Jump to content

User talk:LukeSurl/archive6

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

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

[edit]


Re: Cowpuncher

[edit]

Some of the awards are local, however the band just won two awards on a provincial and then western Canadian level. Alongside Tegan and Sara: http://www.cbc.ca/keyofa/2013/12/27/best-of-alberta-2013/

Cowpuncher has been a provincial representative for the Alberta Music Industry Association which was cited. There is also a national award named after the band.

Cowpuncher is currently on rotation with x92.9 which is a commercial station. As is CKUA. As is CBC. It seems to me that there are other bands with less press, following or attention who have had their submissions accepted -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beekeeper_(band)

I am very confused by this rejection. I have added more citations and re-submitted. Please re-review and let me know if we need to add more information. Ryankelster (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)RyanKelster[reply]

Re: periodic table cupcakes.

[edit]

Hi, you left me a message about my article on periodic table cupcakes. Articles for creation/Periodic Table Cupcakes. I've added some more information but i'd welcome advice on how to reflect in the article the full extent of the activity - a quick google search brings up dozens of examples of people making periodic table cupcakes, inside and outside Chemistry departments, but none references Ida Freund as the originator of the idea. Her idea has had significant impact and I'd like the article to reflect this. The making of the original cupcakes is already included in the article about her and i don't want to duplicate too much. What is the best way to record this so that when people search for 'periodic table cupcakes' they find her contribution? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melissa Highton (talk • contribs) 21:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Article for creation.

[edit]

Your decision to decline the new article 'Combined list of World Heavyweight Champions in TNA' on the basis that "this information already exists in List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions and List_of_NWA_World_Heavyweight_Champions" is most unagreeable, it is not just a case of copying information that already exists, but placing it together and creating new information that is not available on either page and would require constantly going back & forth between them to figure out. It makes looking up this information considerably easier and also provides new information throughout the entire history of the topic rather than just part of it. Saying "this combined list is not of great utility" is hardly accurate as already stated. It takes a relevent part of one article and the information of another article and puts them into one simple combined article for ease, to make looking up such information quicker and much more simple. It also creates new information that is not found anywhere on wikipedia as it is in order to create a complete history rather than a fragmented one. Your conclusion is short sighted as a result as you seem to think this new article merely copies informantion from two existing articles and puts them together, when it does more than that and also makes it much easier for everybody wanting to look this information up, it also makes the lineage in question corrospond to that of the company it is about and without this list the information on the existing articles is incomplete and even misleading as it gives information that is contrary to what the very company in question consideres the facts and its history. A reconsideration of this is suggested provided all the information is taken into account this time and a short sighted reasoning of "information already exists" is proven incorrect and suggests the article was not looked at properly, rather you simply looked at the list and nothing more. The main points of this article are to provide a complete history that also coincides with what the people who make this subject themselves think and makes it considerably quicker, simpler and much easier for users as they would no longer have to use two articles (one that coveres much, much more irrelevent information meaning users have to search through all that in order to get the information as well) and then jump back & forth between them all to add everything up in a time consuming and confusing process when they can simply have the information all there, all complete, all corrosponding correctly to the very company, all at the end of one simple link.

Pawac (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The critical phrase there is "creates new information". This sort of synthesis comes under WP:No Original Research. Generally speaking, to justify a new list like that one needs to present sources that show that this arrangement of information has been of interest in reliable sources. If you are doing the calculation required in order to form the article then it is a sign you are creating an original synthesis. --LukeSurl t c 20:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir. O - declined by you

[edit]

Hi Luke, As per Wiki guidelines I've added a verifiable source = BBC's web site, where they have created a web page for Sir. O, playing his music and furthermore - they asked for a link to his Wiki page, which couldn't be provided since you declined the article. Under " guidelines on the notability of music-related topics " in section 11 it says: "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network." - which I believe BBC is suitable enough. Sir. O is played on over 100 Radio station world-wide (I can provide a list if needed) our of which over 50 stations in the UK! So I'm not sure what is notable and Nation-wide if not that?? Avi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oavi (talk • contribs) 11:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avi. I saw the BBC page. Obviously Wikipieda have no control over what the BBC says or how they link to the encylopedia, however there is no compulsion on this wiki to create a page on a topic just because an external site suggests the idea. The text looks somewhat "biolerplate" either.
To be precise, rotation means that the song is played regularly (on the order of 10 times a week) rather than having been played once or twice. The BBC page does not show that a song has been placed on rotation by any station, hence the [failed verification] tag that fact has been assigned with in the draft. --LukeSurl t c 18:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luke, Thanks for clearing that out. It is extremely difficult to "prove" that Sir. O is on rotation on the other 100 stations as well as they don't show it on web or on paper.. In case that's not enough I'll have to wait till he's on the charts (I suppose) or BBC states (or other similar Nation channel) he's on rotation... Avi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oavi (talk • —Preceding undated comment added 20:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
Hi Luke Surl: I just resubmitted my contribution. You indicated that imdb wasn't a reliable source, however I've noticed that other contributions listed and approved on wikipedia use imdb as a source. I would greatly appreciate your help as imdb.com is the only source which lists actual television and film credits. Thanks for your assistance and hard work. This is tough job you have! All the best. Thefaearecoming (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

[edit]

Questions About "Comparison of high adventure resources" Article

[edit]

Hello LukeSurl,

Thank you for your feedback:

Comment: Impressive, but Wikipedia isn't meant to be a comparison site. Not accepting on the grounds of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information LukeSurl t c 01:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Comparison_of_high_adventure_resources

There are many, many other "Comparison of X" articles on Wikipedia, if you simply type in "comparison of" into the Wikipedia search dialog box it brings up many options in the auto-complete. Here are a few examples:

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

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

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

Can you please explain to me why all the other "Comparison of X" articles were approved, but not mine?

Can you please give me specific guidance on how to update my article so that it will be approved?

Thanks, ~ Will — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbraswell (talk • contribs) 06:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen by the blue links on the left hand columns in Comparison_of_Linux_distributions etc., almost all the entities being compared in those articles are notable enough to have articles of their own. This is not the case in your draft, especially in the section where you focussed on Texas. Generally, such a list should be restricted to notable entities (i.e. those with articles). Also it is better to be global in scope, rather than focussing on a single country or state. --LukeSurl t c 11:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

[edit]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

[edit]
Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 00:25, Saturday, November 16, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together


Merged 2013 NCAA Division II football season into the 2013 NCAA Division II National Football Championship Playoffs article

[edit]

Please review this AFC and hopefully approve the merged article: "2013 NCAA Division II National Football Championship Playoffs" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/2013_NCAA_Division_II_National_Football_Championship_Playoffs

Also, a redirect from the article, "2013 NCAA Division II football season", to the newly merged article, "2013 NCAA Division II National Football Championship Playoffs", should be done, too.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.87.207 (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have merged the articles. I feel out of my depth, so I will leave moving articles and creating redirects to an editor who doesn't think that football is a game where you kick a round ball. By the way, being able to create redirects is one of the many benefits of creating an account. --LukeSurl t c 11:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned comments...

[edit]

I wanted to let you know that for some reason, whenever I sign with four ~~~~ in the Teahouse, it always says It is a proceeded unsigned comment. Do you know what I could be doing to have this happen? -Pending(tell me I screwed up 15:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The bot detects whether a signature has been placed depending on whether or not there is a link to the user's talk page on the English Wikipedia. Because your signature points to User talk:Simple English: Pending, rather than User talk: Pending it reads as an unsigned comment. --LukeSurl t c 17:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I'll fix that. Thank you. -Pending(tell me I screwed up 17:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pending (talk • contribs) [reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
Thanks for the help with my signature. PendingTell me I screwed up! 14:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Just a minor tweak [1]. No charge:) Thanks for doing AfC reviews! DMacks (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

[edit]

Sagebrush Golf and Sporting club

[edit]

Clearly your view of notable is seriously out of line with mine. When the leading three golf publication in the world site you as notable, that would appear to any reasonable person to confirm notability and verifiability. I have better things to do with my time.Wattisbob (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kayguarnay/Himalayan Cataract Project

[edit]

Hi. I have declined your speedy deletion on this, because neither G7 nor G13 really apply; more importantly, it looks to me as though Turn685 made the article Himalayan Cataract Project from it by cut-and-paste, in which case what needs doing is a history-merge so that the original contributors are credited for their work, as the CC-BY-SA license requires. I have asked him and will sort it out. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed: the merged article history now shows the original contributions from Kayguarnay and others. See WP:Copying within Wikipedia for background to all this. 16:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)JohnCD (talk)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

[edit]
[edit]

Hi, I Just quoted the original text of Law (Association football laws) , I think it may be accepted under Fair-use licences in wikipedia policies and I also wrote the source below. actually I don't try to infringe on copyrights deliberately, So I apologize if my thought is wrong and thank you for edit the article --»» Ibrahim.ID 18:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahim.ID (talk • contribs) [reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Advanced Chess (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Deep Blue
Dropped-ball (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Laws of the Game
Kick-off (association football) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Laws of the Game

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

[edit]

Thank you

[edit]

Hello,

I'm Hayley who is working on the HMS Hardy (1912) page. Thank you for editing the page twice.

Regards,

Hayley Mills — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmills1989 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping with our wikipedia assignment for Interaction Experience Engagement at Hull University, your input is greatly appreciated. Conor Robinson (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again I wanted to thank you for helping with my question, I'm slowly getting my head around the regulations thanks to your support, greatly appreciated. Conor Robinson (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Articles for Creation barnstar
A barnstar to you for reviewing at least 175 submissions during the WikiProject Articles for creation December 2013 - January 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks for contributing to the backlog elimination drive!
Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 11:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation[reply]


WikiProject Articles for creation March 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive

[edit]

Hello LukeSurl:

WikiProject AFC is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014.

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!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.
Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 02:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation[reply]

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

[edit]

Tea Tree Oil papers

[edit]

Hiya,

Thanks for the offer to get the paper: A review of applications of tea tree oil in dermatology ( http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-4632.2012.05654.x/abstract )

Someone had already sent it to me a couple days ago, but we forgot to close the post! Ill do that now.

Thanks alot anyway!

Gsonnenf (talk) 08:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trapped! game lists

[edit]

unsourced info on unfortunates aside, I think the game lists have every right to be up on that article as they have the Caretaker's descriptions of the games which isn't OR. Visokor (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"OR" is not information that is untrue, it is information that has not been previously published in a reliable source (see Wikipedia:No original research for the actual policy). The more pressing issue is however WP:INDISCRIMINATE – simply put Wikipedia is not suited to describe Trapped! to the level of detail that you are aiming for. As I have said before, I would encourage you to create an independent Trapped! Wikia where you could write whatever you wished without having to worry about such issues as this. --LukeSurl t c 13:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, LukeSurl. You have new messages at Jab843's talk page.
Message added 14:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jab843 (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

Ok Luke, I give up. Apparently Wikipedia is too exclusive for the likes of me, so I'll start a blog else where. I'm not sure if it is your intent to run off potential contributors, but you've run me off. I'm going to start with a 2,000 word piece so you can simply say "rejected", with no real explanation? Nope. I'm going to start off with something modest, you say it's garbage, reject, and I say ok, I'll try a little harder. Question, do you know your elbow from a Spode coffee cup? Nope. I've tried a few times, and you exclusive critics can have Wikipedia. Nice little club for the old timers, but you don't let in new members. Cool. YOU OUGHT TO TELL PEOPLE RIGHT OFF THE CLUB IS FULL, INVITE ONLY, AND A WASTE OF TIME TO MESS WITH!! By the way, I won't use Wikipedia again either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Real Cabdriver (talk • contribs) 19:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I assume you are directing this message at me because I rejected your AFC draft. The AFC process may not make this clear, but such a rejection does not imply that your contribution is unwanted - the intended message is that the draft could not become a mainspace article yet. I see you received some constructive advice at the helpdesk on how the draft could be improved so it could achieve article status. The door remains open and I hope you reconsider your decision to give up editing.

WHY would I want your door? I've got better things to do with my time. It's not like I don't understand things like formatting, because I do. I am the author of the first ever publicly released Elisa program, written at the University of Wisconsin back in the 80's. I was published by the University of Chicago press as an undergraduate.

What is an Elisa program? Surely a super user like you doesn't need an explanation, but I'll waste your time anyhow. Bot's are the modern off shoots of Elisa programs. Just 4 inches up the page it says Autosigned by SineBot, a Bot. And it shouldn't be SineBot, unless it's a trigonometry bot, is should be Signbot.

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

[edit]

Articles for creation/List of old-time American radio announcers

[edit]

Thank you for your feedback with regard to the list that I had submitted. I will delete the names that do not have Wikipedia entries and resubmit the list. I hope to write articles about some of those people as time and resources permit. I will also clarify the reference to "Radio's Golden Age," as you suggested.

I appreciate your help. Eddie Blick (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the suggested changes and resubmitted the list. Thanks again for your help. Eddie Blick (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Kingdom of Khana

[edit]

Hi Luke, I am writing to you in relation to the article about Kingdom of Khana that you have recently accepted. I have worked on it adding links to/from other articles and assigning it to Wiki categories. Will these additions affect the quality category of the article or is it the content I need to work on as well? Any advice or recommendation is appreciated. Thanks! Alex Zaykov (talk) 09:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex. WP:Wikiproject Articles for Creation doesn't really do re-reviews of articles, we have a constant stream of new articles to approve (or not). Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about the quality rating of the article, the only ratings which really mean anything are "Good" and "Featured", everything else is rather arbitrary. If you would like what we call "peer review" on the article, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Peer review/guidelines. This should hopefully garner some advice on how the article could be improved, thought the process may be slow.
You may also like to introduce yourself informally to the community of people at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History and/or Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ancient_Near_East, though I'm not sure if either of those projects are particularly active. A community which is active and very friendly (though not specialised) is the Wikipedia Teahouse, where you are very welcome to start a thread discussing how your article could be further improved and I'm sure some people will try and help you.
Thanks for helping to improve Wikipedia! Cheers, --LukeSurl t c 12:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks a lot, Luke. Alex Zaykov (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

[edit]

review on my article "Process or Application Cooling"

[edit]

Dear Luke, please review my article again, i have attached a weblink of my article which has been published in a very reputed publication of HVAC industry, also I am member of a very reputed body (of HVAC) called "ASHRAE" and holds the chapter of ASHRAE Falcon UAE, I also runs a group on Linkedin called "Temporary District Cooling Plants Nextgen" all these facts will surely helps you to publish my article on wiki and let the HVAC world be benefited of it.

1. http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=7451397&trk=my_groups-b-grp-v 2. http://issuu.com/cpi-industry/docs/ccme-march-2014-v2?e=2057411/7018861 3. http://issuu.com/cpi-industry/docs/ccme-march-2014-v2/63?e=2057411/7018861 4. ASHRAE membership ID: 8238421

regards,

Imran Ali Imran k1211 (talk) 05:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If you mean User:Imran_k1211/sandbox, that draft is evidently not ready to be promoted to a mainspace article. For a start, it contains no external references. Have a look at WP:Your first article for some help preparing your draft. You may be an authoritative person on this subject, but drafts are assessed on the merits of the text only, rather than on who their authors are. --LukeSurl t c 17:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Kobarweng Or Where is Your Helicopter?

[edit]

Hello LukeSurl,

Thank you for reviewing my Kobarweng or Where is Your Helicopter? page. Is it possible to give me some more feedback on your reason for de decline?

Thanks,

Johannesdebruycker (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kobarweng Or Where is Your Helicopter? (1992):, the draft doesn't explain what the film is. Is it a nature documentary? An anthropology film? Is there a plot or a narrative? The Papua New Guinea section is written unclearly, it is unclear whether the text is discussing what happens in the film or is a general comment on the country. The "Director" section is unnecessary, as the article is about the film, not him (the Johan Grimonprez article already exists). The "further reading" section is also unnecessary, and is currently unhelpful as the relevance of each item is not explained.
Please note that the article must discuss the film, rather than be an essay trying to communicate a similar message to the film.
Lastly, in order for an article to exist, even if the above issues are sorted, it must be shown that the film is "notable", as per WP:NFILM. --LukeSurl t c 14:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. Johannesdebruycker (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Voice to skull

[edit]

Hi LukeSurl, thank you for taking the time and effort to review my submitted article. Much appreciated. While I respect your opinion, I beg to differ. Do you have any specific idea on how to improve the article? If not, I am considering moving it to the main space myself, if possible, since I believe it involves a topic that deserves a stand-alone treatment. Then perhaps more people will contribute to it and help expand it. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voice-to-skull, as discussed in the article, is a 'fringe' explanation of Auditory hallucination. Wikipedia:Fringe theories discusses how much weight Wikipedia gives fringe theories, and in this case I think this equates to having discussion in the Microwave_auditory_effect#Conspiracy_theories section, but not a stand-alone article.
I encourage you to expand the Microwave_auditory_effect#Conspiracy_theories section. That section could be split off to a new article in the future if it grew sufficiently. --LukeSurl t c 14:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. I believe I have established the notability of Voice to skull by the reliable sources I provide. The topic actually covers more technologies than what are based on microwave auditory effect therefore it does not belong to a section within the latter. Besides the phrase "conspiracy theory" is rather dismissive for this topic. I also included microwave auditory effect and auditory hallucination in the See also section so that users who are interested can explore further. I prefer short articles linked together to long articles that try to cover everything. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of List of Aam Aadmi Party candidates in the Indian general election, 2014

[edit]

Hi LukeSurl, regarding your review of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/List_of_Aam_Aadmi_Party_candidates_in_the_Indian_general_election,_2014 I wish to point out the following. You say that Wikipedia does not allow these kinds of lists of candidates. However, there are similar lists for other parties active on Wikipedia, e.g., List of National Democratic Alliance candidates in the Indian general election, 2014, List of United Progressive Alliance candidates in the Indian general election, 2014 and List of Left Front candidates in the Indian general election, 2014. So either all of these should be removed from wikipedia, or at least this reason for rejection of the reviewed submission should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by In4tunio (talk • contribs) 07:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point. I have asked for a 2nd opinion from another reviewer. A minor addendum, I would suggest cutting out the "brief bios" as they disrupt the structure of the list. --LukeSurl t c 13:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of easy-breaks.com article

[edit]

Hi LukeSurl. Thanks for taking the time to review my article on the easy-breaks.com website & company. I'm trying to work out what improvements I can make to increase the chances of the submission being accepted. I have removed one source that contravened the guidelines - was that the particular issue or was there a more general problem here? Apologies - I'm new to the process and still trying to get my head around the rules. BM1717 (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You haven't contravened any guidelines, the content of the draft is OK. What's more fundamental is an issue of notability. Wikipedia doesn't aim to be a directory of every business in the world, as such we have defined criteria to decide which companies we have articles about and which we don't. These are defined here. Articles about companies can only be accepted if they show (principally by the references that are used) the company has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.
This was not evident from the references in your draft, easybreaks was mentioned only in passing in most of the sources.
If you can find reliable sources which do give easybreaks "significant coverage", please reference them in the draft and resubmit. However it is rare that companies of the size of easybreaks (~20 employees) garner such coverage. If this is the case, and easybreaks is not notable I'm afraid there would be nothing you could do on Wikipedia to change that.
Cheers, --LukeSurl t c 14:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If you are an employee of this company, please read our conflict-of-interest guidelines before proceeding.

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

[edit]

Nomination for merging of Template:Compact disc

[edit]

Template:Compact disc has been nominated for merging with Template:Rainbow Books. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Conquerist (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

[edit]

RE: The Jungle

[edit]

Hi LukeSurl

I'm attempting to publish an article on The Jungle (film) and am struggling to add enough references to satisfy the notable provisions as you interpret them.

You mention national media interest as one example, but this film has gone straight to DVD, and this is a small market in Australia. I have cited at least three independent reviews of the DVD to prove it exists, as well as two film festivals. The film has been made but is getting a relatively limited release.

Given it is the third in a series of animal-based horror movies by the same director, the first two of which received good reviews and won the Director praise, this third film deserves attention and I would have thought is notable for that fact.

I'm unsure how to add further citations that will satisfy the "independence" criteria other than the example of national press cited. Thanks for your further efforts to enlighten me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtoovey (talk • contribs) 11:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Articles for Creation barnstar
A barnstar to you for reviewing 175 or more submissions during the WikiProject Articles for creation March 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks for your work to improve Wikipedia!
Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 10:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation[reply]

Nomination of Non-Klinefelter XXY for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Non-Klinefelter XXY is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-Klinefelter XXY until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.Novangelis (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, LukeSurl. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation.
Message added 00:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Requesting input at the discussion: !Vote requested to clarify matters about awards sent. NorthAmerica1000 00:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

[edit]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stateless society, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pastoralist (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) 08:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

[edit]

Orphaned non-free image File:Alpha Logo 2013.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Alpha Logo 2013.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. TLSuda (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would like assistance with the Early San Diego People and Families Wiki page so it can be published. I am presenting at our Old Town San Diego 32nd Annual Descendants luncheon (June 28th, 2014) the Wiki page for our audience to read and update as necessary. Thank you, Connie email: connie.m.gunther@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESCENDANTSD (talk • contribs) 05:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mesenteric Organ, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mesocolon (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) 08:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't the Freuds you're looking for listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect These aren't the Freuds you're looking for. Since you had some involvement with the These aren't the Freuds you're looking for redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Scott • talk 21:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements And Corrections Completed As Requested

[edit]

Hello LukeSurl,

I have made changes to the page as per your feedback. I also spoke with some experienced Wikipedians in the chat room and got more feedback from them. As a result, the article is worded impartially, the footnotes are now all formatted correctly and I believe the item is suitable for publication. I greatly appreciate your time and assistance with my work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/PORN.COM

Please approve the item when you have had a chance to look over the edits and improvements. I am confident you will agree it is much improved :)

Thanks, - Stewart rel@qhdu.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by StewartTongue (talk • contribs) 18:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@StewartTongue: Hi Stewart - sorry to step in, but I just happened to review your article before I noticed your request here. You can see the comments I left on your page. If you'd like me to provide more in-depth explanations of anything I said, please feel free to ask me if you wish. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft deletions

[edit]

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion on MFD Talk, it was recently discovered that this was a duplicate of a more established discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#Process_for_deleting_drafts. Please reply at the WT:Drafts page if you are still interested in this topic. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 23:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LukeSurl/archive6&oldid=1143143279"