User talk:Aaron Booth/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Aaron Booth. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Emily Baker page

Hi, will this article ever get approved bearing in mind there are no other sources I can use!?!? I've been working on it for months and have been confused by the people that review it. First it was declined for no reliable sources...I put loads in. Then it was declined for not having incline citations - I thought then that the sources were ok as now it was a different reason - obviously not, as the third reason was for no reliable sources. And on and on and on it goes! Even more confusing when I see other pages with hardly any 'reliable sources'. There is one page that has the artists own site plus a radio Wales biog (which is a cut and paste of her old website biog). Emily is a singer/songwriter who performs in a lot of places in the UK that are frequented by 'regulars' - therefore a lot of people google to find some background info before buying tickets...so thought it'd be good to set up a page as I know a lot of people will find it of some use. But I'll just give up if there's no point...just wanted to help people get an overall view of Emily if they wanted... Thanks

Readominguez (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for the feedback/reply Readominguez (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Dogeared

Hi Aaron. Thank you for taking the time to review my article Dogeared If you could offer any advice as to how I can get this article submitted, that would be great. All of the sources are reputable sources and are applicable to the articel. LA times, Los Angeles Business Journal, USA today, Seattle Times, Old Post Gazette, The National Jeweler. Could you please let me know how these do not adequately evidence the subject's notability? Thanks again for your time and help! Mtheisner (talk)mtheisner —Preceding undated comment added 15:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC).

Sidra Intersection

Aaron,

Thanks for your time reviewing the article Sidra_Intersection. I just have two quick questions: Should I remove the move request template from Talk:Sidra_Intersection, and is it okay to keep the DISPLAYTITLE template to make the article title all uppercase?

Thanks EvilPenguin (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Willpower_paradox

Aaron, Until "willpower paradox" gets widely used, can you accept the article with a revised title "Willpower as a paradox"? If the response is in the affirmative, can you go ahead and revise the title, because I don't know how to do this.

Thanks, Kgashok (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Matthew Landy Steen

If you don't have time to do any cleanup, you should tag the hell out of an article like this before you leave it, so that if will get entered in fix up lists. Cheers. :- ) DCS 20:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Aaron. Thanks for reviewing my Public Interest Law submission. Can you point to passages that read like an essay or give me any more suggestions for improving the piece? Thank so much. Rprecht. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rprecht (talk • contribs) 08:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Public interest law

Hi. Aaron. Thankmyounfor your review of my submission public interest law. Can you point to me passages that read like an essay or give me any more specific suggestions for improving it? Thanks so much Rprecht — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rprecht (talk • contribs) 09:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Cheikh Bentounès Article

how about that?

[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.2.200.92 (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

SMSP

Hi! thanks very much for that very inspiring good news...I am very happy and thankful for these opportunity of contributing something on this very educational and informative research tool on the internet...GOD bless us all....GOD bless WikiPedia...--QuecyKeith (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:COI - Check Your Six

Hi! Thanks for your efforts on AfC. I notice you'd flagged Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Check_Your_Six_Clothing as an advertisement. I see the creator of that page is contributions/Sanktuari4255 and the article itself states "Prior to creating Check Your Six, James and Matt McManus started a small t-shirt brand called Sanktuari (sank-choo-air-ee)." The user has only edited this one page. A similar WP:COI appears to exist on contributions/CapRadio although in that case KXJZ, KXPR (and KUOP, which no longer originates programming) actually do already exist as legitimate articles to which Capital Public Radio could be disambiguated if we were to actually need a page at that name. Would these two be worth flagging as WP:SPA? 66.102.83.61 (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

No, at this point it is just the user not being successful in his/her first article creation attempt. Since the user doesn't seem to be vandalizing in article space, I really don't see that there is a need to. -Aaron Booth (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That statement goes for both users that you mentioned. The latter may be a different story if the copyvio content is restored. -Aaron Booth (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

New article creation Camerata Romeu

The submission for the above subject article was recently declined due to not being notable. However, under Wikipedia music ensemble guidelines the article satisfies guideline #8 and #10. This ensemble has been nominated to the Grammy's twice and I made references to these nomination available within Wikipedia. The ensemble's work was filmed in an international documentary which won an award in the International film festival. Please advise specifically how this notability does not satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines.

kingtutx (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC) User:Kingtutx/kingtutx

A good place to start would be my notes in my edit summaries. IMDb is an unacceptable source, and Wikipedia cannot be cited as a reference per WP:CIRCULAR. -Aaron Booth (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright Infringment

Hi Aaron,

You declined my article on (Bell Equipment (PTY) LTD), based on copyright infringement. I work for Bell and was asked to list the company on Wiki. Could I forward you permission from the Board of directors citing Wiki permission for my article?

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wireless2204 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I will point you towards: WP:CONSENT. However, before you go through the trouble of doing that, I will say that as the article sat when it was declined, even without the CV, I would have declined it for reading like an advertisement. -Aaron Booth (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Arturo G Alvarez

Hi, Aaron-the article on Arturo G Alvarez has 12 internal links. I just think that for such a small article it´s got quite a complete linking and pretty much all else. If someone has new info to add and to link that´s great. But I´m not so sure what else the person who cited this as orphan wants. I´ve contributed quite a bit to this article so far and I feel that linked and noted as it can possibly be. Please advise.

My best, 76.170.248.214 (talk) 05:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing WP:ORPHAN with WP:DEADEND. Can you provide me with at least one other article that has a Wikilink to Arturo G. Álvarez? -Aaron Booth (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Help with submission on Phusion Projects

Would you, please, be able to provide additional insight on your review of my Phusion Projects' submission? MorganH85 (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Arturo G Alvarez

Totally, Aaron. I´ll work on it. Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.248.214 (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Check Your Six Clothing - Rejection

Hi Aaron,

I recently submitted an article 'Check Your Six Clothing' for acceptance, and it was declined for reasons of potential advertising.

I would very much appreciate advice on how to change the article so it meets the requirements for a neutral article.

I used many external sources, including press releases, news reports, and media features; and did not attempt to promote the brand in any way that was not accurately supported by external write-ups on the brand.

If there are sections that need to be taken out that would reduce its feel as an advertisement, please notify me at your convenience!

Thank you Aaron — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanktuari4255 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Kirloskar Brothers Ltd

Article Decline

Hi Aaron, the article listed above was declined since, you mentioned it read more like an advertisement. If you noted the initial rejection it was because of notability of the company and hence noteworthy facts supported by newspaper/press coverage of these facts were added. Can you please make suggestions on how the article can be reworded so that it is not an advertisement but more a description of the company and its activiites. Thanks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Kirloskar_Brothers_Limited

Don't Remove

Hello, recently i edited the page Deblina Chatterjee,added an image but you reverted my edit Reverting my edits But don't remove the image Plzzzzz...

I'm going to add the Image,OK Azad121 ^talk 17:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The image is a blatant copyright violation and cannot be re-added without a proper copyright release or proof of the image being in the public domain. -Aaron Booth (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

But Source is present in the Image you can see the Site this is the source (Source of pic) Public has watched it & i've also got from Internet THanx Azad121 ^talk —Preceding undated comment added 17:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC).

Just listing a source of the image does nothing to verify that the image has been released under a free use license that we can use. -Aaron Booth (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

OK OK OK OK OK OK OK done ,I'll not add are you happy now??? Azad121 ^talk —Preceding undated comment added 18:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC).

Azad121

Hi Aaron, I suspect this user is a sock of a recently blocked account. It's probably worth checking. Span (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

There are quite a few accounts and IP's that seem to be making the same types of edits on the same group of pages. Ie. adding copyvio images, removing maintenance templates, adding excessive red wikilinks, bloating the plot, adding advertisement language, etc. When I have time this evening I might compile a list of all of the users I have noticed and submit that.

Ther articles for the most part are: Deblina Chatterjee, Kya Huaa Tera Vaada, Ek Doosre Se Karte Hain Pyaar Hum, List of Parvarrish – Kuchh Khattee Kuchh Meethi characters, Parvarrish – Kuchh Khattee Kuchh Meethi, Pavitra Rishta, Jasuben Jayantilaal Joshi Ki Joint Family, Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah , Balika Vadhu, as well as a few others. These are just the ones in the last 24 or so hours that I have noticed. -Aaron Booth (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Azad121 and the others are all socks of blocked User:Thomas.young234. Please let me know the other account names and IPs. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been following these same articles. I was checking through and User:Thomas.young234 was the one I was thinking of - I worked to get his other socks blocked earlier in the week. I don't know about the sock checking process/etiquette of making sock suggestions. I raised it on ANI here and there is an ongoing copyright investigation of Indian sops starting here. All manner of socking seems to be going on. I usually hang out in poetry realms. Socks and copy vio is not usually my stomping ground but I found so many Indian media articles in such a mess. There is a suggestion on the copyright board to launch a topic wide CCI, which seems wise. Thanks for all your work on this. Span (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC

Is this yet another sock of the same guy? Span (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

No, wrong part of the world. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Revert

I don't know that why you revert my all edits what's the reason??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azad121 (talk • contribs)

All of my edits are either explained in the edit summary, or a template placed on your talk page. If you need to me to elaborate on a specific edit further I would be happy to do so upon request. -Aaron Booth (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand the Template reverts But removing the images???

& I Don't Understand your copyrighted,public and etc etc problem that you all share...Thanx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azad121 (talk • contribs)

Please refer to WP:IUP for an explanation of Wikipedia's image use policy. -Aaron Booth (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Declined due to copyright

Hi Aaron,

Thank you for reviewing my recent article. It was declined due to copyright violations; could you please help guide me to the lines or section(s) that cause the issue? I would very much like to remedy the issue as soon as possible. Thank you again for your time and assistance.

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordcouture (talk • contribs) 01:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Aaron,

Thank you; I see the article that caused the copyright violation. As you can see, Lardy is a primary source for this topic as he was the one who originally identified and developed the substance as a potential supplement, but we have cited his work thoroughly appropriately throughout the piece and written an original piece with dozens of supplemental resources.

I implore you to recognize Lardy's article as a seminal piece on the topic but also acknowledge the appropriate citations, supplemental materials and ultimate lack of copyright violation. To remove or re-work Lardy's (cited) material would do a disservice to the topic. In addition, were I to rework part or all of the piece, I would need access to the draft, and you or Wikipedia have blanked it out so even the "Edit" page to which I was directed is blank. Please restore the draft for editing purposes -- or, ideally, reconsider your decline on the grounds described herein. Thank you so much for your consideration.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordcouture (talk • contribs) 06:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI, the article in question is 7-Keto — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordcouture (talk • contribs) 21:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/7-Keto was declined as a copyright violation. You cannot simply avoid violating copyright by citing sources. Sources protect from plagiarism when referring to ideas or concepts, however copying text directly from a non-free use/public domain source is a copyright violation with or without a source. Therefore, I cannot change the decision to decline the article, nor can I restore the violating text in any location on Wikipedia per WP:C-P. -Aaron Booth (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Aaron, thank you for your response. I ran my article and the article it was "taken from" through a thorough, word-by-word comparison check. I did find two sentences that were very similar (and that was all). I acknowledge the issue and I would very much like to change those two sentences. Due to the minimal conflict, may I please edit the offending section and resubmit? Perhaps you would be willing to a) restore a draft so I can do so, or b) if you disagree and think there is a bigger issue, please point me specifically to that issue? Thanks again for your help. I'm committed to making this work and doing it the right way! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordcouture (talk • contribs) 01:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I just went through the article line by line (mostly) and removed all instances of close paraphrasing or copy/paste. There were several instances from a variety of sources. You can find the submission here. Feel free to let me know if you have any further questions. -Aaron Booth (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Aaron, Thank you again for your patience and assistance. So where does this leave us? What can I do now? I'm extremely committed to making this work. WordCouture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordcouture (talk • contribs) 18:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Well whenever you feel that the article is ready again, you can resubmit it for AFC review. -Aaron Booth (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Aaron, So if you removed the offending area(s), do I simply need to go back through and ensure that what's left is acceptable and accurate and then re-submit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordcouture (talk • contribs) 16:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Essentially yes. -Aaron Booth (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Aaron,

I've rewritten the section with the major issues and resubmitted accordingly. I'm okay with the other changes you made. Thanks again for your time, assistance and attention. Wordcouture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordcouture (talk • contribs) 03:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

entry rejection

Aaron, could you please point out exactly what needs to be clarified or altered? I have tried to make this compatible with the rules and yet I still have evidently not quite mastered the editing process.

Thank you.Jhowardco (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

What Vandalism?

I just added the Georgian bar into the talk page. Where's vandalism in that? GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I presume that you are referring to Talk:Grigory Ordzhonikidze? Here you removed the Wikiproject Bio template in the same edit/series of edits. It is specifically "unexplained removal of content." -Aaron Booth (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I just changed the Georgian bar's class and importance. No? GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope. And judging by your contribution history and Talk page warning history, you seem to have a ongoing problem with similar edits. -Aaron Booth (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I just added the Georgian bar into Orjonikidze. I understand your concern. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Declined Articles for creation/amit garg

Hi Aaron,

I have question regarding Article decline? Amit Garg has world record in mental division and been quoted in Book of alternative records, record holder organization and RecordSetter.com. Are more such references appropriate for him or references of different type are expected. I will very much appreciate your feedback. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/amit_garg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrkravi (talk • contribs) 17:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The reason I declined it had to do with WP:NPOV. Statements such as "He has the ability to perform extremely difficult and intricate mathematical calculations entirely in his head." are unacceptable. -Aaron Booth (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Aaron, Thanks for the feedback. I have removed the statement "He has the ability to perform extremely difficult and intricate mathematical calculations entirely in his head." Can you again look at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrkravi (talk • contribs) 08:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Draft article on Alessandro Liberati

--Jshapely (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Aaron,

thank you for your comments about the article I proposed on Alessandro Liberati. I modified it accordingly, trying to make it shorter and to avoid an “essay-like” structure. As for references, the information is mostly supported by obituaries (some of which written on high impact medical journals like the British Medical Journal or the Lancet – the latter is an open-access article) and by scientific papers (some of which are systematic reviews or represent collaborative international work). I believe that most of these references fall under the definition of secondary sources. I also made an effort in order to provide links to open-access articles (as most of the references actually are). I’m writing you as you were the last reviewer. Of course, feel free to share this information with other reviewers (in case there should be).

Thank you very much Jshapely

Curtis article

Thank you for your help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Curtis Ccjjpro (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

matthew landy steen stub bio article

Thanks for the warning. I will limit my edits before saving. What is tagging? I'm kind of basic and generic at this, but I'm learning fast. You removed some type of banner or tag from this article -- good, bad or indifferent or protocol? By the way, someone nominated this article for speedy deletion I noticed today somewhere. I'm still learning how to navigate all the nooks and crannies of Wiki. Whew! Is a speedy deletion nomination worrisome at this point? It is pro forma being contested for the some of the reasons listed in usertalk:weathervane13 . . . This article has to go through the Wiki system "the hard way" I suppose. Don't want there to be any problems. Thank you much again for your tips and assistance. Weathervane13 23:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weathervane13 (talk • contribs)

Darren Criss article

Hi Aaron. Thanks for the info but I updated the references to ensure that properly sourced info is retained. The dead links I removed already had the same information in the current reference used, hence, there was no need for me to replace them (I was the one who had put in the original references). I will revert your edit. Thanks. Mimi C. (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

On attacks

Calling something "dumbness" is not necessarily a personal attack. When a user (in this case, Conti) begins an edit war and throws around personal attacks, he can not then start an arbitration against somebody for responding. That is called "thinking your shit don't stink" and is dumbness. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I placed the warning, since looking through your editing history, you seem to have a pattern of such behavior. -Aaron Booth (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't help the community. Don't WP:Wikilawyer. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I made an objective observation based on your behavior and placed a notice on your wall. As a side note, if you notice "Wikilawyering" is an Essay, not a policy. Notifying you of what is considered proper conduct on Wikipedia is what I did. If you wish to continue such a conversation, please refer to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, under the section regarding you. -Aaron Booth (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

TEDx Transmedia

Hi Aaron, You reviewed my TEDxTransmedia page but I don't understand this comment: "Appears to be either non notable or a useless for to the TED article." Please can you expand so I can make changes and submit again? All best, Hannah Hannahewood (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Newsies (musical)

I'm not sure about your edit to this article today. I put up the link to the Did He Like It page for Newsies, but you reverted the edit because you said there wasn't a review. I'm not sure how you could have missed it, but there are *lots* of reviews of the show on that page - short abstracts and then links to the full reviews. DidHeLikeIt.com is sort of the Rotten Tomatoes of Broadway theater, so it's more than appropriate to include it on a page about a Broadway show. Can you clarify your position on this edit? Thanks Fryede (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

If you want to include a review, include the review rather than a site like this that serves as a fork for multiple reviews on multiple sites. Further, we generally do not place reviews in the external link sections. If they are notable, and necessary to cite a fact in the article, then it is included as an inline citation, but that is generally it. -Aaron Booth (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright issue/AFC

Hi Aaron,

Regarding Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anne Bremer, I am the author of the piece on AskART, and their copyright is non-exclusive. Can you "un-blank" it? You can verify that my name is at the bottom of the article if you go to [[2]] on Friday, when they offer free access, or you could take the following email they sent me as authorization (and caution for the future):

Dear Ms. Harlow,
Thank you for submitting a wonderful article on Anne Bremer to AskART. We very much appreciate it. I am not sure why "Wikipedia" editors are giving you a hard time, as our site terms (under heading of "Use of Information" http://www.askart.com/AskART/help/AskART_terms2.aspx) clearly state that you are giving us ", nonexclusive right" to use your article. This means that you can post the same article on Wikipedia. Here's the full paragraph from our site terms: " By uploading material to any forum or by submitting any comments, recommendations or data ("information") to us, you automatically grant (or represent and warrant to us that the owner of such rights has expressly granted) to us a perpetual, royalty-free, irrevocable, nonexclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, sublicense, translate, create derivative works of and distribute such information worldwide and/or incorporate such information into any form, medium, or technology now known or later developed. In addition, you represent and warrant to us that all so-called moral rights in the information have been waived."
I hope this addresses Wikipidia's editors' concern. Best regards, Tea Gebbie COO
AskART.com

Thanks, Ann H. HarZim (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

First off we cannot just take a post on Wikipedia as acceptable permission, regardless who the individual claims to be. Further the text would have to be either released as public domain or under a usable license explecitly stated on the website. Any email would have to be send directly to Wikipedia. I will point you to WP:COPYREQ. -Aaron Booth (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Jake Dreyer

~~Since the issues seem to be addressed, I don't feel the need to respond.~~ I deleted the post, which can still be viewed in the page history, as the vast majority of it consisted of several copyright violations. -Aaron Booth (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Aaron, I'm confused. Which issues were addressed and what copyright violations occurred? The references on the bottom were just examples of the ones I used in order to show they were "Wikipedia" credible because you mentioned that Jake's solo work, as well as his previous work with former bands, were not notable. Jake's work has been in numerous websites, magazines, media etc. that were referenced accordingly. The examples showed that the sites themselves had already been verified as credible (they had either been used in previous articles that were passed). These were just examples. NONE of these were used in Jake's. All the references on his page were absolutely credible and could be brought up with just a click. Has anyone else reviewed it because I truly don't understand what is going on? There were absolutely NO copyright violations and I can't believe that after writing a very detailed explanation, all I get back is, "I don't feel the need to respond".Brielmayer (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I think I may have been looking at two discussions at once because whatever page that I had gone to had been accepted...

That being said, what I blanked was here, not the submission. Most of what was posted here appeared to be a combination of WP:YOUTUBE and simple "copypaste" from copyrighted sources. I will, however, takes some time this afternoon to take another look at the submission. "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article." It is not just matter of including accurate, verifiable information. WP:MUSICBIO -Aaron Booth (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate you doing that. I guess there was a lot of confusion. The actual "article for creation" has all the noted references. I do understand that being a member of 2 or more "notable" bands doesn't necessarily make a "notable" individual; however, the majority of the awards, press, and sponsorship etc. were all given to him as a solo artist. I was just trying to show all the things that he has accomplished so far, which happened to include touring and recording with other bands. Thanks again.Brielmayer (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

see Jake Dreyer -Aaron Booth (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The attached list shows the credibility of all references used in the article. If an included website did not have a Wikipedia page, I used an example of an artist recently approved.

Balika Vadhu

If you administrator on the english wikipedia, can you lock the page on this article so that only registered users can edit her, for abuse of return changes, the red links, removing references and other things, because I can't every day return on the old changes. Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djole 555 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Parvarrish

I can understand that why you have reverted my edits in Parvarrish – Kuchh Khattee Kuchh Meethi, but somehow they play an important role and must be expanded and I am very sorry that I cannot add any reliable resources to it as i am unable to find s few! Please consider the same and you may add a "Citation Needed" template..please consider the same. I have helped adding a huge number of references in other articles of Sony's soap operas but i am unable to find this one's. Please excuse for the same. Thanking you--Jagadhatri(২০১২) 09:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for your help on managing vandals on Indian TV show article. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Your AFC comments

Hi Aaron, I think you have already noticed, but I have just accepted Sandobele at AfC, an article you had previously rejected there. I was quite perturbed by some of your review comments. First of all, you advised the author to remove redlinks. Redlinks, where appropriate, are both permitted and encouraged since they encourage the writing of new articles, see WP:REDLINK. I would have thought in this case that Sandogo was a clear case for a potential article. Repeated linking, of course, should not be done.

You also advised the editor not to use Harvard style referencing, but instead to place the full citation inline. This was very bad advice, the style the editor was using has very widespread use on Wikipedia, including numerous Featured Articles, and has several advantages. This is not to say that your method is wrong, but you should not try to impose it on other editors.

None of your comments were valid grounds for declining the article. I think you should take another look at WP:AFCR, especially WP:AFCR#Invalid grounds for declining a submission which specifically addresses the reference formatting issue. Spinning Spark 20:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comments. I just went back to have a look at the article as it was when I declined the submission, and in response to your comments, I have a few of my own.

Primarily, in regards to Wikilinks, the main concern here was that the page was over linked. For example, there were 28 Wikilinks to the page it self. These are redundant and unnecessary. (Particularly 28 of them) WP:OVERLINK also talks about repeated wikilinks, which there are many that I won't take the time to list here more than just the example of "spirits" was linked 32 times. (It was 40 if you include the singular "spirit") Also, WP:SPECIFICLINK in regards to wikilinks such as "earth", "community, "society", "illness", and "messages" just to name a few. I understand that I should have been this specific in my comments, however I do stand behind there being a problem with Wikilinks per MOS:LINK in the submission at that time.

In regards to the reference style of the editor, the article did not use, as you suggest in your comment, Harvard style referencing. My understanding of Harvard Style referencing is the bibliography, and reference section are for separate references. In other words, not placing an inline citation which directs the reader to the reference section, and then the reference section that directs the reader to the bibliography section for the same citation. The reference section applies to the inline citations, the bibliography section is more of what, on Wikipedia, we use as a "external links" section. The Bibliography section is a list of sources that you used to help prepare for the research and not to cite information in the text. Information cited within the text, in Harvard style, must be within the reference section, not the bibliography section. Based upon what I saw in the article, the editor was not implementing Harvard style citations. A good resource for Harvard style citation, which I used just not to double check my understanding of that particular style is here. (as a note, I was contradictory to myself when I said "two places" in my comments. I intended to say three, as that is what was present.

I also should have mentioned at that time that we don't use bold text for emphasis or for the article title or subject beyond it's first mention in the first paragraph of the lead section per MOS:BOLD.

I think that fully explains my rational for declining the submission at that time, however I still may have missed something. -Aaron Booth (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, in regards to the orphan tag that I placed, I only found one link to the page throughout Wikipedia. I believe that one link, is by definition "few" as the template states. This is unless you believe that it would be impossible to deorphan? However, that is not what your edit summary stated, so I am under the impression that either I missed other pages that link to the article (if so, I am curious to figure out how I missed them, so please provide a link to them) or you don't see one as few? -Aaron Booth (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That response is completely unacceptable. It is not the function of AfC to prevent editors from posting articles until they are perfect. On the contrary, its function is to assist new editors to create articles. The articles we should be filtering out are those that are completely unreferenced or are serious breaches of policy. Serious means WP:COPYVIO and WP:BLP, not trivial things like formatting and wikilinking. You have no business preventing people from posting articles articles, even if you were right (and mostly you were wrong) about the article shortcomings. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. What you are doing is not only against the AfC project guidelines (which you don't seem to have read yet), not only is it against our core policies, but it is against our founding principles. Tomorrow, I am going to do a survey of your other reviews at AfC to see how deep this goes. Spinning Spark 23:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to hearing back from you on that. Presuming you are referring to the section of "Invalid reasons", the most applicable to the situation seems to be number 3. "Declining an article because it contains easily solved formatting issues, such as no wikilinks to other articles or no sections, is not acceptable. Instead, fix it yourself, or accept and tag the article to alert other editors to the one or two issues that you believe are the most urgent issues." In the six paragraphs above that I have responded to your message, I am not seeing anything that is wrong, much less "most" of it being wrong. I explained what Harvard style is, and how what was present is not that, and referred to specific Wikilink instances in the article and corresponding policy thereof. The comment I made about the orphan tag to me seems fairly straight forward. I admit that I should have been more clear and thorough in my comments on the AFC submission, I should have written a response similar to what I wrote above. Point taken. That being said, there is nothing to be gained from continuing this conversation at this time. I look forward to hearing back about the findings of your survey. -Aaron Booth (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You rejected the article for using redlinks even though WP:REDLINK encourages them and you caused the editor to remove perfectly valid redlinks. You now say that you really meant WP:OVERLINK. You are missing the point; THIS IS NOT A VALID REASON FOR REJECTION. Redlinking, overlinking, underlinking, are all trivial issues and should not be grounds for rejection.

You are completely and utterly wrong about the reference formatting. See WP:CITE#Short citations and Help:Shortened footnotes. Take a look at History of Burnside, Scotland in the High Middle Ages, Sinking of the RMS Titanic, Geology of the Grand Canyon area all Featured Articles and all using shortened citations of one form or another. Apparently, you would have rejected a featured article quality submission. I just hope you haven't. This time actually read the invalid reasons for rejection I linked you earlier before you reply again. Spinning Spark 23:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Still not sure why you brought up Harvard Style Citations, as a Harvard style citation is parenthetical to reference list, and a Bibliography be a separate entity referencing either recommended readings or general sources that were consulted by not directly cited. Frankly I have never seen that style of referencing (parenthetical->reflist->bibliography, with a separate external links section and further readings section), but if it is used (as you have just now pointed out to me, then you have made your point. As far as the other points (aside from the orphan tag that you removed and have yet to responded on) I should have just either taken the time to go through and fix them (there were well over 100, and no I am not referring to the presence of redlinks, although repeating the same redlink over and over has been addressed in my earlier comment), or just accepted it, and tagged it for clean up. I can do that. -Aaron Booth (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Short footnotes are frequently in Harvard style, but as a footnote, not inline with the text. I'm still not convinced that you have got the point. It really doesn't matter whether or not the editor can demonstrate that their referencing style is commonly used on Wikipedia. Even if it isn't, it is STILL not grounds for refusing the article. Even at the highest level of quality (FA) on Wikipedia we do not insist on any particular referencing style.

I am perfectly happy with you tagging articles for problems, that is not an issue. Yes, tag problems, you are not expected personally to fix everything you find wrong, just don't decline articles because of them unless it is a problem we are supposed to be declining. I did not answer you on the orphan issue because it was not important, you did nothing wrong with tagging the article, and I had more serious things to say to you. I removed the tag after I had added links so it was no longer orphaned. Spinning Spark 02:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Joan Susannah Sadler

You may also want to take another look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joan Susannah Sadler (nee Wilkinson). The author has raised a question on the AfC Helpdesk. You have highlighted relatively minor issues while the major issue is the author hasn't demonstrated notability of the subject, citing the entire article to an unidentified newspaper article and a press release. IMHO it is nowhere near "really close now". Sionk (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Dreyer article

Aaron,

    Thank you for your help.  I just completed all the revisions you recommended.  Look forward to hearing from you soon.Brielmayer (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC) 05:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Mike Lipe

Hi Aaron,

Appreciate if you can assist with getting all of the issues corrected with the 1st wikipedia page I created, "Mike Lipe". I was wondering if I could change this page to the title "Lipe Guitars" and whether that would help overcome the issues referenced. If not, could the page be deleted so I can start over?

Regards,

Paul---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schoe10 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in Aaron, but moving the page will not exempt it from the requirements of WP:BLP. This policy applies to anything written about living persons regardless of whether the page is technically a biography. Nor will moving solve the notability issues, it will still need to meet the requirements of the general notability guidelines WP:N, and would then also come under WP:ORG. What you actually need to do before you can remove the temoplates is provide better referencing to reliable sources. If you still want to move the page, requests are made at WP:RM, but you will soon automatically be granted the right to move pages yourself (probably after your next edit). Spinning Spark 11:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

iamamiwhoami Kin

Hi Aaron, I'm really at a loss here, I've been trying to get my article for the album Kin published. It's a really spectacular project and was featured by MTV at some point of time, and the artist (iamamiwhoami) has also won a Swedish Grammi award. I don't understand why you said "subject appears to be a non-notable musical performer or work", considering how being a recipient for a Grammi Award is sufficient for a subject to be notable. Could you please help me out, it's been rejected so often and no one can clarify what's wrong with it, and I've been trying my best, getting references for the album and it's coming out in a month. I want to know SPECIFICALLY what is wrong with it so I can quickly solve it instead of waiting constantly for it to get approved after I do some edits. Thanks for the help, I understand you must be quite busy. Borderings (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Question about copyright.

Hello!

I'm still confused about what copyrights I violated... All images I used are from wikimedia commons and are permissioned to be shared. Images I used: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Truu_valvur,_EKM00534_M01744_K8ler_Truu_valvur_ACE6563.jpg ; http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:Ilon_Wikland_2.JPG.

Thanks

M.

I explained it in my edit summary. -Aaron Booth (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

As I copied the text from another Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Estonia) I did not violate any copyrights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copy-paste). I appreciate if next time you could be more thorough with your research and won't jump into any claims right away.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmwikiest (talk • contribs) 10:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Then it appears that the other article is a copyright violation, as the source I provided does not appear to be a Wikipedia miror. Also, as a note: " but you must link to the source article in your edit summary." -Aaron Booth (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Appeal

Articles for Creation is backlogged and needs YOUR help!

Articles for Creation is desperately in need of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors and administrators alike, to help us clear a record backlog of pending submissions. There is currently a significant backlog of 1018 submissions waiting to be reviewed. These submissions are generally from new editors who have never edited Wikipedia before. A prompt, constructive review of submissions could significantly editor retention.

Do you have what it takes?

Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
Are you (at least) autoconfirmed?
Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog.

Click here to review to a random submission_{Article selected by erwin85's random article script on toolserver.}

We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 1 or 2 reviews, would be extremely beneficial.

On behalf of the Articles for Creation project,
AndrewN ^talk 23:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Aaron Booth. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.