I mentioned when SwisterTwister originally reviewed the article (and then said it was fine), the wikipage of a company in the same industry, Loggly, has the same level of external sources (and possibly fewer). So, I'm not sure why Logz.io was declined. Can I request a review and comparison with Loggly? Thanks so much for taking the time! :)

@Sjscott80: Hi, thanks for dropping by. The CB Insights and Stackoverflow references are not great sources because they don't offer substantive discussion about the company. The corporate notability criteria require that references offer significant, in-depth coverage. While this can be hard to measure exactly, "significant" certainly means "more than trivial". The CB Insights "periodic table" only mentions Logz.io by name once, but it doesn't actually say anything about the company. Similarly, the "12 startups to watch" reference only says that Logz.io offers "cloud based server management software". That isn't enough coverage to be substantive. Finally, the stackoverflow link doesn't really say anything about Logz.io. It's just a quote from one of the company's recruiters.
I'd suggest getting rid of the primary sources and those that don't offer significant coverage entirely. They don't really help assert corporate notability. What the draft really needs is a few high-quality references: ones that offer in-depth coverage from a simultaneously reliable and independent source of information.
It can be risky to write a draft by comparison to an existing article, and it's much better to simply write your draft so that it aligns with policy. The reason is that Wikipedia is basically run by volunteers, and sometimes articles that don't meet Wikipedia's standards and policies sometimes slip through the cracks. Having said that, I think the referencing in Loggly is better than the referencing in the Logz.io draft, since Loggly has seen significant coverage in reliable sources like TechCrunch, Network World and Forbes.
Keep looking for reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss the subject in significant detail, in accordance with the corporate notability policy. Thanks, /wia /tlk 14:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:09:54, 3 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Phumelele123


I recently submitted an article (The Buffelsdraai Landfill Site Community Reforestation Project) for review to Articles for creation. The article was declined because it included copyrighted material. I am the author of that copyrighted material of which you declined based on. I need to submit this material as Durban is a finalist for the C40 awards at upcoming COP21 in Paris – and Buffelsdraai Landfill site is the case study. As such, I need to ensure that the article is uploaded soon. Going forward, seeing that I am the author of the booklet that the article was copied from, how do I upload the article without being penalized for copying from my own work?

Phumelele123 (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Phumelele123: The draft in question is User:Phumelele123/sandbox/The Buffelsdraai Landfill Site Community Reforestation Project. Only a small portion of material was removed due to copyright issues. A large amount of the draft remains intact.
If you are the author of the booklet from which material was drawn, you may donate the copyrighted material to Wikipedia for use by following the blue link in this sentence. However, this process usually takes a bit of time and most likely will not be completed before the conclusion of COP21. Please note that we are a team of volunteers and, although we enjoy reviewing Articles for Creation submissions, we don't work according to any fixed deadline. You're welcome to resubmit the draft (just add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft) and another reviewer will assess the draft on its merits, but we cannot guarantee that will happen before COP21 finishes.
Before you do so, however, I think the draft needs more inline citations in order to avoid the appearance of original research. For example, "This project is also effectively building “ecological infrastructure” that will help reduce vulnerability and build resilience of the local watershed" either needs a citation that substantiates the project's effectiveness, or that sentence should be reworded to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Other words to watch include promotional adjectives like "exceptional", "pioneering", and "innovative", to list a few examples from the draft. Thanks, /wia /tlk 13:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:05:23, 3 December 2015 review of submission by Cflaws000


Thank you for your comments. Can you please look at this wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Start,_Inc.) and help me figure out what sources they used to get approved? This is another ignition interlock company similar to Intoxalock and I've been using their page as a model. Thank you!

@Cflaws000: Hi, thanks for dropping by! The issue with your draft is that none of the sources simultaneously offered in-depth coverage from a reliable source that was independent of the subject. The first thing you should take a look at is WP:CORP, which explains what it takes for a company to be "notable" on Wikipedia.
It can be risky, as you might have ascertained, to use an existing article as a model for a new draft. If you look closely at Smart Start, Inc., you'll find that it runs into the same problem as your draft: the vast majority of the sources are from the company itself, and what remains just isn't enough to really show corporate notability. Wikipedia is made up of volunteers, and sometimes articles can slip through the cracks. That's why it's always a better idea to use Wikipedia policies like WP:CORP when writing a draft. Thanks for bringing the Smart Start article to my attention; I'll tag it for improvement accordingly. Thanks, and happy editing! /wia /tlk 14:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Colbert Robotics Team

Hi. Quick question, went to review the above draft, and saw that you had CSD'd it. Would it have been appropriate it to decline it as an attack page, blanking it? Onel5969 TT me 22:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: Hi, I think you may be right—some of the claims there are rather disparaging of the subject. I'll blank the page now; thanks for alerting me. I'll re-review the distinction between WP:G10 and WP:G3. /wia /tlk 22:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Didn't want to step on your toes. By the way, always see your name, and I think this is the first time we've ever actually *spoken*. You do nice work. Onel5969 TT me 22:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969: No problem! It's nice to formally meet you. Thanks for all your work at AfC! /wia /tlk 22:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emoji at AFCRD

I'd declined as you did at Diff of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects. But the thing is that the suggested redirect is empty when viewed from an iPad (and I therefore assume from an Mac as well) but shows a black droplet (U+1F322) in Chrome on a PC. Sam Sailor Talk! 23:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Sailor: Hm, interesting. I'm on a Mac running the latest OS (which has emoji support) and I don't see anything—neither in Safari nor Chrome. 💧and 💦 are the drop emoji that I can see on a Mac, but not U+1F322. I know emoji can be allowed as redirects, but I imagine they'd have to be viewable by all in order to be allowed, right? Not sure what to do with this one. /wia /tlk 23:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds right to me, i.e. that the redirect should be a plausible for us to create it. I'm certainly no expert when it comes to emojis, but given the very limited no. of search results on black droplet (U+1F322) I think the requester was merely passing time. FYI I see "💧and 💦" just fine in Chrome on a PC running Windows 10. Sam Sailor Talk! 23:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

01:59:46, 4 December 2015 review of submission by Mdelapa


Hello reviewer, I added references that are available online. Note that Jon is referenced by Todd Rodgers and others on their pages. I just found references to his tournament wins here - http://www.bvbinfo.com/player.asp?ID=364

Also, if it isn't apparent, this is the first Wikipedia page I've published, so your feedback/direction is much appreciated!

@Mdelapa: Hi, the Noozhawk and Volleyball magazine sources are a good start. Noozhawk looks like a local source, and while sources with a more regional or national focus are preferable, this is not a bad place to begin. You'll also want to take a look at WP:REFB to learn how to add convenient footnote-style references into the draft. Keep looking for more high-quality sources too—this may be helpful: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL /wia /tlk 02:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdelapa: When you're happy with your referencing, feel free to resubmit the draft and another reviewer will come along to give you their thoughts on the draft. /wia /tlk 02:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, added a link to the Sands of Time Beach Volleyball Database to corroborate Jon's beach titles - http://www.bvbinfo.com/player.asp?ID=364
The other information on Jon is either in the other references or from personal correspondence with him. Does that work?
Also, how do I resubmit?
@Mdelapa: I'm not an expert on the sports notability criteria so I'm not sure whether Lee is notable just from this description. My advice is always if in doubt, look for more reliable sources with significant coverage. However, another reviewer will come along after you resubmit, and they will likely have a better understanding of the athlete notability policy and will be able to guide your further. If you're ready to resubmit, just edit the draft and add {{subst:submit}} to the top. Thanks! /wia /tlk 02:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is being discussed at the Teahouse. Let's have a centralized discussion there. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up! /wia /tlk 04:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Village pump

You could've put the content in the right place instead of just reverting me. I'm editing from my phone and I can't copy-paste that large amount of content, and I'm not going to rewrite the whole thing. Could you please move it for me? Thanks. Ponyeo Gazabell (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime

It appears that your speedy deletion nomination was lost because you were tagging it for speedy and I was declining it at the same time. I wasn't sure whether to tag it for speedy but have now also done so, so it is declined and tagged for speedy. I also reported the corporate user name. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Thanks; our paths have been crossing often lately! Apologies for the automated message on your talk page. /wia /tlk 04:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:40:58, 4 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Cassology


PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEE I NEED EXTRA CREDIT FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL CLASS THAT I WILL FAIL WITHOUT THIS IF YOU CAN PLEASE JUST LEAVE IT UP FOR A DAY FOR HIM TO SEE PLEASE I WILL FAIL WITHOUT PUBLICATION PLEASE PLEASE I CAN'T FAIL THIS CLASS

Cassology (talk) 07:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:26:21, 4 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Phumelele123


Thanks for the quick rsponse, I will keep working on the draft.

Phumelele123 (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! Let me know if you have further questions, or feel free to swing by the Articles for Creation Help Desk or the Teahouse too. Thanks, /wia /tlk 15:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madari Mehtar

Hey there, I saw your recent 'good faith' reversion on this user's contribution. Actually, he or she is kind of promoting a certain BLP. Did you notice that the username and the BLP article title that the user was trying to create is the same? Vincent60030 (talk) 11:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vincent60030! I'd noticed that, but as it was a post accidentally made in the wrong location (or so I think; more on that in a second), I assumed good faith on the user's part. Writing autobiographies is strongly discouraged, but if someone does want to do it, WP:AFC is the place to do so.
That raises an interesting interpretive issue, actually. At WP:YOURSELF, the text reads:
Re-reading this, I'm not sure what a "proposal" is: a draft, or a request on the AfC talk page? If a "proposal" means a request on the talk page, then the user probably actually put the content in the right place, which means my revert would have been unnecessary. I will seek clarification at Wikipedia talk:Autobiography. You're welcome to join in! Thanks, /wia /tlk 15:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Autobiography#Interpretive question re. "proposal". Thanks, /wia /tlk 15:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:18:14, 4 December 2015 review of submission by Pracbrown


Thank you for looking at my draft 'Instant Hedges' In your comments, you mention that my article appears to be taken from http://www.hedgelink.org.uk However, a couple of paragraphs have disappeared: Reasons for using a hedge as a garden boundary and The importance of hedgerows - it was this paragraph (and only this one) that I used Hedgelink as a source of information. I was wondering whether, as my subject's notability has been questioned, whether it should be a section of the existing hedges (hedgerow) wiki listing. Thank you for your advice.

@Pracbrown: Hi, the copyrighted content at issue has already been removed from the draft already, so you don't have to remove it yourself! As for the notability issue, there are some sources with decent coverage of instant hedges (like this Telegraph article, for example). However, most of the book sources only mention instant hedges in passing, and so they don't really offer significant coverage of the subject. I think that some of this content might be able to be added to Hedge#Hedge types; as for whether it is notable enough to stand on its own, I am not totally sure. This would be a good question to raise at the Teahouse or the Articles for Creation Help Desk. Thanks, /wia /tlk 15:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Pracbrown (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Pracbrown[reply]

Cassology global warming submissions

I am not going to bother with revdel'ing only the infringing content, but will simply delete these pages. I don't think the wiki is served by keeping a lot of essays in draft space that are unlikely to ever become articles, and that are of questionable copyright status. Happy editing, —Kusma (t·c) 15:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: Okay, that will be a big time-saver on everyone's part, I imagine. Thank you! /wia /tlk 15:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prima Industrie page

Hello Wikiisawesome, nice to knoow you and thanks for your welcome!

As you know I'm new on Wikipedia, that's why I made some mistakes.. and I neeed your advice.

I modified the page in order to follow your instructions, certainly the sources have to be improved (and organized) more and more, but are we getting any nearer to a solution?

Thanks in advance for your cooperation, little by little we'll solve all the problems.

Best regards

Paolo Bernox (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC) Bernox[reply]

@Bernox: Hello, thanks for dropping by. Welcome to Wikipedia. I've left you a new message on your talk page with some helpful links about editing Wikipedia in general.
The issue I had flagged with Draft:Prima Industrie was a copyright one; that copyrighted content has since been removed. As for referencing, I see a lot of sources, but some of them are from the company itself, meaning they are not independent sources. Others like Bloomberg are just business directories that list a stock one-paragraph description of the company. These are generally not the kinds of references that show notability. I'd suggest removing any references with only trivial coverage (basically, if they only mention Prima once and don't say very much about the company) or that only show its stock price, for example. I've looked through about a third of the references and there are quite a few that can safely be removed, I think.
If in doubt, follow the golden rule: look for reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss the subject in significant detail. Thanks! /wia /tlk 16:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Presskr question

Chrish1984 (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Hi I appreciate your consideration on my very first wiki article according to you i already removed the copyright materials as you can check it, what else i need to do in order to maintain the wiki guidelines and policy.[reply]

@Chrish1984: Hi, thanks for dropping by! In general you need a variety of reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss the subject in significant detail in order to show corporate notability. The problem with the references is that they come from sources related to Presskr (whether the company's website or a press release, neither of which is an independent source of information), they do not offer significant, in-depth coverage of the company (sites like Alexa or company directors that offer only a quick one- or two-sentence blurb don't offer significant enough coverage, for example), or they are not reliable sources. Once primary sources, unreliable sources, and sources without significant coverage are discounted, there are no good sources left.
That's your mission! Consult WP:CORP if you have further questions, or swing by the [{WP:TEAHOUSE|Teahouse]] or the Articles for Creation help desk. Thanks! /wia /tlk 16:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Chrish1984 (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)Thank you Sir for your kind reply but i just wanna inform you that I created article by following some other article as well even this is mine very first article on wiki, my article are bit more good than other wiki article as you can see the similar pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLX these is bunch of promotional like advertisement on their article but still that is approved by other editor.[reply]
@Chrish1984: There is a danger inherent in using an existing article as a guide for your draft, and it is better to simply follow existing Wikipedia policies. The reason is that, as you can see on the OLX page, that article is written like an advertisement and does not have many good sources. If OLX is not improved, it may at some point be subject to deletion.
As for your draft, the best course of action is to find a variety of high-quality reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss the subject in significant detail. Thanks, /wia /tlk 17:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Normalizing topic by Mohitrsj

I added some reference after your comment. But it has been rejected again by other user. Mohitrsj (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohitrsy: Hi, thanks for stopping by. I think the fact that it has been rejected by two users is a good indication that the material might be better suited for inclusion in an existing article. You are welcome to contribute any well-referenced content to Annealing (metallurgy)#Normalization. Thanks! /wia /tlk 16:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:34:22, 6 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Davebevis


Regarding Articles for creation: Sir George Kenning (December 6), thank you for reviewing my draft article so quickly. I accept that I should not use copyrighted text and I thought I had made sure that I had written the story "in my own words". I also accept that one of my main sources of information was http://www.claycross.org.uk/History/kenning.htm , but I was careful not to copy and paste from this source. To help me keep within the rules, please can you give me a couple of examples where I have broken the rules? Davebevis (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davebevis (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Davebevis: Hi, thanks for dropping by. The draft in question is Draft:Sir George Kenning. The copying I found was mostly confined to one sentence at a time. You can view the copyright issues by looking at this diff, where I removed the copyright issues. An administrator will come along soon to redact the revision history, which means that diff will no longer be visible.
On the substantive side of things, my sense is that Kenning might be notable based on the good coverage in the first three references. If you can find any more in-depth coverage of Kenning, that would also be useful. You may find this search tool helpful: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL /wia /tlk 16:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Draft:Thomas J. Carroll

Hi, This is only my second article. I have been very careful to provide citations / links. Almost everything that I've used has multiple sources. I tried not to plagiarize, but if I've done so, I'll fix it by putting it more in my own words or using quotation marks. It's hard to do that if it's already been deleted. RobSVA (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RobSVA: Hi, thanks for dropping by. The draft is still here. I've removed the copyrighted content. For the moment, you can see what I removed in this diff, although an administrator will come along soon to hide the relevant revision history. Here are the three areas that I identified:
  • the paragraph beginning "He was also a member of the board of directors for the Sacramental Apostolate" and ending "culminating in Vatican II's promulgation...";
  • the paragraph beginning "Fencing was initiated as a training tool" and ending "then known as the St Paul’s Rehabilitation Program) in 1954"; and
  • the sentence "He was the recipient of nearly 100...".
I think the draft is otherwise well written. I will leaving the final determination re. acceptance to another reviewer. Thanks, /wia /tlk 18:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
many thanks! I wish "soon" was a day or two so that I can fix it. thanks again. RobSVA (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@RobSVA: No problem. I have already rephrased the "nearly 100" issue, and can help rephrase some of the content while it's fresh in my mind if you'd like. I don't have access to the Carroll book so I can't rephrase the section about the National Liturgical Weeks and the Constitution of the Liturgy, however—that one I'll have to leave to you. Thanks, /wia /tlk 18:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fabulous! thank you! RobSVA (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@RobSVA: Okay, I've roughly reinserted the content in rephrased format. You're now welcome to jazz up the language! /wia /tlk 18:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! The way you set it up made it so much easier for me. I think that I'm done. For the first item, I couldn't easily find a second source about some of the detailed items from the blog. Rather than paraphrasing, I just deleted those parts and added simpler items for which I could find multiple sources. For the second item, I also simplified it. It should be okay now, but I'm not positive as I did not go back to each of my sources (however, all of them are linked ). I'm assuming that you have a tool which can automatically check for plagiarizing / copyright. If you find a problem, please let me know and I'll immediately fix it. For the third item, your verbiage was fine, no need to jazz it up. Besides on my first article I ran into the problem of peacocks / puffery and so I've avoided jazzing things up ;-) thanks again. BTW, now that the copyright problem is fixed, is there a way of someone (not me) removing the warning? RobSVA (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@RobSVA: Hi, the box with the "blatant copyright violations" text will be removed when an administrator deals with the request to hide the revision history. There is a convenient tool you can use to check Wikipedia articles for copyright violations here. A few caveats though: it doesn't tell you which site copied from which (so if you run a long-established Wikipedia article, you'll find other sites that have actually copied from Wikipedia), it doesn't account for context (so the mere percentage isn't necessarily determinative), and it doesn't tell you whether the content on the website is licensed for use on Wikipedia. So you do have to do a bit of extra legwork, but it's much easier than Googling sentences at random!
Running the checker again now, it shows some "copying" (31.5% confidence) but it's mostly the names of places and proper nouns, and there's no way to rephrase those, so you're fine. I imagine someone will get to the next review in the coming days or week. Thanks! /wia /tlk 22:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many, many thanks. I really appreciate the extra time that you've taken. It's made a big difference, especially for a beginner like myself. I'll check out the tool. Again, thanks! RobSVA (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22:41:34, 6 December 2015 review of submission by Sitaramathur



Sitaramathur (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)Hello! Was wondering if you would take a look at my article once again. I have fixed the issues you brought to light and am hoping to try and resubmit the page.[reply]

Thank you!Sitaramathur (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitaramathur: I took a quick look at the newly added references. I'd remove the sentence about an A+ accreditation from the Better Business Bureau, as it sounds like promotionalism. The Cleantech page doesn't seem to offer in-depth coverage of Next Step Living; nor do the Bloomberg page, the White House Briefing Room page, or the inc.com page. The PRWeb and necec pages are primary sources that lack independence from the company. The MIT Sloan page looks like the best of the lot, but I would consider removing most of the other newly added sources as they are not reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss the subject in significant detail.
This tool may help you find more sources Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Reputable magazines, journals, books or news sources (whether online or offline) are a good place to start your search. Thanks, /wia /tlk 23:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:16:10, 7 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Catalina.Butnariu.ml


Hello,

The Chat Enabled Collaboration is a new category just as CRM and ERP is. Whilst chat is the backbone of communication this does not describe the entry. This is about new business processes based on chat systems that are being implemented by companies such as RBS, UBS etc. Intranet is an internal repository, none real-time and asynchronous. CEC is about real-time knowledge sharing. Those two have nothing in common but sharing the umbrella of UC technologies.

You can read about it in the following press article http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/mindlink-for-good-offers-secure-mobile-collaboration-for-lync-and-skype-for-business-532608871.html

http://www.mindlinksoft.com/blog/mindlinks-secure-enterprise-messaging-integrates-with-skype-for-business

If you need any more details please let me know.

Catalina.Butnariu.ml (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:06:06, 7 December 2015 review of submission by Wodnikprasowy


Please consider that the deleted content does come from the ISSA home page (as the reference pouts out) and it is not taken from http://oceanmaritimeacademy.com/details.php?object=1926#.VmWV8kvR_Vs In fact the post on Ocean Maritime Academy is a copy paste from the ISSA home page. The post is dated 2013-09-30 09:08:57 and the original text on the ISSA page is far older.

Wodnikprasowy (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wodnikprasowy: The draft also copies the same content from [1]. I don't see a license on that website allowing the content to be reused on Wikipedia. So unless that license exists, or unless the copyrighted content is donated to Wikipedia, then it cannot be used on Wikipedia. Thanks, /wia /tlk 16:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. I will proceed with copyright content donation. Sincerely Wodnikprasowy Wodnikprasowy (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wodnikprasowy: Not a problem. Let me know if I can help with anything else. Thanks, /wia /tlk 16:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of my page (Wells Cathedral Oratorio Society)

I hope this is the right way to make contact! Thanks for reviewing the article and your helpful comments. The society has been bumbling along for the past 100+ years and I recognise the article needs more references but it's been a society keeping under the radar. I'll do what I can and resubmit. Ben. Somerset Ben (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:35:04, 7 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Morkmalk


Wellgo page creation was declined. Not sure what to do exactly/questions around attempted creation. I created the page regarding Wellgo as I googled 'Wellgo wiki' and ended up at the German Wikipedia page for the company: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellgo The page I created is just a translated version of the German one, and uses the same sources. I figured this would be useful for other people who are English speaking.

Since this is the first time I have tried to do this, I was wondering if it is in general insufficient to create a page on the English Wikipedia on the basis that it exists in another language's Wikipedia and what rules exist around that. Thanks a lot!

Morkmalk (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Morkmalk: The German- and English-language Wikipedias have different standards for article inclusion, so the fact that a company has an article on the German-language Wikipedia doesn't ipso facto mean they are notable enough for one on the English-language Wikipedia. In order to show notability here, what is needed is a variety of reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss the subject in significant detail. Thanks, /wia /tlk 19:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

06:21:56, 8 December 2015 review of submission by Tmguynup


I am new. I want to make a "sandbox" for drafts. Is that possible? or do I just use the general sandbox

@Tmguynup: Hi, not a problem! You can use the sandbox you started working in (User:Tmguynup/sandbox), or you can make another sandbox (like, say, User:Tmguynup/Traci Guynup). It's your user space, so it's up to you! Let me know if you have any other questions. /wia /tlk 06:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, Wikiisawesome, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

  • The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
  • Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and ƬheStrikeΣagle 06:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

09:05:16, 8 December 2015 review of submission by GIMUN


We considered your comments seriously and have since added a lot of references. Could our work be accepted as it is now, bearing in mind that : 1) Not every single sentence is referenced but a large majority is? 2)We're still updating some of the missing information in the tables?

Thanks in advance for your answer!

@GIMUN: Looks like there are more references now! I'm on the run for a bit but will take a more thorough look in a few hours. Thanks, /wia /tlk 14:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@GIMUN: Looks like LaMona has beaten me to the review! They have left some solid, detailed feedback on the draft. /wia /tlk 18:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:14:41, 8 December 2015 review of submission by Crrazyjane


Hey reviewer! Do you mind pointing out the copyrighted text in question? I did write all of this myself but might have echoed the LFDA website without necessarily intending - I'd be happy to reword.

@Crrazyjane: Hi, thanks for dropping by! I've removed the copyrighted text at issue—it was about two sentences in the lede paragraph beginning with "organization promotes citizen engagement...". You're welcome to rephrase it as long as it does not closely paraphrase the existing source. Thanks, /wia /tlk 19:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikiisawesome:Thanks for clarifying, and for taking out the troublesome text! I've resubmitted and hopefully the rest of it looks good. It was tough to find third-party sources on the org - not much has been written about them.

00:47:08, 9 December 2015 review of submission by Black Dogg1169


I have updated some of the sourcing and removed links to documents and made them general page links to the page with the documents. I also added in a 3rd party source for Pierce's gubernatorial run. What more can I do to improve it? Some of the stuff will not have a source other than his own info.

@Black Dogg1169: Hi, the Statesman Journal source is a good start. I would look for more like it. This tool may prove useful: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Primary sources may be used in a limited capacity on Wikipedia; take a look at the "Policy" paragraph here for some specifics. Similarly, self-published sources are also acceptable in limited situations, so long as the six criteria set out here are met. Thanks, /wia /tlk 00:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

8:53 PM, 12/8/15

I added the TL;DR to the TL;DR page but you removed it because it wasn't constructive. One: It's an easter egg. It's funny. Two: It's constructive in the manner people may use the TL;DR because the article was too long.

71.180.89.30 (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)(no account)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for your helpful assistance with maintaining the encyclopedia. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Yamaguchi先生! /wia /tlk 02:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't change my entry's

Who do u think you are..... Jordan0forster9 (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Jordan0forster9: Uncivil behaviour like that is a really quick way of getting blocked -- samtar whisper 17:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Award For Invisible Contribution

File:Top secret.jpg Rubber Stamp Award
Thank you for contributing. Nobody has to know about this unless you want them to. Congratulations.

For defending Wikipedia from twits like me. KardinalCypher (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@KardinalCypher: You don't need to call yourself a twit; we all started somewhere on Wikipedia! I have left you a message on your talk page with some links you may want to read. They run the gamut from article creation to finding help for questions and community involvement. Let me know if I can help you further. Thanks, /wia /tlk 17:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks wia, I was finding it hard to find my way around. The info you gave me will be very handy. It's hard to know what's available. KardinalCypher (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for yuo

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
by 88.212.206.110 (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wiae&oldid=694574254"