User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 3

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

Speaking of deleting articles... See the above linked article.

• I think the difference there is that article has a medical journal and a book cited as sources - ISBN numbers would be helpful in that instance, but I don't really know enough about the subject material to make a judgement call. The canonical example I'd give is the case of SABRE, which got (AFAIK) speedy deleted at least once and deleted through AfD twice, despite featuring occasional coverage on BBC Television and local radio, and in national newspapers. We eventually compromised and got it into
  Road enthusiast#SABRE, which I actually think works out better. If you're trying to search for SABRE, you know what it is anyway, whereas if you don't know about it, you're more likely to come across it in WP via its subject matter. --Ritchie333 (talk)
  08:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

(off topic, I suspect I may be the first person ever on the internet to have a conversation involving "erogenous zone" and "road enthusiast"....) --Ritchie333 (talk) 08:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The topic is definitely non-notable, per what is stated here. Peer-reviewed journals are what count on topics like these, and I don't know if the Journal of the British Association for Sexual and Marital Therapy is a peer-reviewed journal. And in any case, it's just one medical journal and one book that looks to be a popular press book. This is in stark contrast to the sources found in the

G-Spot

article and elsewhere off Wikipedia about the G-Spot, and it's also debated. However, I wouldn't call the A-Spot "debated." It's simply not mentioned in most scholarly sources, if any at all besides the one medical journal included in its article (I'm obviously not counting the book). The most you'll find about this topic is what is stated on unreliable sex sites and in sex guides spreading information about erogenous zones that aren't even supported by research or at least valid research.

Anyway, I brought it to you because nominating articles, or anything on Wikipedia, for deletion isn't my thing. Haven't been too interested in it, though I have been tempted...as I am now. And, LOL, about "erogenous zone and road enthusiast."

talk

) 09:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

Nord C Series (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Vox and Amphenol connector

Nord Stage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to PC and Mac

Leslie speaker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Amphenol connector

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

) 19:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Jimbo as Spiderman supporting Bieber on Twitter. Hilarious! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at

Articles for creation

Fair enough on the context decline. I added a comment, and updated draft with an interesting quote. Cheers. --

	Articles for Creation Barnstar
	Thank You for your many contributions to creating new articles for the future of Wikipedia! Keep on Creator!--50.122.54.84 (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ritchie333 (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Ritchie333. Thank you for passsing Syd Barrett. Could you do me one small favour? On my talk, could you post a message like

Thank you Ritchie.

Time for a chat?

) 11:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Ritchie333. Thank you for your assistance with the Sociology Association of Ireland page. I have added my signature and some extra references. I would be grateful for any other assistance with the SAI page. It is similar in content to the British Sociology Association wikipage, I thought that would be the best template to follow.

Liamled (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. I've had a look through the page and there are still a few issues. Firstly, you need to put the "ref" tags in the correct places within the article in order for the "references" template to work - see
  British Journal of Sociology for an example of a well-referenced article. --Ritchie333 (talk)
  11:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I also like obscure music that everyone else hates. But you have nominated Stig. This guy is actually pretty talented, and very notable. Can't you help me improve the article instead of nominating it for deletion? It should be easy enough to find sources. Arcandam (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I did a quick search for sources, but it's not my area of expertise. From experience with

unreliable source than not, and saying "he's very notable" doesn't necessarily make it so. --Ritchie333 (talk)

13:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I kind of sort of know what I am talking about here. Underground hiphop artists generally do not have a single reliable source, the fact the BBC mentioned him in the first couple of search results is really exceptional for an artist in this genre. You can nominate the whole genre for deletion because of that imperfection in our policy. Or we can improve the article a bit together, and maybe even try to improve the policy! Arcandam (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have enough knowledge and expertise on the subject to improve the article myself. The suitability of the Radio 1 showcase page would depend on how many other artists feature on there, and what the barrier to entry is. But it sounds like you do have the expertise. My suggestion, therefore, is to find some reliable sources, add them to the article, and state you have improved them in the AfD. This is likely to result in more "keep" !votes if done well. --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The sources we call reliable on Wikipedia are extremely unlikely to mention underground hiphop artists, especially relatively new ones. So your suggestion is unfortunately probably impossible. That is why my suggestion, to improve the article (and maybe even the policy) together is so much better. Don't worry about not having the knowledge and expertise: I'll try my best to answer any questions you may have. Arcandam (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Ritchie333,

I worked for two hours on this article trying to make it work, but it's not there. --  :- ) Don 05:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This one was a borderline case, but I remember passing this through last night on the basis of the chart hit. It's odd I didn't tag it with at least blp refimprove and wikify - I would have normally done so. I have

trouted myself in the AfD. Ritchie333 (talk)

07:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The trout is not necessary. I have pulled some real boners. Who knows maybe it will be a keep. Worth a mackerel. --  :- ) Don 13:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You done good. You got Toonz out of here finally. --  :- ) Don 23:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been doing a bunch of batch scripting tasks elsewhere, and each time I'm bored of waiting for one to finish, I've picked off another AfC and reviewed it. Actually, Toonz is one the few I looked up and down and said "can't even tag it with {{

refimprove}}". I've started putting some really odd stuff on my user page. --Ritchie333 (talk)

23:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Odd? There are some REAL weirdos here. You like weird music? Not me, I'm boring. I like popular stuff... a good tune... Pumped up Kicks :-p My friend who likes weird music, criticizes me all the time for my poor taste. I would not mind so much, except that he knows nothing about music. Never touched a musical instrument, wouldn't know a minor from a major or a violin from a viola. I need to get back practicing something at least once a year, before my joints freeze. --  :- ) Don 23:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The userbox used to say "This user likes Van der Graaf Generator" (that's a picture of Peter Hammill on the box) but I changed it to cover a wider genre of music and add a bit of self deprecating humour. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi there,

I was wondering which of the sources are unreliable as I've tried to use as many sources that I've seen on similar artists' pages on wikipedia that have been approved.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robingmm (talk • contribs) 12:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I've had a look and I think reason I probably declined this is due to not much changing between the previous decline, and the one I reviewed. I haven't checked through all the references in detail, so I can't give a definite answer on whether the article would pass a review right now, but I think my current issues are that some of the references are blogs, which tend to be unreliable, and some of the other references are not actually about the article's subject, such as the BBC review, which is about Mary Anne Hobbs rather than Untold. You'll need to find references from reliable sources (such as newspapers or magazines - BBC is a good source, The Guardian tends to be quite good for musician reviews too) that talk specifically about Untold in detail. --Ritchie333 (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

My frustration is just towards some editors, and besides I need a break. I've got a good thing going with my personal research of the Erie Railroad. Never ending conversations on perennial topics drive me nuts however (so do posts that get long, get really bored trying to read.). Mitch32^{(There is a destiny that makes us... family.)} 23:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

See if you can find a really good edit war between them and nominate it for

WP:HALLOFLAME. --Ritchie333 (talk)

10:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

atlwc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlwc (talk • contribs) 13:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I have resubmitted your article to the queue of those being reviewed, so someone will look at it soon. In the case of books, it may take a day or two for somebody to get round checking they are all

sign your edits on talk pages. --Ritchie333 (talk)

14:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Name Omitted (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

(boat) seems to be regularly used to distinguish ships or boats that have names used elsewhere. You're probably best off asking on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships to be honest. --Ritchie333 (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Will do, thank you. Name Omitted (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks for creating the tin can api article.Garemoko (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi and how are you? I just wanted say thank you first for the great work you guys do here on wiki. I refer to this site daily for the most part if need be. I come to you asking for help in an article i been trying to create here on your site. Its my first article and its based on something that we actually do see everyday. Your staff here does great work and well, I'm no writer, lol. I'm here to ask you and your staff (and any users who may be interested)with some help in this article as I think it may need to be added to your wonderful database. Wikipedia is a very useful tool and people use it everyday. The subject of "Predictive Programming" is real. And I thinks its only proper to give some humble lean in the direction of truth with terms like this. I cannot find a dictionary with the term in it as of yet (still looking). However I do know a couple of journalists who in fact tell me that this is a very real tactic used by some media corps. I thank you once again for your time and patience and the great work you all perform here on Wikipedia. And bless you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raabixx (talk • contribs) 18:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. If you can't find this term in a dictionary, then by definition it is a

reliable sources, and hence means it cannot be accepted. --Ritchie333 (talk)

19:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie! First, thanks for reviewing my article on Joseph Vincent at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Joseph_Vincent . I just had a question in regards to your declining it. For notability, Joseph Vincent has featured on NBC's "The Ellen DeGeneres Show" twice in 2010. Wouldn't that satisfy #12 on criteria for musicians ensembles of "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network?" Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dansonn (talk • contribs) 22:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• The problem with this section of the article is that it is asserted by a YouTube video as a reference, which is generally (but not always) an
  sign your edits on talk pages. --Ritchie333 (talk)
  09:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Upon.You Records article. Hello Ritchie333, you declined my article on Upon.You Records a few minutes ago. I sort of get your point, but we have befriended labels on Wikipedia with similar aritcels, i.e.: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Harbour_Recordings http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poker_Flat_Recordings

So maybe you could consider, letting the Upon.You Records article pass? Would be great to hear back from you..Thank you. Upon.You Records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upon.You Records (talk • contribs) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. I cannot pass the article in it's current state, because it is unsupported by
  conflict of interest. You might find it easier to write the article in German at the German Wikipedia and getting someone to translate it into English afterwards. Hope that's of some use. --Ritchie333 (talk)
  11:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie333. I have just seen that you declined my article upon MDT, IDE for Magik language. You mention that is should be referenced by reliable sources. I have put a couple of them already and I fear this is all there is. Smallworld Magik is so niche technology that there is very little information on it on the web (try and google it). In the whole world there is no more than a couple of thousand people that are writing in this language. I have found one more small reference, but it seems that's it. Please advise if it still doesn't fulfill the requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.Sytar (talk • contribs) 14:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately if the subject of an article doesn't have significant coverage in

Articles for Deletion at any time. It's a bit of a shame about this, as you might have seen from my user page, as the developer of SABRE Maps, I do have a passing interest in maps related technology. --Ritchie333 (talk)

14:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for quick response. I added and changed some references, we will see how the reviewer will judge it. Bottom line: merging this with Smallworld content is an alternative. Could anything be done to make it happen?

A tag has been placed on

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. mabdul 14:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Per
  WP:DTR, a message along the lines of "Why did you pass this through AfC?" might have been a better first step. --Ritchie333 (talk)
  14:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Good question: why did it pass? I don't see that it passed
    WP:42... (my golden rule: 3 good refs). mabdul
    14:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Why did you pass {{OTRS failed}} without asking anybody of the OTRS team? For what is this template used? Who uses it? mabdul 14:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Ritchie333 - I'm happy to eliminate the primary source references. The articles that I have cited are the best available for establishing notability. Whiteboard does not have more recent coverage that is available on-line that can do that. I can send pdf's to you or have them posted to a web site so that you can review them. You can find the Star Tribune 1995 article in the archives on their web site. Clevegd (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Richie

I see you don't like my entry on Smtihs Row! I can't find your feedback, which I'm sure you left. Any advice please?... Many thanks.Kaye — Preceding unsigned comment added by K Hamilton-Jones (talk • contribs) 10:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. It's not a question of "not liking it", but the references you supplied aren't specific enough in order for someone to be able to
  sign your edits on talk pages, so it's easy to see who writes what. Hope that helps. --Ritchie333 (talk)
  10:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	LOL Jengawiki (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

3d password- article not approved.

Hi, i am not sure if this is the way to communicate here on wikipedia, but can you please help me by telling me how to cite an ieee research paper. I tried but still i couldn't find. I did talk on the live chat about it before creating the page, about citing the ieee research paper. Apparently only ieee members can cite them. Though i did happen to find a .pdf copy of the same research paper somewhere else. Any guidance will be highly appreciated. Moreover, I know that page needs a lot of work to be done, can you tell me precisely what are the mistakes, though i am sure that there are plenty, but that would help me to correct it and prepare it upto wikipedian standards. Thank You. --Simplycyrus (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hi.
  reliable sources such as newspaper or magazine articles, or research papers that talk specifically about 3D Password as a technology, and cover it in significant depth. A passing mention of just the phrase "3D Password" isn't sufficient, unfortunately. --Ritchie333 (talk)
  14:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

A pie for you!

For your tireless work at the AfC help desk. Time and again I find you answering questions before I can - maybe some apple pie will distract you. ;-) Huon (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yum! Thankyou. --Ritchie333 (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Ritchie. Yes, I have a copy, got mine from the library. Any particular quotes you want me to look for/add in?

I'm glad I'm not the only one trying to get the pre-Dark Side albums to GA. I'm working on Piper (and also Barrett's first solo album, Madcap Laughs) and working my way up, but I'm glad to help in any way.

I have added everything I can think of that I remember reading in Schaffner and referenced it in the article, but in summary:

• Interstellar Overdrive being dropped from the live album
• Rick saying he wanted to make "real music" and being generally enthusiastic about doing the solo experiments
• Rick describing Sisyphus as "pretentious"
• Waters refusing to write the lyrics to "The Narrow Way". It wouldn't surprise me if Waters would have remembered this and used it as ammunition to bash Gilmour with the late 80s as well.

Just want confirmed that everything mentioned above really is in the book and it's not just my memory playing tricks. You might need to split the references out in order to cite specific page numbers, unless you just want to cite by chapter. --Ritchie333 (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done I've found all those points, luckily all on the same page. I prefer citing the page with the chapter name, to me, it seems more complete.

Time for a chat?

) 10:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I can't find in the book is a test pressing being given to John Peel.

Time for a chat?

) 10:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have cn'ed that and one other claim for the time being, but I'm pretty sure we can find sources for both of them. I've also cleaned up the credits list as it had some questionable stuff, such as Mason playing Mellotron, which isn't claimed on Planet Mellotron's coverage. Once I can fix (or remove) the two cns, I think we'll be ready for a GA review. --Ritchie333 (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Good, good. I've cited the original sleeve for some credits, and added some missing ones. I have another book – The Rough Guide to Pink Floyd – which might have sources for those lines, and maybe more info. Did you know... Gilmour was helping Barrett on Barrett's first solo album, at the time Ummagumma was being mixed?

Time for a chat?

) 11:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Ritchie~! I just swept up The Springfield Plan a little. You moved the article, but the submission wasn't cleaned. Also, the author hadn't connected the references inline. Do you mind finishing this one up? You are probably more familiar with it than I. It's Happy Hour somewhere! Cheers! Stella ^BATPHONE_GROOVES 03:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, I've been working on the assumption that cleanup != AfD and so if an article is substantiated by reliable sources, but is badly formatted, it should pass but tagged as requiring attention. I'm afraid I'm no less sure as to where the inline citations should go, hence I tagged it as {{
  refimprove}} as an indication to the creator that it requires more involvement from them. --Ritchie333 (talk)
  11:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

talk

) 04:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Donnington Collection submission

Despite extensive research we have been unable to find any online sources as a reference - the collection was until recently not available to the public and has never been mentioned on any MOD or government website or literature . It is a collection of national importance and shows items returned to MOD Donnington in the process of recovering captured or obsolete weaponry - that part of it is verifiable as a function of the establishment - all negotiations as to the release of the collection and its destination were typically secret as it was a sensitive subject.

There are of course documents that show its release but they were not in the public domain . It exists and has been used as a reference source by various publications for weapon details and photographs

It would be helpful if you could give some guidance on what would verify the entry .

talk

) 09:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. References don't have to be online - they can be books, magazines or printed journals.
  Click here to see some examples of how to cite printed material. Were the publications you refer to commercially issued? If so, they will have an ISBN number and can be used to assert the claims of notability in the article. Hope that's of some use. --Ritchie333 (talk)
  10:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shadow Education

Hi Ritchie333, there is a question at the AFC help desk you may wish to answer. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. Not sure why I would have declined it, but I'd have to go back and check the sources to come up with a definitive answer. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up

I've undone your decline of this article because the article in the mainspace was a copy-paste move by the same user. I've had an admin histmerge the two.

Thanks for all the work you've done with Articles for Creation. ~

Talk to me

16:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• No problems. Cheers for sorting that out. --Ritchie333 (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Whiteboard Product Solutions article for creation

Hi Ritchie333 - I left a post on your talk page almost a week ago and I haven't received a response. I left a comment/question about the on-line availability of reliable sources to establish notability for Whiteboard Product Solutions. Please take a look at the post from last week and let me know your thoughts. Thanks.Clevegd (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hi - sorry I did read your last message and wasn't sure if there was anything that needed actioning from it - I just assumed you'd resubmit the article. You don't need to have online references -
  reliable sources so can't be used to established notability. I think my conclusion is, unfortunately, that the company simply isn't notable enough to appear on Wikipedia unless substantial new evidence of notability comes to light. Sorry about that. --Ritchie333 (talk)
  20:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Whiteboard Product Solutions articles for creation

Hi Ritchie333 - Thanks for the response. Whiteboard has more than 4 news references, but these 4 have the most significant coverage to establish notability. The 1995 article in the Star Tribune is about WB (formerly called Leisure) and its founder. The 2005 article in Twin Cities Business Monthly is a 4+ page feature about the company. The 1990 Star Tribune article is about toy designers, but the coverage of WB is more than trivial. The Business Week reference identifies WB as a design award winner; though not in-depth coverage itself, winning a design award recognized by a national magazine should add to the case of notability. Let me know if you think this suffices. If you do, I will go back and make edits based on your previous comments. Thanks. Clevegd (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/YawnBuster

Hi Ritchie333, thank you for your feedback on the article. I have added three independent references. Will you please take a look and revert? Thx Godimrm (talk) 06:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've had a look, and while the TechRepublic reference looks good (it contains mild criticism, which is important for
  notability. I think the product is just about notable, and if you can find another reference like TechRepublic, that might be sufficient to make the article pass. --Ritchie333 (talk)
  12:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Here is another reference http://www.indezine.com/products/powerpoint/addin/yawnbuster.html which seems neutral. Let me know if this will be a good reference. Godimrm (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've found a few more potential references here andhere. Have a look and see if those give you any more information, then resubmit for review. --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Both of them seem to originate from a press release. Here's a neutral review which shares the good & not so good features of the product. http://www.m62.net/presentation-skills/presentation-technology/yawnbuster-review/. Will this be sufficient to resubmit.Godimrm (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, that looks better - it appears to originate from a consulting company and is neutral, so that would appear to suffice. --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help Ritchie333. I have resubmitted the article for review. Godimrm (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Need more explanation for rejecting my page Kaalavanam

Can you please tell me more details and how can I improve this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kousik2371988/Kaalavanam ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kousik2371988 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• The article only refers to YouTube videos to assert its claims. YouTube videos are a
  WP:MOVIE for more information about notability of films. Hope that's of use. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}
  18:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Draft article on Graham Ratcliffe

Thanks very much for your guidance re the first wiki page I have tried to create!

I edited it and resubmitted a week ago but have not heard anything as yet. I assume that perhaps I did something wrong when trying to resubmit, but can't seem to fund any way to resubmit again.

Sorry to be so useless!

All the best.

Paula Talbot (talk) 12:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• There's a huge backlog at the moment, which seems to be due to people submitting articles faster than people can review them. However, in your case it's simply because the article hasn't been marked as submitted for review yet. I can do this, but the article is tagged as "in creation", so I'd want confirmation that you really want it reviewed. Let me know if you want this done, and I can do it.

I'd personally recommend including this BBC Radio Scotland Review somewhere in the article as a reference, as it will then give you three

reliable sources that talk about the subject in depth, which is probably enough to get it to pass. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

12:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Spruce Grove Minor Football Association

so, I need to have an explanation of why it was rejected.

all the information is authentic because I was personally involved in it all. I don't know what you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.163.19 (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• The rejection is because all of your sources were
  notable - the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability page (and indeed, WikiProject Football) would be the best place to ask for advice on this. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}
  09:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Well ok. I don't understand really. seeing as nobody else knows about it because they weren't there when it happened it would be incredibly difficult to have someone verify it. I was there and I witnessed it, I took part in it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmlxxviii (talk • contribs) 20:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, that is Wikipedia's policy. It might sound ridiculous, but there are plenty of people in this world who will happily lie about anything just to get noticed on Wikipedia, and that's one of the reasons the
  verifiability policy is in place. Sorry. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}
  20:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Virtual Piggy

Hi there,

Saw your recent comment on the Help Desk regarding my efforts to get the Virtual Piggy page approved - I've been confused as to users citing my sources as unreliable blogs, even though they are associated with reputable news sources such as the Wall Street Journal. It sounds like you agree with me on this point.

Please let me know which steps I should take at this point to get the entry approved - I'm hearing some conflicting advice. Thanks!

RevToby (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• notability. Hope that clarifies things. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}
  21:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alan Marshall

The reason this article is created is to correct a decade-long ambiguation made by non other than Wikipedia editors between ‘Alan Marshall (writer, 1902-1984)’ and the scholar Alan Marshall, the subject of this article. The former is one of Australia’s best known literary figures of all time, the later is also a writer of novels but is mainly known around the world’s intellectual circles as an environmental thinker who suggested the protection of extraterrestrial environments from human space missions. Every time a NASA probe lands on Mars, like Curiosity did a few weeks ago, many ‘pop’ science articles appear quoting Alan Marshall, the Australian writer (1902-1984) as saying ‘Mars belong to the Martians’ when he never talked about such matters. This confuses the large audience of Alan Marshall (1902-1984) readers at high schools all over the world, and the not-so-large but still significant number of tertiary environmental studies students who believe that Alan Marshall (1902-1984) talked about preserving Martians. The origin of this confusion arises, perhaps understandably, because the two have the same name and both published novels and books in Melbourne presses and appeared on Australia’s Radio National but they are two different “Alan Marshalls”, that a continuous stream of wikipedians keep getting confused and hyper-linking one with the other. Over the last 10 years, my personal attempts to actively de-hyperlink the two have been unsuccessful because non-wikipedia writers have read Wikipedia entries and got them confused and writen about them, and then Wikipedia editors have read the writings of these non-wikipedia writers and had the confusion reinforced. If Wikipedia is wanting to claim ‘reliability’, it should finally allow the two Alan Marshall’s a distinct Wikipedia presence, especially since one is dead and the other is alive. And the one who is alive is probably sick of being thought of as being dead (and the other one, if he were alive, would probably be annoyed that he keeps being linked with the protection of Martians). Given this decade of confusion whose origin lies in Wikipedia editing, it now behooves Wikipedia to correct a systemic mistake and accept an article about Alan Marshall (scholar) that sits as a clear disambiguation between the two.

The editor who rejected the first draft if this article didn’t know about any of this (although he could have easily worked it out of he explored the various ‘Alan Marshall’ entries). He makes the following points:

“can't comment on the book references, but the web references only appear to mention the article's subject briefly in passing. Unfortunately, we need significant coverage in reliable sources in order to assert notability of an article's subject. Additionally, the preferred format for book citations is to include ISBN numbers”

The ISBN of each book has been included where found.

It’s a shame this Wikipedean makes no effort to go to the printed references and privileges online sources (which is ironic given the professed concern for credibility and the problems of online Wikipedia reliability mentioned above—which would never have occurred in Wikipedians didn’t under rate printed sources). Any way, the printed references for this article come from scholarly texts and reputable science and arts journals such as: -Artlink -Journal of Social Philosophy -New Scientist -Sage publishing company -a Routledge Publishing company

Many of these journals and publishers have published nobel prize winners, unlike the entries of Wikipedia), and they are independent from the author.

We might note that the number of references to this article's subject is a considerably larger number of references than the other ‘Alan Marshall’s on Wikipedia. Any more references would make the article reference heavy surely, since every sentence would use references, making the readability not so great,

Just to make the reviewr editor happy and more confident, a few more online references have been included. It might seem to the above editor that the subject of this article is mentioned in passing in a few of these references because these references are official published records that name winners of awards. The same official records also list Peter Jackson (director) and Douglas Adams (writer) in passing because they are merely recording award conferrals not artistic appraisals.

Having said that, many of the online references about the subject of the article have detailed artistic in-depth apparaisals covering mre than 3-5 printed pages by established critics, including pop-science writers, grammy-award winners, philosophy professors from journals with nobel prize winners on their advisory panels. Under the guidelines from Wiki, this is classifiable as significant coverage’, allaying the fears of the editor quoted above. To make this absolutely clear, let me invoke THE GOLDEN RULE of notability which states: “To count as "significant coverage", a cited reference must be about the subject – there must be at least one lengthy paragraph, and preferably more, directly covering it.”

In the Journal of Social Philosophy reference, the whole article talks about the subjects work. In the Environmental Ethics reference, a third of the ten age article talks about the subjects work. In the Sage work 3 pages are devoted to the subjects work. In the Routledge book, half a chapter is devoted to the articles work. Tis adds up to many many paragraphs over at least half a dozen reliable printed materials.

As well as this, the subject of study is noted as a key thinker in a school textbook read by almost all students studying for A-levels in the UK’s ‘religuous studies’ course, which is an audience of many tens of thousands. None of them want to be confused by Wikipedia between the two Alan Marshall’s because they might fail their A-Level and Wikipedia could be responsible for that. If this does not convince you, sure the fact that the subject of the article has 4 books published by international publishers is enough to make the subject notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecomimicry (talk • contribs) 07:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• All we need is notable coverage in reliable sources that someone can verify. If you include ISBN numbers, someone can go to the British Library (for instance) and verify the content. In fact, we actually prefer printed book references as opposed to web references in some instances. You've added ISBN numbers to the book references and some more web references, so I would now expect this article to pass - just resubmit it for review.

One of the other things I like to do is for people submitting articles to AfC to do the research and references themselves, as they learn how to do so in the process and gain experience and understanding of Wikipedia's core policies by doing it. You may be also interested in

Wikipedia:School and University projects to see how your school can help participate, but from my experience I would not rely on Wikipedia for school or university research - I believe Lancaster University has banned it as a source for research. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

09:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

An AFD you participated in has been started again

List of UK Singles Chart Christmas number twos has been renominated by the same nominator 11 days after it closed as "no consensus". I'm contacting everyone who participated in the last AFD, who hasn't found their way there already. Dream Focus

21:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Madcaps/Barrett

Hello Ritchie. Thanks for passing Madcaps. I fellow Wiki-friend of mine has told me of duplication of information, see

Time for a chat?

) 14:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Just because! Cheers! Stella BATPHONEGROOVES 20:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Stella! I'm on vacation next week, and boy do I need one. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

NSRC / Klensin

Dear Ritchie333:

Many Thanks for reviewing my draft article about the NSRC. This is intended to be an article about the organization itself, and I'm not sure how to build it by editing John Klensin's bio entry. The NSRC links in the Klensin entry point out to NSRC.org rather than to existing wikipedia entries. Thanks for any clarification, - --AndrewBonamici (talk) 05:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Andrew Bonamici

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not Profane

Hey Ritchie333, Just checking to see if you want to change your vote on this issue? After careful checking it appears you did okay. --  :- ) Don 14:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy with actual article work (yeah, who'd have thought we actually improve articles around here?) but I'll try and check for the AfD time runs out. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/4Networking

Hi Ritchie333, I'd really appreciate your advice.

You have just declined my article for not being notable. I have therefore looked up the entries for comparable organisations, The British Chambers of Commerce and BNI (organisation). British Chambers of Commerce entry has no independent citations - only one link to the organisation's own website. BNI entry has 4 citations: two from the organisation's own website and two are independent. I have provided 7 citations, two from the organisation's own website and 5 independent. Yes, 4 of these are from The Times, which does have a paywall. However, Wiki's own entry for UK newspapers shows that The Times is the oldest UK newspaper. It therefore has to be recognised as an independent, notable research source and the paywall shouldn't be a barrier to this. After all, you can't check citations from books for free online: you can only check them by buying the book or visiting a library - but that doesn't stop Wiki accepting them as a source. It's the same with The Times: you check the reference by buying it or visiting a library. (I am actually surprised that Wiki doesn't provide a subscription for its UK editors to The Times - as a journalist not having access to one of the 4 broadsheets is not an option.) Two of The Times articles are very much about 4Networking, rather than Brad Burton: Pressure is just not the British way and Contacts are key to door of opportunity.

British Chambers of Commerce, founded in 1860, has 92,000 members. BNI, founded in 1985, has 139,971 members across the globe (although this figure is not accredited). 4Networking has achieved membership of 50,000+ in just 6 years, showing huge momentum.

The rapidly growing membership, plus independent coverage, seem to be strong arguments of notability.

If I remove the newspaper citations that are primarily about the founder rather than the organisation, this would seem to me to bring the article very much in line with entries on other, comparable organisations. Would this change make my article pass the threshold? Siobhanstirling (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• You're correct - we can certainly accept non-web references with some identifiers such as a Google Books preview link or an ISBN number. It's just easier to
  Articles for Deletion
  , could I save it?"

On the subject of membership figures, numbers and figures are generally not sufficient to establish notability on their own - see the

guidelines on Google searches and Numbers

, for instance.

Hope that's of use. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

AFC Backlog

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 2624 our Help Desk . Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you autoconfirmed ? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the AfC Defcon }} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. PS: we have a great AFC helper script at User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js which helps in reviewing in just few edits easily! We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 2 or 3 reviews, it would be extremely beneficial. On behalf of the Articles for Creation project, TheSpecialUser TSU

Nomination of SafeRTOS for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Articles for creation process, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The discussion is occuring here. As the reviewer, your contribution to the discussion will be helpful in reaching a consensus. NoomBot (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)