User talk:Aerospeed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, Aerospeed! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! WVRMadTalkGuestbook 19:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Submission declined for article Jackson Yi[edit]

Hi Aerospeed, I noticed that my article was declined for lack of references, which was unexpected and confusing to me. My article has around 60 sources, including news/reports published by Tencent and Sina, which are both among the most authoritative influential media and entertainment companies in China. This is my first time creating a wikipedia article and it would be really helpful if you could let me know which of my sources are not verifiable?

Submission declined II.[edit]

Dear Aerospeed. (Sorry if I am not formatting this correctly.)


Hello. Can you help clarify on your decision? I need to learn what these standards of "notable" mean. I included many sources, some are books in most university libraries, some are articles that can be searched online. I was careful not to include any on the subject's own website. What to do? Just what is missing that would make you consider this person "notable"? Cited in the article are two lengthly interviews with the subject on the subject of mail art. The subject was instrumental in the move from an analog system to a digital context for mail art. As said in a question to you above, it was my understanding that an artist needed to be recognized by outsider,non-promotional sources. That is what I have tried to present. The back story is this: This subject had a page on Wikipedia for many years dating back to the earliest days of the Wikipedia site. Perhaps coincidentally, within the same week, the subject's user account was suspended and the entry on him was deleted. He was warned of this but did not respond in time to the warning to delete, thinking it was referring to his user account. He asked me, someone who has written on him in the past, to try and get his article re-written and replaced to the liking of Wikipedia. I greatly improved this article and backed it up with scholarly citations. In the meantime, he has had his own account reinstated because he made it clear he was not promoting or driving traffic to his site, only that it is one of the best sources for information on him. Please understand that Mr. Bloch is involved in an activity that involves, by its very nature, a lot of self-publishing. He was involved with this kind of self-publishing activity since the late 70s, prior to the spread of cyber-space and online publishing. It was, in fact a precursor to and a model for cyberspace. But rather than use his own Do It Yourself credits, I researched outside source material and re-wrote the entry. Please tell me what should be done to move this article beyond the not notable demarcation. Any help would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iochone (talkcontribs) 18:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC) User:iochoneiochone (talk)

@Iochone: When I looked at the article I also reviewed the notability requirements for artists, which are guidelines to determine if an artist is notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. The first three points in the section are can't be easily determined by the sources given, and it often left to a judgment call based on what is said in the article. In terms of how much notability is needed, 3 good sources are generally needed for a subject to be notable. I noticed you had a couple of off-line sources, could I have some more info on what those sources are exactly? How much detail does the sources explain the subject? If it's in reasonable detail it could be notable since published offline sources are generally more reliable than Internet sources, since they have to get published by an external source. Aerospeed (Talk) 12:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Aerospeed, for asking about offline sources. Here are some of the offline sources, what they are and how they feature the subject:

Welch, Chuck. editor. Networking Currents: Contemporary Mail Art Subjects and Issues, Sandbar Willow Press, June 1986. Is one of the first books on the topic of mail art that the subject is an expert in. Despite other excerpts in this book, pages 68-80 comprise an extensive radio interview with the subject and another participant on the topic.

Touchon,Cecil. Natural Born Fluxus - Childhood Event Scores by Fluxus Artists. Santa Fe: Ontological Museum Publications. 2009 Is a collection of performance art scripts by a certain genre of artists and the subject is featured with several examples and a short but solid biography.

Zuba, Elizabeth. Not Nothing. Los Angeles: Siglio Press. 2014 is a recently published book about the important American artist Ray Johnson, the subject’s mentor and examples of Johnson’s letters to the subject and letters containing references to him are included along with some biographical information in the “Cast of Characters” section. (The subject has published several articles on Johnson and was the first to document him online beginning in 1990.)

György Galántai, Julia Klaniczay, editors, Artpool Art Research Center, Oct 3, 2013. "ARTPOOL - The Experimental Art Archive of East-Central Europe: History of an active archive for producing, networking, curating, and researching art since 1970," Is a large volume including artworks by international communications artists. The subject is represented with several entries, comprised of both text-based and visual art.

Horn, Stacy. Cyberville: Clicks, Culture, and the Creation of an Online Town. Grand Central Publishing, Jan 30, 2010. Is the first book of what turned out to be several by an autobiographical story about an important online woman entrepreneur who started one the first online text-based salons. The subject was a significant contributor to this community endeavor and appears in several places in Horn’s documentation of the years before the Worldwide Web.

Robinson, Walter and Gleason, Mat, editors. Most Art Sucks: Coagula Art Journal and the Art of the 1990's. Los Angeles: Smart Art Press, 1998. Is a book on significant art currents of the 1990s. One entire chapter of the book is the transcript of a public radio discussion by several distinguished art world figures including important publishers, artists, critics and dealers in which the subject was a prominent contributor.

Taylor, Michael R., Marcel Duchamp: Étant donnés. Philadephia Museum of Art. Is an important catalogue about an important work of art by an important artist and written by an expert in Modern Art and the director of a major American art museum. While subject is only mentioned in a couple of places, I believe these mentions, alone, qualify him to be cited as an important and notable artist.

Thanks.(talk)

Hello Aerospeed-- can you please follow up with this? June 24, 2015. Thank you.(talk)

Hello @Iochone:, I don't know what more to suggest other than to keep improving on your article and keep faith. I have not made very many edits in the past month or so and I am a bit rusty on AfC. Please forgive me for not being able to help, but I can see that the article has improved, and I can see the article getting passed in the next submission. Keep up the good work Aerospeed (Talk) 03:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Siva Power[edit]

Hi Aerospeed,

Thanks for reviewing my AfC draft of Siva Power. You cite a lack of reliable sources as the reason for rejection and I have to say this surprises me very much: There are 19 sources listed ranging from Gigaom, Forbes, Greentech Media, The Wall Street Journal, and even the US Department of Energy. Could you please offer some advice here as to how you think it needs to be improved to meet notability requirements and sourcing?

Many thanks and be in touch. Slainte12 (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Slainte12:, the sources aren't the main issue, it's the company itself. Notability means doing something noteworthy. Just having a company doesn't automatically make it notable, they need to do something important. Take Apple, who are obviously a company but who also have had mainstream success in the media and in the general public. That's not to say this company isn't successful - but we can't have every company on Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia is not a directory) I'd say just wait and see for a bit if the company gains more publicity - maybe if Obama himself talks about this company (for example) we might have a different story. Work on making the article more neutral and I'm sure you'll be able to get the submission accepted. Aerospeed (Talk) 01:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Aerospeed, thanks for the further explanation. Unfortunately, I am still confused as to why you find it does not meet notability requirements. I understand that a company simply being incorporated is not a good enough reason to be admitted to Wikipedia. Agreed, Siva Power is not the most notable company like Apple, but it is noteworthy for its recent achievements. Siva Power is significant because it is a company that survived a historic industry downturn (for instance, Obama did talk about Solyndra...) and then recently was 1 out of 10 companies in all of the USA to receive a Dept of Energy SunShot award and was the only company of its kind (thin film, rather than traditional silicon) to do so for its category. This event also helped it secure more VC funding, which is a rarity for the thin-film solar industry today as opposed to 10 years ago. Thus, many media groups - from the renewable energy trades to the WSJ - covered the story as it was significant. Many similar companies are already entered on Wikipedia (see Miasole, HelioVolt, and Twin Creeks Technologies and are not as notable (they all shut down). Also, you mentioned neutrality. I thought I took care of the neutrality issues already (was declined the 1st time on those grounds) but if you see specific areas of concern, would you please point them out? Thank you I appreciate the follow-up help. Slainte12 (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Aerospeed, I was wondering if you had any feedback regarding the above? Thanks Slainte12 (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry @Slainte12: I've been busy for the past few days, but all I can say is to keep up the good work researching! Aerospeed (Talk) 00:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Philippe Sollie[edit]

Hi Aerospeed, Can you please check the modifications I did on the draft page. Please tell me if it's good now. Many thanks.Gfrederic (talk) 9:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Gfrederic: Please see this on how to cite something inline. You need to link the source to the statement being made. For example, the article says that he was inspired by an event that happened to a 1 year old child. Link that statement to the source that says that and link it through using "< ref >" tags. You don't need to cite every sentence but it may seem like that way. See here on how to cite sources. Thanks, Aerospeed (Talk) 13:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

22:35:36, 4 July 2015 review of submission by Onlinejonathan[edit]


Hi there, I placed cite's and i am not sure what else needed. I would love help. Thanks Onlinejonathan (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Onlinejonathan (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

There are seven independent sources here, including coverage in the two major metro area dailies and some major city A&E magazines. All for a 180-word wikipedia article. I am a professional journalist, but I fail to understand how that possibly qualifies as under-sourced. You're going to have to help me. Swsman28 (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)swsman28, 7/6/15

@Swsman28:It's not necessarily how many sources you have but how they are used - mere mentions in the article don't necessarily count as we need to have significant coverage as well. But don't give up, keep at it and you'll get the Afc submission accepted! Aerospeed (Talk) 00:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

14:52:15, 7 July 2015 review of submission by BB609[edit]


I've added several more independent third-party references to establish notability of this company.

BB609 (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Sample Magic Page[edit]

Hi Aerospeed,

Regards the article that was declined - is it because the information we have already presented needs further verification? Or do you require us to put together something more "notable". Would these type of citations be of use or are they too "advertorial"?

http://rekkerd.org/sample-magic-releases-defected-house-samples/

http://www.residentadvisor.net/review-view.aspx?id=11209

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct13/articles/magic-ab.htm

Magic AB is a big name in the sampling industry.

For what it is worth, there are existing pages that mention Sample Magic already that we wanted to link from once this article goes live, those being:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharooz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sounds_to_Sample

Any assistance is much appreciated.

Thanks, Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave ashworth (talkcontribs) 08:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dave ashworth: Unfortunately the sources you gave are not suitable to determine notability. The first one just mentions the company, while the other does talk about it in a bit of a promotional sense. Promotional sources can be used if notability is established, but can't be used to establish notability by themselves because they are not in a neutral point of view, especially in a promotional article, when the article says that the company is the most important thing in the world. I'm encouraged of the fact that you're starting to notice what makes a source promotional in tone, so that you can know what makes a good source for establishing notability. In terms of the company, I'm afraid that there simply isn't enough notability because the company isn't well known enough, but in terms of your editing skills, they definitely seem to be improving. Keep up the good work. Aerospeed (Talk) 12:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
@Aerospeed:

Hi, thanks for this, we have done some more research and think the following citations will help, but want to run them by you first before editing the article.

One link that is mentioned in the existing article is this one:

https://news.beatport.com/namm-2008-meet-the-developer-sharooz-raoofi/

we felt this was notable in terms of a 3rd party who are big in the industry were doing a feature on them - and these guys themselves are notable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatport


Sample Magic were featured on this site:

http://www.timespace.com/features/721/

Which is a citation on the creator's wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharooz


They've contributed towards the new Splice platform service:

http://blog.lessthan3.com/2015/06/splice-announces-sample-subscription-service/

http://www.musicradar.com/news/tech/get-samples-on-subscription-with-splice-sounds-624037

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splice_(platform)


and have been featured by the following prominent industry magazines (each of which have their own wiki page):


http://www.residentadvisor.net/review-view.aspx?id=7890

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_Advisor


http://www.timespace.com/product/view_press_reviews.php?SKU=RUxFQy0xOQ%3D%3D&list_value=27&list_type=2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Music_(magazine)


http://www.musicradar.com/tuition/tech/round-up-10-new-sample-packs-251711

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MusicRadar


If these are deemed notable, will edit the article accordingly.

Thanks, Dave


Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day Quality Title Content Headings Images Links Sources Tagged with…
14 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Formula LGB Hyundai (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
133 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Sport in China (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
499 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: FA Olympic sports (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
191 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Stock car racing (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
267 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start 12 (number) (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
174 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Sports car racing (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
15 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Pro FWD (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Cleanup
1 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: GA Max D. Liston (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 2.0 Cleanup
57 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Concerns and controversies at the 2014 Winter Olympics (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Cleanup
110 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: A Women's sports (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Expand
841 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Coat of arms (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Expand
53 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Stub FIA GT3 European Championship (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Expand
102 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: GA Superkart (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
442 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: A Lada (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Unencyclopaedic
25 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: Start Gail Trimble (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
110 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: Stub Baja Bug (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Merge
6 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Burnett of Leys (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Merge
60 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: C Cadency (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Merge
48 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Ural Automotive Plant (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Wikify
228 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C GAZ (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Wikify
27 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Chris Atkinson (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Wikify
1 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Stub Sribu.com (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Orphan
3 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Alejandro Fernández (racing driver) (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Orphan
5 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Start Farvardinegan (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Orphan
7 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub B'z (album) (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
14 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Stub Formula C (SCCA) (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
8 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Yury Kendysh (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
16 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Stub Formula Lightning (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
29 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Stub Top Alcohol (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
2 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Moskvitch G2 (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

01:36:20, 6 August 2015 review of submission by Ahurvitz2[edit]


I have made major improvements to my submission, correcting grammar and formatting the entire document.

But now I seem to have a new hurdle, as a reviewer says " It should be noted that the page creator has stated they are being advised by Grossman on how to create the page." Sulfurboy (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not true at all. I am writing this factually, truthfully and objectively.

I hope that I am on the right track in getting this approved.

Ahurvitz2 (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Helene Breschand's noateability[edit]

Hi,

The article I wrote was declined saying that the subject was not noteable enough, however she is a musician at the very top of her field and very well recognized in the French music industry. All of the references I used were the top websites about contemporary music in France. As contemporary music is a much smaller field than say pop music, it may seem that she is not very well known, however it is impossible to play at places higher up in the contemporary music world than where she plays and has played, and with the musicians and composers with whom she has played and written for. She travels around the world to Japan and New York and is very well known in the contempoarary music world and this is why I wanted to write about her, because she is extraordinary and at the top. I know the links are sometimes in French, but there is no higher form of referencing a contemporary musicain. Please let me know what else you would like me to do as she can't go higher in her field and therer is therefore no higher referencing in this field.

Many thanks,

Musicmusiques (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

article as part of leiden university's page[edit]

Dear Aerospeed,

Thanks for reviewing my article. You said it should be part of Leiden University's page, instead of being its own page - fair enough. I think you mean it should be in this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leiden_University#Research_schools_and_affiliated_institutes The Leiden Institute of Physics (LION) is in that list.

You can click on some other institutes on that list, which directs you to their page. So we can do the same for LION. However, I'm not sure how to do that without creating LION's own page.

Best wishes, Erik — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErikNatuurkunde (talkcontribs) 15:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@ErikNatuurkunde: You could try to merge it with the history section, given that two members have won Nobel Prizes, so that would be a good way to expand on that section, which has been tagged as such. Aerospeed (Talk) 15:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Special Committee for Transparency and Accessiblity of Govt. Information[edit]

Hi Aerospeed, Thank you for helping to review my submission. I was wondering what steps I need to take to have it meet the "notability requirements". What suffices? Links to news articles about the committee? Something else? Thank you for your time.

Best, Robello15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robello15 (talkcontribs) 11:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

08:48:07, 24 August 2015 review of submission by Jnishimoura[edit]


Jnishimoura (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Hi Aerospeed,

You declined my draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jacques_Habra due to insufficient third party sources. I'm a bit confused as of the 35 citations, only 1 does not fully meet the independent third party source criteria. Please advise as this individual has been instrumental in the development of key technologies and has earned notable regard by the sector over his career.

Many thanks,

Jackie

Peter R Hemming[edit]

I appear to have had my draft rejected albeit the company Fiverr had informed me it was approved. They asked for information to back up my profile and as most of my career was prior to the internet era I forwarded to them a series of PDF informative items which they said backed up the claims I had. How can we resolve the issues? I just don't have a vast amount of information on the web. Thank you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Peter_R_Hemming

98.173.195.44 (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@98.173.195.44: Do you know where the edit was that said it was approved? Please check your contributions (located in the top right corner) either with your IP or any account you have created.
Also keep in mind, the reason why your submission was declined is because the article is about a living person, but there's no inline citations, so the verifiability is unclear. Please see the page on Bios on living people for more information. Thank you. Aerospeed (Talk) 21:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Opinion on article edited after being declined[edit]

Hi.

Can you please make suggestions to this article before resubmitting? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Omar_E._Garc%C3%ADa-Bol%C3%ADvar

Thanks, Juvetorre (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Peter R Hemming[edit]

Unclear if this is the right place to continue text. Fiverr took all my information, my references were mainly in PDF format of articles, references and sundry associated with myself. Newspaper articles, long lost ( we are talking 40 years ago) etc and on receipt I was informed they were satisfactory for submission. Then I was provided a link as a draft. It was shown as submitted July 10th. 2015. This is the link still on the page: Categories: AfC submissions by date/10 July 2015 However I discovered the other day that although it appeared to be submitted there was another step. That when you rejected it. I have asked for NEW links to be added as references, simply the articles, references etc to be put into a web page format and submitted individually so you can see the items online. I would hope this will work. how about this:

http://motorsports-traveler.com/SCCA2.htm

Would this work as a reference? 184.187.166.216 (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Coat of arms[edit]

The article Coat of arms you nominated as a good article has failed Symbol oppose vote.svg; see Talk:Coat of arms for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. LavaBaron (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)