User talk:DustFormsWords

Hi! I appreciate the following posts:

• requests for help
• policy discussions
• notifications of changes/debates/other issues around articles I've created, substantially edited, or participated in AfD debates for.
• constructive feedback on my editing, including better ways of editing, policies and procedures I may not be aware of or have forgotten, or problems I may have caused unintentionally or otherwise
• barnstars and other warm fuzzies
• polite notifications if I've offended you, caused you inconvenience, or otherwise soured your day (these will be responded to with apologies!)
• suggestions of articles, debates or projects I may be interested in

If you post on this talk page, I will reply on this talk page, so if you're waiting for a response feel free to add it to your watch list.

If there is content on this page authored by you which you wish to remove, or content you feel is defamatory or insulting to you, go ahead and boldly delete it. But I reserve the right to revert where I feel it's appropriate and/or replace the controversial content with edited or anonymised versions to preserve discussion continuity.

Thanks all! - DustFormsWords (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following links will take you to archived copies of old discussions.

• Account creation to November 3, 2009
• November 3, 2009 to December 18, 2009
• December 18, 2009 to March 14, 2010
• March 14, 2010 to May 6, 2010
• May 6, 2010 to October 10, 2010
• October 10, 2010 to December 31, 2010

This discussion relates to edits to Fighting Fantasy, where I reverted some edits of the IP user below which he had made in the course of an otherwise much-needed improvement of the article.

That's fine. The lead was not an intentional revert - just missed that in the last edit. Too busy concentrating on finding sources for all these claims! Thanks. 125.7.71.6 (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, the FF article is almost there. That said, the other articles, particularly those on the individual titles, are woeful. Most are in-universe, full of trivia and little more than stubs. An editor has even gone so far as to put maps on each page. With the exception of The Warlock of Firetop Mountain, which also needs a major clean-up, I'd argue these could be deleted, with a link to the official site at each entry in List of Fighting Fantasy game books.

Thoughts? 125.7.71.6 (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking me. Are you looking for input on a general revamp of the whole series of FF articles? Making list entries link to external sites would certainly not be an acceptable way forward - they need to either link to Wikipedia articles, or to nothing. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, links we can work on. My main question for now is do you feel there is a need for an article (99% are stubs) on every FF book? There is almost no substance to any of them. Opinion, trivia etc. with almost no factual information. Surely they could be deleted, with some more detail added to another group page elsewhere? I'm as much a fan as the next person, but realize there have to be standards. 125.7.71.6 (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically speaking, yes, every book article that isn't able to source independent notability for the book through significant coverage in reliable independent sources should be deleted. I would expect that that would probably be the majority of books 11 through to 49, and many of the others. Practically speaking, if they're not actively wrong, misleading or promotional there's no urgent need to delete them, and there's always the chance that someone will come along and improve them. Which is to say, it would take work to delete them, and you're better off spending the energy to improve something instead. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that practically all of those books are now redirects. A substantial amount of content has been taken out of the mainspace with little or no discussion on whether this is helpful. Szzuk (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The content is still available in the article histories. If you believe the information can be usefully added to an article on a notable topic, go ahead and add it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC

I think I'll send them all to afd to get a broader view on the matter. Szzuk (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm busy for the next few days, but will have a look early next week when I have some time off work. Regards 125.7.71.6 (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion relates to the GA assessment I conducted for Hartford City Courthouse Square Historic District, where I identified a licensing problem for one of the images, and also recommended the addition of alt text.

I've not resolved the issues, but I suspect that they can easily be resolved. Alt text I can do at any time, of course, but File:Hartford City Square 1908.JPG will take some work tomorrow. My suspicion is that the image is taken from the Blackford County Interim Report — published by Indiana's state historic preservation people, it's quite a reliable source and heavily used in the article. If you look at the image, it shows a crease toward the top and darkness on the right edge; this suggests to me that the book's page was creased and that the image is located on the right end of a left-hand page of the book. I don't own the book, and I'm far from Blackford County, but because I'm an Indiana University student, I have quick access to a copy of the book from the university library, so I'll check it while there tomorrow if I can remember. I'm guessing (1) that it's scanned from this book, (2) that this book speaks of it being a photo taken and published in that period, and (3) the information in the book will be sufficient to confirm its PD status. I'll try to remember to drop you a line when I finish my research; if I don't get back to you in a couple of days, please pester me at my talk page. Thanks for doing the review! Nyttend (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem. In a worst-case scenario you can take the 1908 one offline, replace it with one of TwoScarsUp's modern ones, get the Good Article tick, and then revisit the sourcing of the 1908 photo at your leisure. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually prefer a more modern picture, but TwoScars has done enough work on this article that I'd like to respect his/her preference for a lead image if possible, so I'll do my best to find out the situation. I'll not hesitate to replace it if I can't establish PD status, however. I've asked TwoScars to give either a confirmation or a denial of the scenario I proposed above for the origin of the image. Nyttend (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checked the Blackford County Interim Report, and I can't find the image — perhaps it was scanned from a print owned by the local historical society? I've invited TwoScars to clarify the situation; given the date of the image, I still expect that it's PD, but I've nominated it for deletion because I don't have proof. Hopefully we can see proof added soon. I've replaced it with File:Tyner Bldg Hartford City IN.jpg, a PD-self image taken by TwoScars; I had trouble finding a good image, since the best ones were already used elsewhere in the article. I'll see when I can get the alt text added (how long has that been a GA requirement? That wasn't brought up on the first GA nomination that I tried, two years ago); today's my first day of grad school classes for the semester, so I'll not likely be able to do anything before this evening at the earliest. Thanks again for doing the review! Nyttend (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll revisit this today after I finish off my other GA review. Re: alt text, I regard alt text as part of the requirement for "suitable captions". It may be that I'm wrong about it being required for GA but in any case it's not a lot of work and all images should in any case have alt text. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further reading of essays and community discussions, it appears that alt text is specifically NOT required for GA, so I'll go amend the review accordingly. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just went to add alt text to the article, but being less familiar with the practice, I decided to pattern it after Kent, Ohio, which was promoted to FA last September. To my surprise, that article doesn't have any alt text at all, and the same is true of the version that was current when it was officially promoted to FA. Do proper image captions satisfy the requirements? Nyttend (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done FA review, but as far as I'm aware FAs are required to fully comply with the manual of style, which includes the provision of alt text for images. (See the last point under WP:MOSIMAGES.) It's not something a lot of people are aware of, or check for, so it's possible that the Kent article slipped through the net. I guess it's something you can take up if you ever take this one to FA. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion relates to the GA assessment I conducted for House (1977 film).

Hello Dust! I've tried to expand upon your suggestions for the House article. Thanks for all your suggestions. You are a good and thorough reviewer! Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added that final cite about Eclipse dvd! Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time to review the article on House! I'll try to take a stab at reviewing a a GA nom perhaps this weekend. Have a good evening! Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion relates to the GA reassessment I conducted for Josie Petrick Kemarre.

Thank you for your suggestions - while there is obviously some disagreement about whether a review was needed, I'm happy to have done additional work to address your concerns, and the article is much better for that. I hope we can at least agree to disagree on the matter of the list, thereby perhaps avoiding going to community reassessment. Anyway, take a look at the current version and see what you think. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I might not get a chance to look at it until next Monday, but my current thoughts are that the article has now been substantially improved as a result of the reassessment process, and in that light I'm inclined to probably take a pass at improving it myself and then give it the green light. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, looks like I am going to be mostly offline from today until Tuesday anyway. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for tidying up at GAR. I was actually about to revert myself and my last comment after I saw the recent discussions here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (embedded lists). But you passed the GAR before I could do it. So I will stick to my original plan (to seek consensus elsewhere). Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the discussion there seems to agree that there's no inherent problem in a bulleted list being in a GA, but that usually for an embedded bulleted list to pass GA it needs to have a high quality introductory prose paragraph explaining the list content. Which is basically what I was trying to say, but maybe not succeeding. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made the mistake of attempting to be funny at ANI. This was the result.

Hello DustFormsWords, Boing! said Zebedee (talk) has smiled at you as a result of reading "Apologies also for bringing humour to ANI, which I realise per policy is a dull and humourless place where hope goes to wither, die, and be indefinitely blocked" and thinking it was even funnier than your original irony. 14:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think it would almost have to be funnier than the original, if only just. Not my best work. But thanks! - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DustFormsWords -

Just wanted to reiterate my apology for letting the air out of your tires after your really-quite-funny remarks at ANI. It's embarrassing that I read your comments so carelessly that I didn't recognize that they were in no way disrespectful to Tunisia or Tunisians at all, but were an ironic send-up concerning our collective bias on Wikipedia for Western media sources.

Sorry to have been such a dolt. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm honestly more embarassed now by all the messages than I was by the poor reception of my joke. But thank you! - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dust.

I saw you were available for assistance, and hoping you can help. I'm confused as to what sources are designated "reliable." I've made some edits using interviews with Songwriters found on Songfacts.com (http://www.songfacts.com/blog/interviews/), which lately have been deleted with the note "not a reliable source". My latest example is a contribution I made to the Dar Williams page where my contribution is still there, but the reference was stripped, which doesn't seem fair.

I found where a user discussed Songfacts as a reliable source on [1] and made my case for why an interview with a songwriter was a valid resource for an article on a songwriter, but I'm not sure what happened from there. Is there someone who then determines if this is a reliable source? The discussion took place around Jan. 12.

The Songfacts article itself is also up for deletion by the same user who is deleting my contributions. I don't want to start an edit war, but would like to see my sources listed. Any ideas on how I can clarify if Songfacts interviews are a reliable source and how I can get my contributions restored?

Any assistance is greatly appreciated.Ndugu (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi! I have replied to this question on your talk page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your reply, it was very helpful. Based on your response, it sounds like there has not been a consensus on whether or not Songfacts is a reliable source, and I find it discouraging that I can't use an interview with Dar Williams on the Dar Williams entry. What has me really baffled is that the user deleted my reference but left my contribution. That doesn't seem fair to the site that generated the original content.

I see your point on why Songfacts might not qualify as an RS, but I don't see that disclaimer in the link you provided, and I've seen the site referenced by major media outlets. Here are 2 recent examples: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/music_blog/2011/01/britney-spears-hold-it-against-me-bellamy-brothers.html http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/ourcountry/90004/does-britneys-hold-it-against-me-rip-off-the-bellamy-brothers/

Seems like Wikipedia users should be able to use it as well.Ndugu (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Feel free to take that argument to TenPoundHammer or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard! You might be successful! Although I should warn you that we don't typically tend to care very much what other sites consider reliable; we have our own standard. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Common Schools Act of 1871 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 06:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, but I'm not willing to make the time commitment necessary to take an online ambassador role. Thanks anyway. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem. Happy editing! --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I was looking at the cover images uploaded by people and making a tally to see who I could contact for help, and I noticed that you have uploaded a few such images. Obviously I'm not asking you to take this whole thing on by yourself, but any help you can give is appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons#Need book cover images. Thanks!  :)

If the older stuff isn't your cup of tea, let me know and I'll try to dug up the more recent books. BOZ (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi! I'll be frank, the images I uploaded were from Wizards of the Coast promotional packs and press kits. I've looked over your list, and while I have some of those titles (Top Ballista, for example, I think is still in a box somewhere) none of my copies are in good enough condition to provide a cover scan - they have frayed edges, very severe creasing, and tears. I have a reasonable run of 4E stuff but you should be able to get covers of all of those just from storefronts and press kits. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you contributed to this article, or commented at its first AfD, you may be like to contribute at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Nicola Raphael (2nd nomination). JohnCD (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the notification. I have now contributed to the AfD. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DustFormsWords has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as DustFormsWords's Day! For being a great person and awesome Wikipedian, enjoy being the star of the day, DustFormsWords! Signed, Neutralhomer A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, awesome! I was just looking at the Wikipedian of the Day program today! Thanks to Neutralhomer and anyone who nominated me! - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are welcome! :) Keep up the great work! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DustFormsWords,

This article was a re-write of a previous article for Expansive Media Ltd which was live on wikipedia for two years and created by an editor with no connection to the company whatsoever. I amended the company name and a few project facts and tried to include as many notable web links as possible. Then after discussion with a Wiki administrator, the site was re-posted in new form on Sunday including more info than the original article ever had. The problem is that I'm very new to Wikipedia so if you could please offer guidance on exactly what the article requires to remain relevant and live I can have a bash at improving it ASAP. There are plenty of web links that mention and discuss Expansive/Media Promotions mostly because of their tussles with the ASA and their critical opinions of UK newspaper promotions. The fact that their promotions frequently land on the front pages of the UK's (and the world's) biggest newspapers has prompted a discussion over editorial independence and integrity - the balance between 'earnt' and 'bought' media coverage. As the authour of the article is it up to me to state these comments or do I need to link to web resources that state them. If and when I find the links where do they get added to the article? In the main body copy (if so how do I do this) or under the section External Links. Apologies in advance for the denseness of any of my questions : ) Julie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juemason (talk • contribs) 14:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have responded on your talk page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Common Schools Act of 1871, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that controversy over New Brunswick's Common Schools Act of 1871 resulted in two deaths in the town of Caraquet? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion relates to edits I made to White Argentine, which eventually culminated in the article being nominated for deletion.

I know Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but unfortunately "White Argentine" don't exist as a "social or ethnic" group. It is just a "term" used to describe some people who has some fisical features. In fact, the whole article is discussed as Original Research.--GiovBag (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Chair" is a term used to describe a free-standing object used as a sitting aid. We still phrase the article as "A chair is..." not "Chair is a term for...". It's not relevant that it's not a term universally used - again, our "chair" article doesn't feel the need to explain in the lead that it's called something different in French or German, or refer to cultural subgroups who don't distinguish between chairs and sofas, or what have you. But I only hit this article in passing, and don't really care enough to fight for it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are perfectly right. But in the article the problem is when it says White Argentine are ..., is assigned a category of reality to something that is nothing more than a presumption. Maybe is better to delete this kind of articles that don't respond to any official, academic or recognized categories, and are no more than attempts to put together two variables of different nature. Almost like making an article for the "green-eyed English" or "Italian over 170 cm tall. "--GiovBag (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion relates to the Good Article Review for Delphine LaLaurie. A dispute between the reviewing editor and a third party unfortunately found its way to my talk page.

I left this message on the GA review page, but predictably, 56tyvfg88yju removed it:

This reviewer has given several pretty bad reviews for GA and FAC, characterized by a shaky grasp of writing and Wikipedia guidelines and given unnecessarily harshly. I'd ask for another reviewer right now. --Moni3 (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take the review if you want it, but don't be surprised to see that 56tyvfg88yju has a poor grasp of policy and may eventually insert abusive comments masked by what he thinks is wit. Bummer for you. --Moni3 (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Moni3 has been stalking and harrassing me after I was forced to fail a GAN for legitimate reasons. This sort of conduct is inexcusable. I apologize for Moni3. The review for Delphine LaLaurie is finished (but I'm checking everything twice!) and awaits your response. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment redacted due to personal abuse directed at another editor. Text is available in this page's history.) --Moni3 (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, as far as I can tell 56tyvfg88yju's GAR is well within the standards of a good GAR and his/her comments are useful in the improvement of the article. I'll take your advice above, Moni3, as a good faith attempt to inform me of possibly relevant interactions you've had with another editors, but in this case I have no reason to be concerned and I would appreciate if further argument between the two of you stays off my talk page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion relates to the AfD for Horse's Ghost, at which I voted Keep on the basis of sources I had uncovered.

Thanks for your help with sourcing here; would you mind including the sources in the article? Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, but it's not an article I'm interested in working on. The facts currently in the article are reliably sourced so there's no urgent need for further expansion, and interested parties are able to get the sources through the archived AfD. Richard Norton creates about a million of these every month based on the historical photos he uploads; trying to follow along behind him and expand for purely procedural reasons is a losing proposition. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion relates to the Good Article Review for William Blackstone. The initial reviewer had not been able to complete the review after some considerable delay, and so I offered to take over the review.

Go ahead and take over. Looks clear to me that the person who tagged it isn't going to review it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have indicated my intention to do so on the review page and will start the formal GAR tomorrow. Thanks. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for taking over this this - it was always going to pass w minor corrections, but sadly I over the last month I never had the time I felt it deserved to devote to it. Meshing wikipedia and real life is hard but awesome articles like this should remind me why i should try and do better in the future. Ajbpearce (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem, better luck reviewing next time! - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion relates to the Good Article Review I conducted for Will Munro.

Thanks again for the review. Although I could still do some more work in reducing the amount of quotes in the article, I'm wondering if you think the changes I made just now are sufficient for GA status. Also, do let me know if you've thought of any other ideas for improvement! Best, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! It seems likely I won't get to consider your changes until tomorrow, if you can stand to wait an extra day, but I promise I'll check it over then. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (For my own reference) The article was passed. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion relates to the Good Article Review I conducted for Nikolai Podgorny. Thanks for reviewing the article, I really appreciate it. I've responded to all your comments, are there any more problems??? --TIAYN (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I need to look over Will Munro first as per the message above and then I'll revisit this one. I expect I'll have an answer for you today but it could possibly be tomorrow. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reworded, and fixed, the problems you saw with the article. NB: should I write on your wall when I think i'm finished, or will you check out the article yourself? --TIAYN (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's on my watchlist but it never hurts to double-confirm. Will check out the changes today. Thanks! - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm finished! :) I must admit, you're one of the best reviewers I've come across here on Wikipedia. You're very good with detail, and checking sources, not many other reviewers are. Even so, thanks for reviewing the article. --TIAYN (talk) 07:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Has the article passed or what? --TIAYN (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Has the article passed? --TIAYN (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I was unwell over the weekend, I'll look at it shortly. - DustFormsWords (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (For my own reference) The article was passed. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Quebec Barnstar of National Merit
		I hereby award you this barnstar for your dedication to the biographies and historical querks of Quebecians, which if it isn't a word should be. - ManicSpider (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I think you will find that the term is "Quebecois", the difficulty of pronouncing which is largely why I don't live in Quebec. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion relates to the Good Article Review I conducted for History of Hollyoaks. I quickfailed the article for having cleanup tags still unresolved.

Hi, I am actually grateful that you failed the History of Hollyoaks article because it was an embarrassment to see it nominated but I am not yet confident about doing GAN reviews myself. I would have failed it if I knew how, though, and have been in discussion about how to fix the many, many problems with it (as you have seen). Tbh, I'm not really that interested in the subject and feel like I am hitting a bit of a brick wall with regard to the enthusiastic but somewhat misguided originator. I'll do my best to assist that person but, frankly, it is never going to be a GAN again in my opinion and probably should not even exist except as a stub. Thanks for your courtesy message. Sitush (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Sitush. It's actually not that bad an article. Line by line it's pretty okay, and well referenced - no problem with its current B class rating. You just need to fix the rest of the referencing issues, condense down the paragraphs into larger paragraphs, maybe stick in some subheadings, and then see if the entire thing makes sense or whether it could be improved by a reorganisation. It clearly would have failed a full GAR if it hadn't been quickfailed but it wouldn't have been a complete wash. These articles are notoriously difficult to write and I think everyone involved should feel proud that it's, on average, as good as it is. Just not GA standard, that's all. Feel free to copy this comment to the article talk page if you feel it's helpful. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that you consider it to be well referenced. It has a lot of citations, sure, but do Digital Spy and "gossip" magazines really constitute reliable sources? They regurgitate pap and soundbites rather than fact and are often driven by publicists out to grab a quick headline and with little regard to truth. I'm not a soap fan - I rarely watch TV due to my profound deafness - and so perhaps my understanding of "reliable sources" in the context of soap operas is awry. My involvement stemmed from seeing it at the head of the GAN list and wanting to try to fix a few problems. Alas, my opinion is that many of them are not capable of being fixed without resort to tables and timelines. Do you think that such devices might help or hinder? Sitush (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a point I'm not inclined to consider deeply unless the article gets renominated. In relation to the plots of soap operas and their behind-the-scenes working I, personally, would generally consider a dedicated soap gossip magazine to be a reasonable source unless it were making a truly extraordinary claim or it were contradicted elsewhere. But, seeing as I'm not now doing a full GAR, I'll leave that discussion for those with more experience in soap articles. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok. I'm not one of those people either <g> Thanks for your input. Sitush (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never noticed this discussion before or the note on the article talk. Thankyou DFW for your good positive suggestions on the talk page of this article. Regarding digitalspy as a source, you can you it when editing your own articles. Rest assured it's been to the reliable source notice board more than once and passed. Plus since 2008 they verify there stories they take from other sources and sometimes more so with soap opera because they have exclusive content from the writers and producers. You know your stuff about soap opera magazines too. the reputable Inside Soap is considered reliable whilst a magazine like 'soap life' is not. You also got the gist I never edited a big recount page like that, I'm sticking to character articles, it seems to be what I'm good at. So thanks again for your kind constructive words, they have been noticed eventually. :pRAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 01:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion relates to the Good Article Review I conducted for Dream Chronicles. I failed the article for a range of issues, most notably for not having clear and concise writing.

Thanks for spending your precious time to review the article! I (only me?!!) will try as hard as I can to improve these articles. Again, thank you so much! :D Appreciated. †hinhin_of_you / buzzworthy / βoy Ünder Ғlowers 03:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hope it wasn't too crushing. It's always frustrating to review an article when it becomes clear it's going to fail, but don't let the number of problems I found eclipse the hard and good work you've done to get to this point. These games are worth having articles on and despite not being GA standard your articles are nevertheless much better than many of our videogame articles. Keep at it! - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK! :D "Hard fire creates hard diamond": if you were not tough to this article, then I would never realize/admit its real problems. Promoting these articles to GA ones is just a limit that encourages me to reach this! Again, again, thank you!!! :) Have a GREAT day on Wikipedia! †hinhin_of_you / buzzworthy / βoy Ünder Ғlowers 04:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A problem has been identified at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/list. You may like to read Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/list#Problem with inactive accounts on the list. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. However the problem seems to have been already solved in both the short and long term before I managed to see this message! - DustFormsWords (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the prod tag you placed on Kelly Wiglesworth, as the article was discussed at AfD in September 2008. Compliance with policy is the only reason I did this; I have no comment on the merits of deletion and no prejudice against opening another AfD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 02:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think the PROD was probably an error on my part. I just started with Twinkle the other day and I'm rapidly discovering that one-push nominations are a trap; they don't prompt me to do nearly as much due diligence as I would if I had to go through all the steps manually. Learning! - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pitching in, and going the extra mile; attempting to soothe the tension there on the article talk page in addition to your GA review. Much appreciated by all.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I assume this was for History of Hollyoaks? No problem. - DustFormsWords (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion relates to the Good Article Review I conducted for St Fflewin's Church, Llanfflewin.

Ready for a review of my response to your review, whenever you get a moment. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 15:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I'll look it over today (probably fairly soon). - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ping. Bencherlite^Talk 23:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the pass, and I'm glad we found a compromise form of wording between us. I've made what I hope are the necessary changes as a result of your review to my other GANs (as well as to some past GAs and my standard template). Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 11:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DustFormsWords. You have new messages at Talk:Siege of Port Royal (1710)/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• Thanks, I'll look it over today (probably fairly soon). - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed Battle of Bloody Creek (1711) and Raid on Deerfield at GAN. You may find the first one an interesting connection between the Port Royal siege and the Quebec expedition... Magic♪piano 17:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! Assuming these are still in the list later today (which seems likely) I'll pick up one or both to review. - DustFormsWords (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DustFormsWords. You have new messages at Talk:Battle of Bloody Creek (1711)/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello DustFormsWords I would really need your kind assistance and third party point of view reg the Wikipedia link on the artist & singer "LaGaylia Frazier" (the English version). As manager of LaGaylia Frazier, we are adamant the content is serious, neutral and factual. There exists a version with lot's of mistakes and unbiased information. Since yesterday I have tried to edit the content 3 times. But instantly the old version gets in there and my version/edits are gone. I don't know who or why this happens. How could this be straightened out in a constructive way? As Wikipedia has a warning message on top of this Wikipedia site, we have tried to solve it according to their request. But, as I said, the unwanted content jumps back every time we improve by changing and editing.

This is the warning message from Wikipedia:

• This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (September 2010)

This article may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. Please clean it up to conform to a higher standard of quality, and to make it neutral in tone. (October 2010)

THANK YOU AND LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR REPLY Choconights (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (This reply has also been copied to your talk page) - Hi! The problem with your article is that, despite your best efforts to market Ms Frazier's name across the internet, she is not yet encyclopaedically notable. This means that, as far as I can tell, she has not received significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Typically for singers this would include critical reviews of her music in reputable and independent music news sources, singles or albums that have charted on national charts, or coverage and interviews in the mainstream news. Wikipedia requires all article content to be able to be sourced to such independent coverage in reliable sources. Ask.com, Facebook, lyrics databases, and fansites are not reliable sources. If you can identify to me significant coverage in reliable sources, I would be happy to use it to improve the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DFW for your reply. Will try to explain the situation.

Best regards, Marie Schroder Choconights (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - Look, the problem is not with the truth of the article content, but rather than you can't prove the truth, because you are unable to provide links to it being reported in reliable independent sources. You MUST provide such sources for the information to appear on Wikipedia, otherwise (a) the subject is not notable (see our policy on notability) and (b) the article content is not verifiable (see our policy on verifiability). I don't want you to tell me what should be in ther article. I want you to link me to reliable independent sources which could be used to build a verifiable article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK - so where are the reliable sources to be found in the content we are not happy about? I can't detect any links to reliable independent sources? Or if there are those links, pls advise where to find them in existing version and how to get them in there for me to add to my editied version. Thankx Choconights (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that's exactly the problem - there ARE no reliable sources in the content. Or for that matter any sources whatsoever. You need to find them. What you need are web links to coverage of Ms Frazier in reliable sources (eg independent and reputable music news, mainstream TV or printed news, national music charts). If you have such links, please provide them to me or add them to the article. If you don't then there's nothing that can be done - not every singer is encyclopaedically notable and it may be that Ms Frazier is just not at that stage in her career yet. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really appreciate your help DFW! Below is the same article content I sent you y-day - but this time with links to reliable sources.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Choconights (talk • contribs) 13:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No, you're still not there. IMDB is not a reliable source, as it's user edited with no editorial control. The "Lionheart" address you use above returns a "page does not exist" when I try to use it, the Jazzklubben link does not mention Ms Frazier, and as far as I can tell Ostlendingen is just a (large) blog and is not a reliable source. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Have read thru what you and User:Choconights have written on each other's talk pages and dont think its a language barrier, of what i can read she/he understands you quite well regarding sources and notability, however while reading thru what been said/written, i have gain the feeling that its rather a case of spreading the knowledge about LaGaylia Frazier and provide her with more attention, say like a fan page to some extent. I might be completly wrong, however it is the feeling i get by reading thru what have been said/written. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 17:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least you found fewer points in this review than the last one... How's this? (I took it out of the lead because it got too messy to try and explain it there as well...) Thanks for the review: I'm going to have start writing some more articles, or I'll run out of GANs! Bencherlite^Talk 00:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That looks fine. I note that you took some of my points from the last GAR I ran and applied them to your other articles, which is largely why I found less things this time - you'd already fixed them! A bit busy with something else right now but I'll come back and formalise the promotion later today. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks; I'm doing my best to incorporate the best of the GA review suggestions in my past and present articles, so hopefully there'll be fewer problems each time you review one - as I've got 50 or so to write, and 60 or so to get through GA, I've got a while yet! Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 02:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gee thanks. But as I just noted, I'm now quite confused. Pichpich (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Humour on Wikipedia is a sticky tarpit; better men than me have waded in and been swallowed whole, preserved for later generations who will display them in museums and poke them with sticks. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing the review of The Truth According to Wikipedia, at Talk:The Truth According to Wikipedia/GA1. In response to one of your comments, I have removed the infobox picture - it did not really contribute that much anyways. Thank you, very much, for your kind comments at the review page about my efforts improving the quality of the article. Most appreciated! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem - but I'm not finished yet! - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, no worries. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DustFormWords,

I am hoping you can assist us with the situation that we have been having with our Company pages that we have been trying to post over the past couple of months.

We have tried over time to comply with guidelines and policies of Wikipedia and keep our company pages 'unbiased' and non promotional, but we have been unsuccessful with all of our attempts at getting our content approved and our edits keep getting reverted to the version that is not fully representative of our school.

Here is the the talk stream http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cumminsr

and here is the current page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheridan_College

We are a recognized educational institution, so it is important for us to be properly represented on Wikipedia.

Can you please help?

````Newbieinoakville

Reply - Hi there. You have three major problems:

(1) You are clearly a person associated with the college, who has made few other edits to Wikipedia other than this article. While there is not, in principle, any problem with a person adding accurate, well-sourced information to Wikipedia about a topic they are associated with, our general experience is that about 90% of such contributions are unsourced, false, or blatantly intended as advertising, so we look very suspiciously at such edits and apply a very high standard of auditing to them. This is not, as such, your fault, but it is the environment you are operating in. Ideally you would not need to update this page because you would be able to provide evidence of significant coverage of the institution in a reliable independent source (eg a newspaper) via a comment on the talk page, and uninvolved editors could use that to improve the article.

(2) The edits you are making are promotional in tone. Encyclopaedias are not interested in giving accolades to individuals or companies - they are merely interested in reporting the facts. Phrasings like "through the leadership of" are not generally encyclopaedic language and will usually lead to a revert on the grounds of promotional tone. An encyclopaedic version would be "Institution X was established by Person Y" or "Person Y was the founding CEO of Institution X."

(3) - and this is your biggest obstacle - all information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. (Click on that word to see our relevant policy.) This means that it MUST be capable of being confirmed by an independent, reliable source - that is to say, NOT your company's official website, NOT its press releases, NOT its Facebook page or Twitter account, and NOT an advertising piece from an industry magazine. Each and every fact must be mentioned in an independent, reliable source - eg a reputable newspaper - and then you must provide the DETAILS of that source via a reference in the article. See also our policies on reliable sources and on citation.

I hope you find this helpful. Please understand that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to advertise your company, or even provide accurate information about your company, but merely to summarise in an encyclopaedic way what reliable sources have said about your company. The best way to get better coverage on Wikipedia is to get more reliable sources to write about your company. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply -- Thank you for your feedback. It is definitely insightful, as we are fairly new to the Wikipedia community and have tried hard to comply with required policies. Obviously, our intent is not to make this material promotional in nature and as an educational institution we want to make sure that we are properly reflected. So, I would really appreciate some insight into what we may need to do to rectify the situation. Should we look for experienced wikipedia contributors to assist us with this and if yes, where would we look. Your help is really valued and appreciated. 02:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Newbieinoakville

• Hi. The best long term advice is to try working on some article you're not connected to, to get some practice with how Wikipedia works without being personally invested in the results. Maybe pick a notable person in your local area who doesn't yet have an article and who you're not connected to, and start an article for them. (See Wikipedia's policies on notability.) In the short term there are several ways to get other editors to work on the article for you:

• (1) Find coverage in reliable, independent sources, and post links to that coverage on the article's Talk Page (the tab that says "Talk" or "Discussion" at the top of the article). This will let other editors who are already watching the article use the sources to improve the article. This isn't always successful as editors may not like your sources, or may be too busy elsewhere to work on this article.
• (2)Use Wikipedia's Bounty Board. This allows you to post work you would like to see done (providing it complies with our content policies) and if an editor does the work you then make a donation of real money to the Wikimedia Foundation. You should read the policies surrounding use of that board very carefully before using it.
• (3)Find a Wikipedia Project that covers your article (maybe WikiProject Schools) and place a request for help on their talk page. Not all WikiProjects are active and, again, Wikipedia being an organisation of volunteers, there is no guarantee someone will help you or respond.

Lastly, there is another strategy that may help you. While you may be having difficulty adding correct information, any editor is welcome to remove WRONG information. If there is inaccurate information on the article which is not attributed to a reliable source, you may delete it from the article and include the edit summary "contested fact - please provide a source". The information (in theory) may not be re-added without a citation from a reliable source. In this way you can either ensure there are no inaccuracies in the article or, better yet, make anyone who disagrees with you improve the article through finding sources themselves. Hope this helps. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. Thank you for your insights. They are definitely helpful. We will need to find some credible contributors/editors to help us edit our pages, I would think, as we really do not have qualified resources to do so in a way that would be acceptable to the wikipedia community. If you have any recommendations to where we may be able to find such resources, it would be appreciated. 03:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Newbieinoakville

Congratulations!

[edit]

You've won a Wikimedia t-shirt (not this t-shirt, but an equally lovely t-shirt) as part of the Great Backlog Drive. Thank you for your hard work and perseverance and we hope to see you next week!

Panyd<sup>The muffin is not subtle</sup> 13:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! Shirt accepted via email. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Greetings. I remember you were bold and removed the template from the Fighting Fantasy article, which I agreed with. I'd now like your thoughts on a template at The Warlock of Firetop Mountain (video game), which another user insists is relevant. Peronally, I can't see it as half of the games have no link and the game designers themselves barely rate a mention at their Wikipedia page, which is essentially a list. Surely this is unnecessary? Thebladesofchaos (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]

Hello, DustFormsWords. You have new messages at Redtigerxyz's talk page.
Message added 15:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Change of heart

[edit]

Just wanted to briefly let you know I appreciated your retraction at my RfA. It does mean something to me, and simultaneously says something about you. Cheers. SnottyWong <sup>prattle</sup> 05:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem. It doesn't look like the RfA is going to pass at this stage anyway, but I didn't want it to go down with a vote on it that I wasn't going to be happy with a month from now. Seriously, if you can be as polite and level-headed for the next few months as you have been while the RfA's been running (a particularly stressful process) I'd have no trouble vocally advocating for you when you reapply. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• ...and simultaneously says something about you Amen to that. Now only if you'd do it more often on XfDs, Dust. :3 Bulldog123 13:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Lol, I change my mind on XfDs when there's reasonable grounds to suspect my first opinion was wrong. But I can't blame you for trying!  :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anglesey

[edit]

Thanks for the speedy, hassle-free GA review and for the barnstar as well - much appreciated, and a great start to the day! Regards, Bencherlite<sup>Talk</sup> 07:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GBED

[edit]

Hey, sorry to disappoint you, but the drive doesn't start til midnight UTC, which is 56 minutes and 43 seconds away at the time of posting. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Wikipedia time said we were well into 1 March. Not sure what time zone I have it set to; it's certainly not my local time. Probably just as well because apparently the drive isn't taking quickfails anyway. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's currently 11:29 (UTC). UTC is the same as GMT. There's a gadget you can select in your preferences that puts the time in UTC in the top right corner if that helps. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/March 2011

[edit]

Hi, I think that you have jumped the gun somewhat. The drive commenced @ 1 March, 00:00 (UTC). I have posted about this at WT:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/March 2011. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied there; I believe the answer is no, I haven't, in that the capture point for reviews must logically be the end, not the beginning, but I'll be guided by community consensus at that discussion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assess the edit, not the editor

[edit]

DustFormsWords, you've reverted some of my recent edits, referring to me not seeming to understand policy. I'd advise you to review my edits, and not me as an editor. It could be argued whether Flash Element TD has enough coverage to meet the notability guidelines (which explicitly state that significant coverage is needed), but proposing the article's deletion is obviously not a question of me misunderstanding the guidelines. Filibusti (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also for the Don't Look Back article, I asked whether the coverage was significant enough to warrant notability/inclusion, yet you reverted my notability-tag, again citing my supposed lack of comprehension of the guidelines. Filibusti (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flaah Element TD has a review on Jay Is Games. That's sufficient coverage to pass WP:N all by itself, and it doesn't appear that you've conducted good faith searches as required by WP:BEFORE, as several more immediately appear on even a cursory Google search. Don't Look Back is an award winning game by an award winning creator covered on Kotaku, Jay Is Games, Destructoid, and IGN, among others, where once again you don't appear to have conducted any searches yourself. I specifically mean that you misunderstand the meaning of "significant coverage" in WP:N, and your personal obligations per WP:BEFORE. But I've responded more generally on your talk page.- DustFormsWords (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have differing opinions of what constitutes significant coverage then! I wouldn't claim you have misunderstood the guidelines because of this as you have done though, that's simply insulting.

Let's take a look at the wording in WP:Notability though. ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail [...] Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" (my bolding, of course). What is a trivial mention? I'd say a short blog post on the topic that doesn't go into much detail of the game. The JayIsGames review does however go into detail, but it's also mentioned in the notability guidelines that the sources used to establish notability must be reliable sources. JayIsGames is a blog - I'm sure it's the major news source for people interested in casual games, but popularity alone does not mean it's a reliable source. It's certainly NOT a mainstream news source - it's still a blog, albeit a high-traffic one. It's run by a man without any education in journalism or publishing, and I would guess the majority of the reviewers likewise lack any formal education in journalism. We also know nothing of their editorial policies. Do we have any well-established reliable sources covering them in detail? Not that I can find.

Saying a game is award-winning means nothing. Is the award itself even notable? Does it have an article on Wikipedia? Was it covered in mainstream news, more than in passing? Additionally, saying that Gregory Weiss has made award-winning games means nothing. If the game is notable, it should have an article, but if there are no RS covering the author in detail, then he himself does not meet the notability guidelines set forth in WP:BIO. Filibusti (talk) 05:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these other RS's covering Flash Element TD in detail that you mention? I googled, yet I can't find any. Filibusti (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, none of the above has anything to do with our policies. Whether an award has an article on Wikipedia has nothing to do with whether it's a notable award, or whether it's useful in determining notability. Whether a site is a blog has nothing to do with whether it's a reliable source (in this case it's a blog with editorial oversight, and the community consensus is it's reliable). "Mainstream" has no meaning on Wikipedia, and it has nothing to do with "reliable" (plenty of mainstream sites have been deemed non-reliable by the community, and vice versa). Your definition of a trivial mention isn't relevant; we already have one, and it means a mention containing sufficient detail to be of any use in building an encyclopaedic article. Dedicated reviews are always non-trivial, as the opinion of the reviewer is itself a fact relevant to be mentioned in a "reception" section. PLEASE read our policies. Some of the relevant policies are WP:N (notability), WP:RS (reliable sources), WP:V (verifiability), and WP:BEFORE (obligations on nominator prior to nomination for deletion). I don't want to get unnecessarily snippy, and heaven knows I'm not the final arbiter of what's right and wrong on Wikipedia, but it's becoming increasingly clear that you know enough about Wikipedia to find the deep end and enthusiastically jump in, but not quite enough to swim there. Deletion and notability are two of the most complex policy areas on Wikipedia. You obviously have something relevant to say in this area, that Wikipedia deserves to get to hear, but can I suggest that you start the debate on just one or two articles - on their talk pages, so everyone can participate - and if you're successful there, take what you've learned and apply it to three or four more. If you start a notability discussion on the talk pages of (say) Flash Element TD I would love to join in, but the creator and editors of that article will likely also have something to say. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or, look, better yet - pick one (say Flash Element TD) and take it to AfD. Or if you don't know how I'm happy to do it on your behalf. You'll get the chance to put your argument to a wide audience, you'll get the views of many editors experienced in deletion and notability policy, and in the event that I'm wrong you get to dress me down in public, and I learn something too. Plus it's a final arbiter; you don't have to reargue it again somewhere else later. I think that's probably faster and more valuable than you and I going back and forth over this. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're turning increasingly rude. I have no desire to "dress you down in public" nor do I have an exebitionist tendencies requiring a "wide audience". I have read the policies, but you seem to know them by heart rather than actually having looked at them now in conjunction with what I wrote (you say ""Mainstream" has no meaning on Wikipedia" - yet "mainstream news source" was something I quoted from the notability guideline page, so apparently it does have meaning on Wikipedia). I quote policy several times, but I have no idea what you base your arguments on so it's hard to argue with you (the community has come to a census that JayIsGames is an RS? you have a definition of "trivial" other than the one mentioned on the notability page? etc). Referring me to the very pages I quote, without actually quoting what it is you suggest I've misunderstood is entirely unhelpful.

"Whether an award has an article on Wikipedia has nothing to do with whether it's a notable award, or whether it's useful in determining notability" - I do agree, but that was ONE of the things I mentioned, where the argument was that the fact that he's won some award, by itself, of course doesn't mean a thing unless it's a notable, verifiable award. I'm sad that you'd pounce on that as it must have been apparent what I was trying to say, and that you of course actually agree to it. Filibusti (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate if you argued by using the policies, as I have to you, rather than proclaiming time after time that this is obviously too complex for me. It only comes off as arrogant and doesn't help the discussion. Filibusti (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The policies are there for you to read them, and if you want further elaboration you should maybe look over past AfD debates of similar articles. I don't intend to have three or four separate deletion and notability debates on my talk page, and nothing productive would come of it if I did. I'm not intending to be rude, and I reaffirm again that you're clearly a constructive and intelligent editor acting in good faith, but I do think that you're misguided as to notability and deletion policy. I don't think we're going to get anywhere arguing directly, and I don't think either of us will learn anything of lasting value for it. Consider me objecting to any indie games article you PROD on your current understanding of policy; this means that no PROD you make will be uncontroversial, leaving your only option being to take them to AfD. Pick an article you have notability concerns about (I think Flash Element TD is probably your strongest argument) and take it to AfD, or ask me to do it. I'm prepared to believe that Wikipedia benefits no matter what outcome results from that, and you get the benefit of either learning where you're wrong, or learning that you're not wrong at all. If you don't want to go to AfD, then please concede that your arguments wouldn't fly there and stop raising notability concerns. (To be clear, I DON'T advocate backing off - I think your arguments are worth putting and discussing, and that AfD is a reasonable and constructive way forward.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, if your main concern is just that JayIsGames is not a reliable source, you can settle that globally at the reliable sources noticeboard, which is a much more productive path than just tagging articles that rely on it. I've already done a search to see if it's been discussed before and I didn't find anything; that would generally mean there's not even a shred of community doubt it's an RS but you're free to take the alternative interpretation. Either way if you raise it there you may be able to get a definitive answer. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I've already done a search to see if it's been discussed before and I didn't find anything; that would generally mean there's not even a shred of community doubt it's an RS but you're free to take the alternative interpretation" - come on, that must the most bizarre interpretation of this possible. By the same logic, any site not mentioned there is 100% definitely an RS. Besides, a second ago, the consensus was that it's an RS, then you look to see if there's actually any consensus, but there's none, so that means there's a solid water-tight consensus. I will do as you suggested though, and thank you for pointing out that course of action. Filibusti (talk) 06:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) As I said, I have read the guidelines and I don't see what it is of them you're suggesting I'm violating. You say neither of us could learn anything from this, but I think you're wrong - if I indeed am wrong about something, I'd honestly be more than happy to learn about it but your unlinked, apocryphal references do little to help me. And to give a concrete example for yourself, you suggested "mainstream news source" has no meaning on Wikipedia, but I hope you might have learned otherwise looking at the actual guideline that I quoted. I also want to object what to appears to be an undue bias on your part. You say you will object any prod on an indie game from me - suggesting the prods I've made on non-indie games and other things are fine. You seem to care for the indie game community, and this seems to have clouded your judgment. If you refuse to even debate with me and insist on opposing my prods not based on the notability of the articles but solely on the topic they happen to belong to, I'd be happy if you'd take the following articles to AfD: Gregory Weir, Anna Anthropy, Kyratzes, the Museum of Broken Memories, and yeah, the Flash TD one. Filibusti (talk) 06:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the Flash TD one to AfD; if I understand you correctly, the concerns are largely the same across all five articles (notability, as determined by sources, with the complaint being a lack of independent non-blog sources) so I'm not sure we'd benefit from five identical discussions. It is, of course, your right to take the remainder to AfD in your own capacity. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The concerns are different for the indie game authors because they are living persons and need to adhere to WP:BIO. Also, if we're talking about what is a strong case, I think the case for keeping the games are debatable, while the authors definitely fail the guidelines. If we're talking about the games, there's the argument that JIG is an RS. But what's the argument for keeping the authors? Filibusti (talk) 06:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll AfD one of the creators too. I'd think Anna Anthropy is the more arguably non-notable, but then I'm the creator of the original Gregory Weir article. Which would you prefer to argue first? - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either one is fine, but what's your motive behind doing one at a time? Are you saying inclusion of one must naturally mean the other one should be included too, or vice versa? I think that can be argued for the games if they are all hinging on JIG being an RS or not, but if we're talking about the authors, both fail to meet WP:BIO in their own ways (I mean, the sources aren't the same). If an interview with Weir from the New York Times suddenly appears after a lengthy google, I'd say that means his article should definitely be kept (just like I think Jonatan Söderström's should be) but I don't see how that means squat to the Anna Anthropy article. Filibusti (talk) 06:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My motives for doing one at a time are that they're likely to turn on the same issues (reliability of sources, quantity of coverage, notable awards, inherited notability), that multiple nominations of similar articles at the same time polarises debate and reduces collegiate spirit, and that it does no service to the articles or the editors to have the same argument in two places. It may be that if the result on one is Keep, you will be persuaded that the other should also be Kept, and either way you're still welcome to nominate the second either now or at a later date. I think your stronger argument is Anna so I will nominate that, and then you're welcome to do the other yourself if you feel so inclined. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't that true for nearly all AfD's? (I understand I'm free to nominate it myself, just arguing because I think your reasoning is wrong. Feel free to ignore me if you wish).Filibusti (talk) 06:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While there may be different issues applying to these articles (as you rightly point out, a NY Times interview would be definitively "Keep" for Gregory Weir but would not help Anna Anthropy) they also share a great number of issues in common that largely go to the notability of indie game developers and the usability of the sources that cover them. While the debate may not turn on a shared characteristic, it has a much larger-than-average chance that it will. I mean, my argument (which may have to wait till the morning until I post it) is that the sources in the articles already are sufficient to satisfy WP:N, and if you shoot me down on that for Anna Anthropy it seems likely I'll fail at Gregory Weir too. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boise

[edit]

I'll get to it tomorrow. I'm not all there right now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • <sup>(Otters want attention)</sup> 04:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No rush. I tend to leave them open seven days, or for as long as active improvement is occurring, whichever is longer. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taken up a few of the issues. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • <sup>(Otters want attention)</sup> 12:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you think it would help the structure if all the info on the Boise Town Plaza were in its own section? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • <sup>(Otters want attention)</sup> 19:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Poke. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • <sup>(Otters want attention)</sup> 22:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi; real life has made me busy again! I may return to this today but you may need to wait a day or so. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IRC invitation

[edit]

Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat 08:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, but (a) IRC is not convenient for me to use and (b) I have said all I have to say about pending changes. Best wishes! - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I told you, at one time I did intend; You have the most interesting username I have ever encountered on Wikipedia! Bravo for a top achievement. I was once known as Dust et al, on another site, which of course is dust and other things, but when dust forms words, it really is profound. Please accept my highest accolade; My admiration! My76Strat (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review for The Truth According to Wikipedia

[edit]

Perhaps you could please have another look at this? It appears that during my absence, another helpful editor or two actually did come by and made many of your multiple helpful recommended changes. I have implemented some of your other helpful suggestions, as well. ;) Perhaps it is ready for GA? Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mugdha Vaishampayan for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mugdha Vaishampayan 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/Mugdha Vaishampayan (2nd nomination) 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Schmidt, <sup>MICHAEL Q.</sup> 09:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re Truth According To Wikipedia

[edit]

Sure, I can wait a coupla days. No problems. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GAN

[edit]

You became involved in my rant about this. The reviewer says he has asked for a second opinion (not sure where, or how). So it leaves the field open for me to accept the offer made on MF's talk page to have a look at it. I'm prepared to join in a discussion to improve the article, but I will not (as I guess you have discovered) accept reformatting without discussion first! It should not need too much copyediting, as it has already been through the hands of MF for this. If you want to have a go, I should be very pleased. Any reply can be made here, as I shall be watching. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has made comments, so I guess I shall not need to trouble you about it. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ignace Bourget

[edit]

The article Ignace Bourget you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Ignace Bourget for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

[edit]

I think you were mistaken in this edit. Linking to the disambiguation page is incorrect because it does not provide the reader with any information relevant to the context in which the link appears. See WP:DPL. Providing a red link at least informs other editors that there may be a need for a new article to be written, unless the architect is not a notable individual, in which case the link should simply be deleted. Linking to the disambiguation creates the incorrect impression that Wikipedia has an article about this person when in fact it doesn't. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ball lightning

[edit]

Good day! I need an advise of you. I tried add an external link in article ball lightning. This link was such: Videos Films, depicting the fireballs (in Russian). It was deleted. I tried to explain my position at Talk:Ball lightning in section About two new external links. During Revision as of 19:28, 17 March 2011 (edit) Daffydavid changed the link to the form: Video of Ball Lightning,Lightball Video Two amateur videos of suspected Ball Lightning. The videos also are available in zip-archive, and may be seen with the help of VLC media player.

But then Beach drifter deleted the link. Moreover at 20 March 2011 he deleted also this information:

• Fedosin S.G. and Kim A.S. proposed (2000) Electron-ionic model.<sup>[1]</sup> ,

which was in section Other hypotheses. Now I don't know what to do in such situation. Fedosin (talk) 07:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your participation in the March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive

[edit]

On behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, we would like to take the time and thank you for your contributions made as part of the March 2011 Good articles backlog elimination drive. Awards and barnstars will go out shortly for those who have reviewed a certain number of articles.

During the backlog drive, in the month of March 2011,

• 522 GA nominations were undertaken.
• 423 GA nominations passed.
• 72 GA nominations failed.
• 27 GA nominations were on hold.

We started the GA backlog elimination drive with 378 GA nominations remaining, with 291 that were not reviewed at all. By 2:00, April 1, 2011, the backlog was at 171 GA nominations, with 100 that were left unreviewed.

At the start of the drive, the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 101 days (Andrei Kirilenko (politician), at 20 November 2010, reviewed and passed 1 March 2011); at the end of the drive the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 39 days (Gery Chico, at 24 February 2011, still yet to be reviewed as of this posting).

While we did not achieve the objective of getting the backlog of outstanding GA nominations down to below 50, we reduced the GA backlog by over half. The GA reviews also seemed to be of a higher quality and have consistently led, to say the least, to marginal improvements to those articles (although there were significant improvements to many, even on the some of the nominations that were failed).

If you would like to comment on the drive itself and maybe even make suggestions on how to improve the next one, please make a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/March 2011#Feedback. Another GA backlog elimination drive is being planned for later this year, tentatively for September or October 2011. Also, if you have any comments or remarks on how to improve the Good article process in general, Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles can always use some feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles.

Again, on behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, thank you for making the March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive a success.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 21:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE drive newsletter

[edit]

The Guild of Copy Editors – May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive The Guild of Copy Editors invite you to participate in the May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive began on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). The goals of this backlog elimination drive are to eliminate as many articles as possible from the 2009 backlog and to reduce the overall backlog by 15%. ! NEW ! In an effort to encourage the final elimination of all 2009 articles, we will be tracking them on the leaderboard for this drive. Awards and barnstars A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page. We look forward to meeting you on the drive! Your GOCE coordinators: SMasters, Diannaa, Tea with toast, Chaosdruid, and Torchiest

You are receiving a copy of this newsletter as you are a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, or have participated in one of our drives. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add you name here. Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/dispute resolution

[edit]

Had you noticed this has reopened? I only did today. I stopped looking in after discussion faded away. Now I've put it on my watchlist. I've just checked and find the preceding one was opened just over two years ago and has still not been closed and archived. Peter jackson (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

would be grateful for help in reviewing my article

[edit]

Hi, I'm new to Wiki and have just written my first article. I would appreciate some coaching in ensuring it meets Wiki guidelines. I wondered if you might be willing to help? Sharadha Sharadha Bain (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technocracy merge

[edit]

Saw you in a deletion discussion about a few Mage articles, so I wondered if you'd be interested in a merge discussion about the Technocracy, which were part of the nomination for the original deletion discussion. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Review/Article Deletion Assistance

[edit]

Greetings DFW,

I'm hoping you might take a look at my "Ayurveda (Band)" page. It has been deleted once because it had too much fluff in it and it sounded like a fan page. Notability was also an issue.

I have since deleted what I thought might be considered fluff. With regard to notability, I disagree with that determination and am not sure how to argue it. Yes, the band is up and coming with a most favorable review of their latest CD by The Washington Post but more importantly they are well known and followed in the U.S. community of Nepalese and with music lovers in Nepal. There is a thriving music scene in Nepal. Diwas Gurung, lead guitarist for Ayurveda, was born and raised in Kathmandu. Before entering the states for college, he played in a favorite in-country band over there. His father, Om Gurung, is also a well known Nepali folk singer still living in Nepal.

Ayurveda is answering the call of their Nepali fanbase and will tour there and in India this October.

I guess my argument with regard to notability is that there seems to be some cultural elitism going on with deletions. What may not be notable in the states (just yet) can -- and in this case is -- notable in another country. Nepal is one of the poorest countries in the world so their isn't a strong media base to build up "notability". Most of it is by word of mouth and internet searches. Music lovers in Nepal scramble for anything Ayurveda -- new music, videos, interviews, etc. I know that a Wikipedia article would be of great interest to them and to many other folks interested in the band, Nepali or not.

I hope I've made some sense here & would truly appreciate your feedback/assistance.

Kind regards, WhysosiriusWhysosirius (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sponsoring an article

[edit]

Hello! Not sure if you usually help with writing up articles. The Voices-Voix article was speedily deleted and I am needing someone to sponsor the article to avoid COI. Is this something you could do? The article is already written but of course, needs to be approved. If you are able to reply taljou42@gmail.com that would be great. Thanks for your time!

Raiseyourvoice2011 (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Quebec

[edit]

I noticed you are a participant of the WikiProject Quebec.

The Outline of Quebec was created a few days ago and is under vigorous development. It fills a gap in Wikipedia's set of outlines. It is the 3rd outline to date about a Canadian province/territory.

• Wikipedia Contents
  • Outlines
    • Outline of geography
      • Outline of North America
        • Outline of Canada
          • Outline of Alberta
          • Outline of British Columbia
          • Outline of Manitoba
          • Outline of New Brunswick
          • Outline of Newfoundland and Labrador
          • Outline of Nova Scotia
          • Outline of Ontario