User talk:France3470/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Can you please review my article again?

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brightontourist (talkcontribs) 20:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank for getting in touch; I'm sorry this is such a delayed response (I got completely sidetracked and forgot I had received your message). I've now resubmitted the article for re-review. Someone will have another look at it shortly. I'll try to have a look at it later tonight and leave some feedback. All the best, France3470 (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Chase Norlin

Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chase Norlin

Hi there,

I've revised the entry for Chase Norlin so that it reads more like a biography and have added a source that interviews him and shows that he is, in fact, a person. He is also a person of note who warrants a Wikipedia entry. I've removed a couple links that referred to his companies more than him outright. Please reread it; it should be accepted without a hitch now. Link:

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrcorrea (talkcontribs) 19:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll go have a detailed look in a little bit and get back to you. All the best, France3470 (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Any updates? Thanks and talk soon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I've gone and left some additional comments at the article page, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chase Norlin which will hopefully provide you with some further direction. The subject sounds notable but a few more sources would really make the notability completely clear. Keep in mind too that biographies of living people require very high-quality sources as they have the potential for a great deal of harm. Feel free to resubmit the article when you feel it is ready for another look over. All the best, France3470 (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Revised yet again! This time with a news article (Colorado Observer) taht interviews Chase Norlin for his expertise and describes who he is. Also posted his board bios and additional information showing he is who he is. Let me know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrcorrea (talkcontribs) 22:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Hope the new edits work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Please resolve the 'citation needed' tags, by adding additional references for those sentences, as well as rewriting the ValueClick sentence (now placed in quotes) as it is directly copied from the AdBidCentral link. Check also that I haven't made any mistakes when I added references and inline citations. It should be okay after those items have been addressed, although the article would benefit from some rewriting so it feels more like an article as opposed to a list of facts. All the best, France3470 (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thank you for your help! I've found the reference that you asked for ("citation needed"0: The other references that you edited and reformatted (thank you by the way!) seem to disappear when i go in to edit to add this final one. Sorry for dragging this on but I want to make sure it gets added correctly. In the link I have just posted here, it is the financial information from JP Morgan, posted publicly, in which Pixsy corporation is described as receiving funding from TV Guide-Gemstar. Also I revised the sentence you asked me to. I think this should make the article on Chase Norlin complete though. Let me know, and thank you again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrcorrea (talkcontribs) 05:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Does it look like we're good to go with that final reference? Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrcorrea (talkcontribs) 23:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The article has now been accepted, although I have done quite a lot of rewriting as there were many more instances of copy and pasted text and close paraphrasing than I first noticed. In future, please be more careful when adding content. Material copied from other places is almost always a copyright violation and therefore not allowed under Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA license. I would highly advise you have a careful read of Wikipedia:Copyright violations and Wikipedia:Copy-paste. Articles which contain text that is copyrighted are generally speedily deleted on sight under WP:CSD#G12. All the best, France3470 (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation update

Hey all :). We've just deployed another set of features for Page Curation. They include flyouts from the icons in Special:NewPagesFeed, showing who reviewed an article and when, a listing of this in the "info" flyout, and a general re-jigging of the info flyout - we've also fixed the weird bug with page_titles_having_underscores_instead_of_spaces in messages sent to talkpages, and introduced CSD logging! As always, these features will need some work - but any feedback would be most welcome.

Page Creation for Kareem Esam Hamd

Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kareem Esam Hamdy

News articles and government sites were used as well as official pages. What areas are lacking so they can be addressed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I have left a comment on the submission page with some suggestions about the referencing. Hopefully that will help. All the best, France3470 (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

B. Hendrixx

Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/B. Hendrixx (Producer)

Thank you for your review of the B. Hendrixx article. As he is a brand new artist, there is not published information on B. Hendrixx on the internet. Would it be acceptable to email you a copy of his contract with Violator and documentation of the track he worked on for season 2 or Shahs of Sunset? Also, the Wikipedia article on Tinashe documents the work B. Hendrixx did with the singer. Will that suffice as a reference or is there anything else that should be provided as supporting documentation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KayzCreation (talkcontribs) 07:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've really hit upon the issue yourself. Since he is a new artist, it is unlikely that he is currently notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Unless you can provide reliable, published, secondary sources, such as newspaper articles, books or magazine articles, that discuss the subject in some depth, it's highly unlikely that the article can be created at this time. I'm afraid none of these additional 'documents', or the fact that he is mentioned on another Wikipedia article, help in demonstrating that this subject meets the notability guidelines. All the best, France3470 (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Lee Kierig --- theory

sorry I missed the boat. I'll try another time if my second book takes hold...OK? thanks. Lee Kierig — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Kierig (talkcontribs) 14:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, how are you?

Hey, hows the editing going? Having fun on Wikipedia? --UnhappyandNoFriends (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a having a lovely evening, thanks. France3470 (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ola Englund rejection

Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ola Englund

Ola is known for his work via, youtube, and the only source reference of myspace is HIS own myspace, and youtube, You can't reject something that is as authentic as his own personal videos, You have no reason to reject my article if that is the reason. So reconsider this, and post the article, instead of just looking at my references with out any knowledge of the actual content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's basic notability criterion is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This coverage should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The current sources provided are not reliable (for instance the blog post), or not independent (such as his personal website). If the subject is known for his YouTube work third party sources are needed which discuss this, as the YouTube videos are primary sources. The subject seems like he could be notable enough for an article, but the sourcing needs to be addressed. Are there perhaps some news articles, books or magazine reviews, which discuss the subject? France3470 (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

Hello, I'm I dream of horses. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions to Make It Happen because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I dream of horses @ 07:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I've undone your revert. This wasn't vandalism but rather a split. The new article is at Make It Happen Productions, and all the appropriate templates are on the talk pages. I've also left a note for the user on their talk page at User talk: All the best, France3470 (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
My bad. It's fine that you reverted me. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 16:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

  1. Go to
  2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
  3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
  4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at and, second, email along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
  • Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
  • Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Make It Happen Productions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spoof (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Specialty goods

You marked Speciality goods as a possible copyright violation of this journal abstract. Do you have access to the journal article itself to know that there is a copyright violation, or are you basing the issue on the abstract itself? Because I don't really see any copying from the abstract. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I carried out multiple google searches of the text which suggested very highly that text has been copied from the journal article itself however I don't have access to the full content on the journal paper at the moment owing to it being behind a paywall (although I hope to be able to verify this soon). Unfortunately linking to the abstract is my only option at present (there is certainly nothing copied from the abstract). I also filed a request at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 September 20. France3470 (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
See for instance [1], [2], [3], when testing random snippets of text in the article. France3470 (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!


Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1540 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk.

Do you have what it takes?
  1. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
  2. Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
  3. Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
  4. 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. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions.

PS: we have a great AFC helper script at WP:AFCH!


Good article nominee AFCH script improvements
  • 1.16 to 1.17
    • Batman still works!

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation. If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.
Happy reviewing! TheSpecialUser TSU

A kitten for you!

Kitten in a helmet.jpg

Thank you for moving my page to Wikipedia talk :)

Allison Greer 21:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


Hi France3470. Firstly, I just wanted to thank you for your work reviewing submissions at AFC; it's a tedious and largely thankless task, and you do it with aplomb. I wanted to draw your attention to your use of the decline reason "blp -submission does not conform to BLP". Whilst it's in many way the correct reason to use when you find an unsourced BLP, it has one significant drawback in that it automatically blanks the page and tags it for deletion under A10. Often, this is appropriate - I've deleted several AFC submissions that you tagged in this way this morning - but in some cases, there is no actual violation of WP:BLP beyond an absence of sources. In such cases, where there is no defamatory or personal material on the page, a more appropriate decline reason would be "bio-subject does not appear to be a notable person". This is advantageous for two reasons, firstly it retains the text and encourages the original author to locate sources to demonstrate notability, and secondly it avoids clogging up CSD with submissions that, in article space, would be dealt with by {{BLPPROD}} instead.

Hope this makes sense. Thanks again for your hard work at AfC. All the best, Yunshui  10:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thank for getting in touch Yunshui. Sorry for unnecessarily clogging up CSD, wasn't my intention in the slightest. I clearly misinterpreted how the blp decline was to be used, as I have been tagging all unreferenced biographies under this reason. I'll go back to using the bio decline as my mainstay again. Thanks, France3470 (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
No worries - it's not like you were deliberately spamming CSD with hundreds of inappropriate tags, it's just a rather annoying feature of the AFC Helper script (which in all other respects is marvellous). The articles in question don't meet the BLP sourcing requirements, so it's an obvious decline reason to use; unfortunately the automated CSD tag means that we then end up with one rule for article space (unsourced BLPs get a week's grace if there are no other issues) and another for AFC (unsourced BLPs get DELETED WITH FIRE). I should add, as well, that the above note is just my personal take - it's not the "official" line, only what I consider to be a common sense interpretation of the rules - so feel free to ignore me if you want to. Yunshui  12:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
When I made the decision to start using blp decline, I did go to Category: Candidates for speedy deletion to see if the items actually got listed there. I didn't see them being listed, so I wasn't sure how they were being deleted, although I did note that admins were deleting them. Personally I do find the feature flawed, I'd be interested in blanking the page but tagging for csd was never really the intention, just a side effect. As you point out this is most certainly overkill, and a complete double standard for pages which aren't even live or indexed. AFCs which I feel do fit the speedy deletion criteria, I always tag through Twinkle, so they are logged and the creator is notified.
I actually believe a part of the problem with the AFC project is that there doesn't appear to be any 'offical' take on anything. The reviewing instructions only briefly mention when CSD might be used, despite the fact there must be an ever increasing number of pages being tagged under a variety of different criteria. Just last week, I reverted an attempted A7 speedy on an AFC, which lead to this discussion, Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Can an Article for creation submission be speedied under an A criteria? which you may have seen. This coupled with a number of other observances (last week I tagged a number of AFCs under as G12, which were subsequently deleted under G8) really raises a red flag for me. I'm concerned that CSD criteria is being applied without any kind of agreed standard and admins not knowledge in AFCs are willingly obliging and perpetuating the problem by carrying out the deletion. Perhaps I'm being dramatic, but I would really like to see clearer policy in place when it comes to CSD criteria for AFCs. France3470 (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
If I recall the manual reviewer instructions correctly (and I'm writing this from memory, since I only got a couple of hours sleep last night and I'm too tired to trawl through and look them up) then the only CSD criteria that were applied to AfCs at the review stage were G10 for attack pages and blatanmt defamation, and G12 for copyright violations. I don't think any others, not even G1, were mentioned, but I could be mistaken. Certainly the Article criteria shouldn't apply, but it's still, as you point out, a bit of a grey area for admins, even those who do have some AfC experience. Yunshui  08:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter

Hey France3470. This will be, if not our final newsletter, one of the final ones :). After months of churning away at this project, our final version (apart from a few tweaks and bugfixes) is now live. Changes between this and the last release include deletion tag logging, a centralised log, and fixes to things like edit summaries.

Hopefully you like what we've done with the place; suggestions for future work on it, complaints and bugs to the usual address :). We'll be holding a couple of office hours sessions, which I hope you'll all attend. Many thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

new page for Jan Marsh

Trophy.png thanks
Thanks for initial comment MarshHarry (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aboutology

I'm glad you found humor in my submission, but I was under the impression that etymological, meant 'made up'. As in I made up the word "Aboutology". It is obviously non-factual but could be. How do non-words become real words? I was not trying to be humorous in asking this question,fyi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefnzdoych1 (talkcontribs) 04:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The guideline Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day discusses why we cannot accept these types of submissions. Wikipedia is for information that has already been published not for information being published for the first time. Instead we look at coverage in sources such as newspapers, academic journals, books etc to decide what topics are notable. Additionally, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Articles which are no more than definitions are often moved to our sister project Wiktionary. However, newly invented words, are considered neologisms and not acceptable at Wikipedia or Wiktionary. You might have a look at the Urban Dictionary instead. The article Neologism is also an interesting read. All the best, France3470 (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the cookies and the info( (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Stefnzdoych1) Not sure if I did that right?
You can sign your posts by typing ~~~~ (four tides). France3470 (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Christopher Bronk Ramsey

Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher Bronk Ramsey

Dear reviewer, Please help me. I realised from the start that this article did not include references but there was nothing in it to reference. It has links to other pages that relate to Professor Bronk Ramsey's work and I have a bibliography that gives examples of his publications. But there is no direct claim in the text that can be referenced. Or at least I would not know how to reference. Things like his position at Merton and in the Archaeology School for example. Please advise what I need to do. Best, Zizekian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zizekian (talkcontribs) 22:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Zizekian, thanks for getting in touch about your submission. You will see I have gone ahead and started adding inline referencing for the article. This should give you an idea about how this done. Additional citation tools can make this really easy. I am not sure what you mean by "there was nothing in it to reference". All articles need to include reliable sources (preferably independent) which verify the information. How else would someone reading it know that the information present is indeed correct? Biographies of living people have to be even more careful with regards to sourcing, as incorrect information could be potentially harmful.
In your submission I have added "citation needed" tags where inline references are needed. In these cases I was not able to find a source which verified the information. For instance one sentences states "OxCal has since undergone numerous updates and remains the most widely used software of its type, hosting several thousand users worldwide". Although there are sources that indicate that OxCal has undergone numerous updates, I have not been able to find any sources which state the latter, that it "remains the most widely used software of its type, hosting several thousand users worldwide". This kind of claims certainly requires a reference. If one cannot be found I suggest this be removed. Similarly I edited some of the information so that it is fully referenced. For example I was not able to find anywhere which stated the year he became an Oxford professor so I removed the date. There are other issues with dates that cannot be confirmed throughout, including his date of birth. These too I suggest removing if no reference can be found.
Please see if you can resolve these sourcing issues. If you need any additional help let me know. I will keep an eye on the submission and assist where I can. You might want to also consider including something about his work on the Shroud of Turin, as it seems to have been widely discussed in news articles. All the best, France3470 (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Dear France3470,
I am sorry this is in the wrong place, I know, but I am in a rush. i am trying to finish the one and only Wiki page i will ever write on Christopher Bronk Ramsey. I have now gone through it and made substantial additions to the references. I have kept them highly scholastic (Science, Nature, etc) , though I never meant that to be the case for this. Anyway, I still have a few things left to do and will get back to it but I would like to make a couple of points:
Some things cannot be referenced- they must be taken on good faith - so long as there are means by which they can be checked. I have emailed the administrative staff at Merton College and they told me he was born in 1962, started at Merton in 1980, and he was made a Bodley Fellow this year. People could do this if they wanted to. There will never be a web-based publication that will detail this. I think one can't cite such things. I mean, questions like the fact is such a thing as a university at Oxford, would perhaps then have to be corroborated.
But the claim that OxCal is the most used bayesian chronological modelling program is more problematic. I mean, i know it is the biggest, and it is by miles, but only Christopher Bronk Ramsey himself has knowledge of how many users there are. He has told me before several thousand but I have no way of citing that.
With reference to the Shroud of Turin, this must not be mentioned on the site. Yes, it is all over the web, but that is just because of the extremists out there who want to challenge radiocarbon on religious grounds. Identifying him with it on a personal site like this could be very dangerous indeed. Zizekian Zizekian (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

aeon flex

Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aeon Flex (Producer)

Hello, thank you for reviewing my submission, I need some help making it a better article, what should I add and from where? AeonFlex (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's basic notability criterion is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Therefore you should look to source your submission with multiple, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The current sources provided are not reliable or independent, and hardly confer notability. The submission also suggests that most of his work is unreleased, which makes it highly likely that this subject is not yet sufficiently notable enough for an article. Your username indicates you may also have a conflict of interest, please note writing an autobiography is very strongly discouraged. All the best, France3470 (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks so much to France 3470 for guidance and assistance in creating wikipedia content. I am so grateful. Getsmartinfo (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

London Terrace DYK

Be happy to submit it to DYK - what do you think the hook should be? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samyahm (talkcontribs) 15:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm so sorry I wasn't able to help with this; real life was keeping me busy. (: Perhaps you can give DYK another try with your next article. All the best, France3470 (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

RE: John Anthony's Wager

Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Anthony's Wager

"It appears that your submission is either an attempt to be humorous over being factual, or is an obvious hoax"

I do not know whether your rejection comment was directly intended to be insulting or if you are just ignorant. Maybe you live in a different world than me, however I don't see mathematical proofs as an attempt to be humorous. The logic is undeniable, and provided in the submission is a source in which the same exact proof was used by Blaise Pascal himself. I do not know what else you are looking for, if you do not understand how to read a proof, then please defer to another reviewer who can. Your rejection is neither helpful nor valid, and from the long history of posts I'm seeing on your page, this may be a reoccurring issue with you as a reviewer. Please review this again and ask for help if you need it, I do not want to have to dispute this over something as foolish as a lack of awareness, please be diplomatic and let's resolve this without conflict.

Warm Regards Renegade1745 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegade 1745 (talkcontribs) 23:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for getting in touch about your submission. I apologize that your submission was wrongly reviewed. I have now amended the decline reason. At Articles for Creation we receive all sorts of submissions, on many different subjects, which can make reviewing challenging. Sometimes mistakes are made. When I reviewed this submission I was unable to find any references which mentioned John Anthony's Wager. Multiple online searches yielded no results at all. Additionally only two pieces of information in the article are cited, with the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology not appearing to even mention the subject. I'm afraid this is not enough to demonstrate that the article fulfills Wikipedia's most basic criteria of notability and verifiability. Please add additional references and then submit the article for re-review. You might also get in touch with a relevant Wikiproject as they might be familiar with the subject and be able to provide suggestions and support. All the best, France3470 (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
After looking at that page myself, it's entirely original research. It does not belong on Wikipedia. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Page: COLLAB Philadelphia Museum of Art


I am the creator of the COLLAB Philadelphia Museum of Art page. I just left this message on WilyD's talk page:

Hi WilyD. I wanted to inquire about the deletion of the COLLAB Philadelphia Museum of Art page. I understand that it was due to copyright infringement from the Philadelphia Museum of Art's Web site. COLLAB is a non-profit, volunteer driven affiliate of the Museum, and the Museum staff actually wrote the Wikipedia copy when COLLAB requested that we have our own page.

Given our affiliation, the museum's approval of us having our own entry, and the fact that they supplied the copy, is there a means to have the page reinstated?

Thank you!

Based on the speedy deletion comments, if I sign the page and attribute everything to the Philadelphia Museum of Art, or reference the copy that is on their site, will that suffice? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Jeddnyc (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Jeddnyc

Hello Jeddnyc. Thanks for getting in touch. The key issue is that Wikipedia operates under a CC-BY-SA and GFDL license. This means that in order to donate material to Wikipedia the information must also be available or given under a similar license, which is currently not the case. The COLLAB Philadelphia Museum of Art webpage quite clearly claims copyright. Have a look at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials which discusses this in more detail. The section "Granting us permission to copy material already online" explains how to go about donating material. If the license on the site is not going to be amended, the permission needs to obtained by submitting a declaration of consent form through the official channels (full instructions can be found in the linked section above). However, I think WilyD left you some very good advice, which I suggest you most certainly consider. Wikipedia articles are not organisation or company websites, and the information requires a very different treatment. Even if the donated material meets our licensing requirements there is no guarantee that the content itself is suitable. Hope this helps, France3470 (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Collaborative

WikiWomen Unite!
Hi France3470! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative.

As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by:

We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can get involved!

Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

bangladesh international school english section jeddah

re; Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bangladesh International School (English Section), Jeddah — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC) may i please know why is it declined? I have gave all information & everything mentioned is true so why is it declined? About the picture, I will upload after it has been accepted 15:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! Thanks for getting in touch about your submission. I declined the draft because the current referencing is insufficient. Even if the information is correct it still needs to be verifiable. Articles should references a variety of reliable sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and which are independent of the subject. Linking to the "Official Facebook Fan page" is neither reliable or independent. Links to Facebook should generally be avoided entirely as the content is user generated. I also removed some sections of the article which were copied and pasted from the school's website. Please note that this cannot be done as it is a violation of copyright and against Wikipedia policy. Articles which contain text that is copyrighted may be candidates for speedily deletion under WP:CSD#G12. Are there perhaps some additional references which could found and added to the article? (In future please also remember to sign your posts.) All the best, France3470 (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


Curious to know what exactly did you change and why? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no clue what this is in reference to. If you have a question about a specific edit I made, please provide a link to the relevant article so I can take a look. Thanks. France3470 (talk) 04:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


Your message got answered Hello, France3470. There is a response from me, below the message you left in the "Carrie" section of my talk page.--Jerzyt 04:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Going Down

Hi France3470, thanks for your kind and helpful note regarding "Going Down". I realized my mistake almost as soon as I hit enter, but I wasn't sure how to fix it. Thank you for laying out the next steps - I haven't done anything like this before so wish me luck :-). Best, Kel. Kel (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Glad you were able to sort it out. All the best, France3470 (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

"Tomorrow's Events Today" article

Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chocolate Munkey


As I am new here..I don't know much about the terms.The website for which I have wrote the article is new...Please let me know what do I need to do next to get this article approved.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristen.anderson (talkcontribs) 20:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kristen. Thanks for getting in touch about your article submission. However at this time it appears that the subject is currently not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I left a note to similar effect when I reviewed the submission. Since, as you point out, the website is new it is very unlikely to meet Wikipedia's basic criteria of having received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'm afraid without strong supporting references there is no way that the submission can be accepted. For more information please see the notability guideline for websites and our policy on verifiability. Hope this helps. All the best, France3470 (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter - closing up!

Hey all :).

We're (very shortly) closing down this development cycle for Page Curation. It's genuinely been a pleasure to talk with you all and build software that is so close to my own heart, and also so effective. The current backlog is 9 days, and I've never seen it that low before.

However! Closing up shop does not mean not making any improvements. First-off, this is your last chance to give us a poke about unresolved bugs or report new ones on the talkpage. If something's going wrong, we want to know about it :). Second, we'll hopefully be taking another pass over the software next year. If you've got ideas for features Page Curation doesn't currently have, stick them here.

Again, it's been an honour. Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Madhab Chandra Dash

Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Madhab Chandra Dash

Hi France3470, thanks for taking interest in the article I submitted for review. I joined Wiki to build biographical articles of known scientists from the developing world. New to the Wiki world so not familiar with the tools. Anyways, you mentioned that the link <> was not active but when I go to the webpage it is active. This is the official website maintained by the Government of the State of Odisha in India <> so this page is indeed a reliable source as would be a source say from the Government website of California as an analogy. As regards other comment by K7L, I could find the reference to Prof. Dash's biography in a McGraw Hill Book. McGraw Hill are reputed worldwide publishers [<> & <>] and so I thought they are reliable sources of information. I also found another article as a reference to Madhab Chandra Dash <>, but don't know how to integrate this into the write up. The Hindu is a mainstream secular newspaper in India <>. Please help me in publishing this article. Do let me know what you think. Once I finish this article, my next one would be on a chemical scientist from India. Many thanks & regards, Wikibuilder100, (Wikibuilder100 (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC))

I will have another look at this submission in a little bit and get back to you. Ignoring the fact the I wasn't able to access the website (which does seem to be working again) I did not think the article was too far off. I'll see what I can do. All the best, France3470 (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I have now gone ahead and accepted the submission. Although I agree with the other reviewers that the referencing needs improvement (too much weight is given to the Appellate Authority source, for instance) I feel this is not enough to prevent the article from being accepted. From what I can see the subject currently meets the notability guideline for academics. I hope you'll continue working on the article now that it is in the mainspace as there is still much that can be improved. One relatively easy issue to tackle would be the lead section. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section provides some useful information about how to go about writing a good one. Generally the lead section should not present any new information then what is already given in the main body of the article. It should act as a summary of the information below, and as such it tends to contain no citations. In terms of referencing, I believe that you are correct in that the sources provided are reliable, however I think what the other reviewers had concerns with was that they are no independent references. The best sources are those which are reliable and independent. The article in The Hindu, for instance, would satisfy this criteria. The section in Advances In Ecology And Environmental Sciences might also be of use. See if you can add in other sources, so that the article is not so dependent on the Appellate Authority profile. Hope this helps. Please let me know if I can assist in any other way. All the best, France3470 (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

AFC Marlene Aguilar

Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marlene Aguilar

hi. can you review again my Article. and please give me back my photos. File:MarleneAguilar 06.jpg File:Tbw 400px.jpg File:The Key Cover 'red'.jpg

THANKS . Godbless — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yco Mora (talkcontribs) 14:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yco Mora (talkcontribs) 14:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello France3470 please review my article. thanks. .GODBLESS --Yco Mora (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for getting in touch. I'll have a look later today. All the best, France3470 (talk) 12:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I see you made quite a number of changes since I last saw the page and you're definitely on the right track. The main issue is that there are very significant portions of the article which appear to be uncited. Just skimming it over it appears that citations are missing for most of the Biography and Political Activities sections as well as the latter half of Writing Career (which contain quotes with always need to be cited). Additionally it doesn't look like all the references used are currently reliable sources (for instance the links to Youtube). Articles should be based on published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and that are preferably independent of the subject. In regards to the images I'm afraid there is nothing I can do. As you appear to found out sending an OTRS request is likely going to be the easiest way of getting them back. All the best, France3470 (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

i already sent the OTRS including the message that they want from the copyright holder but still i do not recieved feedback. please remind them about my images. thanks buddy. GODBLESS. regards to my article. pls review it again. :) i already made some changes to the citing. :)

Yco Mora (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject:Articles for Creation October - November 2012 Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 22, 2012 – November 21, 2012.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

EdwardsBot (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Eureka Downs

Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eureka Downs

Most of the information is from old newspapers in the local museum. Not sure how to provide more online references. braniff — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Braniff. Thanks for getting in touch! It's great to hear about your research. The information does not need to be online but it does need to still be referenced. For this I would recommend using inline citations so it is absolutely clear where each individual piece of the information comes from. Have a look too at the essay Wikipedia:Offline sources which provides some additional information on using sources which are offline. Hope this helps. All the best, France3470 (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Grance - I added a bunch of references. Please review and let me know if anything more is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

AFC Social BPM

Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Social BPM

Bonjour France3470,

Thanks for reviewing my article!

Maybe interesting for you to hear that the swiss Social BPM company mentioned in the references is less than one mile away from Basel's St-Paul Church!

Best Regards

Cheffounet (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Cheffounet. Thanks for getting in touch and for the interesting fact. I've just reviewed the article and left some comments. Please work on the finding stronger references and making sure the everything is verifiable before you resubmit the article for review. All the best, France3470 (talk) 03:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Korea Marine Transport Company

Independent sources for the articles are unavailable currently. I see no problem in referencing to the website of the company which is genuine and contains the history of the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parmarabhishek (talkcontribs) 03:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

AFC Social BPM

Hello France3470!

Many thanks for your comments. Great sources have been added. Less relevant sources have been removed. Indeed most of the reference documents now added have been already used as the baseline for my article. Your link allowing to search for books has been useful as I did not know about their existence, the main reason being that searching with "Social BPM" in Google returns rather web pages than books. But you are right, books are much better as a reference for a Wikipedia article. One is a more elaborated version of the slide show created by the same authors (Marco Brambilla, Piero Fraternali, Carmen Vaca).

I prefer not to use referencing to one or the other sources as it would not be fair to favour one rather than another.

Anyway, the philosophy of Social BPM is to be evolving and empiric so any current source is not cast in stone for the future.

The reference to comondoo! has been changed to the much more explicit home page. Sorry for this, you are right that the previous page was not explicit at all. A publication of comondoo! has been the initial trigger for my research and my current successful application of Social BPM at work over a period of a full year now. If you don't mind I would like to keep a reference. If needed I can move the link down to External References.

The below link is a small example of process-work instruction navigator for Social BPM.

It will be deactivated - by editing and suppressing this section - once you will let me know to have successfully tested it.

ID : Andreas

Password : xleadership8

Social BPM in action for Wikipedia :-)

To experience a Social BPM workflow like comondoo! with web links to the processes and work instructions an e-mail address would be needed.


Cheffounet (talk) 06:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not a newsletter

This is just a tribute.

Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.

In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation needs YOUR help!


Articles for creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1540 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our help desk.

Do you have what it takes?
  1. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
  2. Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
  3. Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
  4. 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. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. Plus, reviewing is easy when you use our new semi-automated reviewing script!
Thanks in advance, Nathan2055talk - contribs

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation at 22:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC). If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.

Article for Creation


would you re-write this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbigjustin (talkcontribs) 10:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

An Barnstar for You!

Invisible Barnstar Hires.png
The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar

Congratulations, France3470! You're receiving the Invisible Barnstar because you reviewed 27 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! Mdann52 (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)