User talk:Dalisays

Baik Tae-Ung, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Aaron Booth (talk) 06:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dalisays,

Please give me more guidance for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chris Twomeyrefused because "Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you."

I looked over the footnote section as you recommended, but it looks to me that the footnotes in this article follow the instructions. I would very much appreciate your help in figuring out specifically what is wrong with the footnotes. I would like to fix this article so that when I submit it again, it meets your criteria.

Thank you for your consideration, Norm HinseyNorm Hinsey (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Norm,

To meet Wikipedia's standards, Chris Twomey must be a notable person (please reference Wikipedia standards's on notable people). To verify Twomey's notability there needs to be sufficient inline citations, and currently the article lacks sufficient inline citations to do so. The citations are too sparse to verify key material which support the argument that Twomey is indeed a notable person. Good news is I think this can easily be resolved, by going back through the article and adding inline citations throughout. You will notice now that the entire first half of the article has none and this is where the information that would have gone to prove notability is found. As such, this information must be supported by inline citations. To clean up the article--as it as been added---these citations should be added to ensure it is not deleted it in the future. Dalisays (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do I resubmit my article on Gene Wu? WallopinWill (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Click Gene Wu Resubmit, and then press "save." Dalisays (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per your comments at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Center of Pressure (Balance), please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organismal Biomechanics#Center of pressure - We can't have one article discussing two unrelated subjects: our existing article was about a specific concept within fluid mechanics, and the 'biological' CoP is another concept entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the two topics as distinct; in fact, I would argue that the topics are indeed interrelated, and that both are not sufficiently unique to demand their own article. I would continue the discussion you have initiated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organismal Biomechanics#Center of pressure--it seems to be productive thus far--- and arrive at a consensus so the contributor for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Center of Pressure (Balance) can find a happy home for the content. Dalisays (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dalisays,

I invite you to review all of the sources I have used once again and take a closer look. The sources I have used are not at all only about concerts the band has performed, my sources are varied and solid. Some are interviews of the band, others are reviews of the band's EP releases. Most of my information is actually extracted from the many interviews I have cited. So, please, I invite you to review my sources again and let me know if you do actually find something wrong with my resources.

Also, the band has most definitely met Wikipedia's standards of notability. I have references in my articles that span from different websites, magazines, and blogs that mention Campo-Formio's achievements which all appear in the "Accolades" section of my article. Please, I have followed the instructions adequately, so I invite you to check again and see if my article can finally be moved to article space on Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menor, A. (talk • contribs) 14:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Menor A, I reviewed the article again. In my opinion, it still does not meet the Notability Requirements For Music. I went through the article and then went through each requirement, and I just don't think it satisfies any. To this end, the only music notability req it would meet--based on the info in the article-- is the coverage req by independent critical review sources. But again, the main problem is that the notability of the band is not supported by the sources provided as of now. There are only two or three sources which present critical coverage of the band through reviews---and there needs to be multiple such sources (The different reviews cited from Puerto Rico Indie just count as one basically, since they are all from the same publication). I feel like you just need to find more independent sources that have provided critical reviews of the band---there must be some out there. Dalisays (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HI again, I understand the problem now and I apologize for my misunderstanding. I will address the issue promptly and resubmit the article for review once I have found more and different sources that attest to the band's notability. Thank you for the help. Menor, A. (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled why you declined this one. The sources clearly document the notability of the subject. Sure it has room for improvement, but notability doesn't lack. The subject was chief of the BEA, (the French equivalent to the US NTSB). As such, he headed the investigation into Air France Flight 447 and many others. He's an Officer of the Légion d'honneur. For unelected public servants in democracies, that's about as notable as it gets. If you're going to decline such translations, the least you can do is make it clear what needs to be fixed. The translator put in significant effort in good faith. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this one is a great puzzler. The subject may very well be notable, but the sources provided to this end are sparse as of now. All currently identified sources--except for one--just note the subject's position without providing additional coverage. In and of itself, this position isn't notable. The other one listed the chief as an investigator in the Air France Flight 447 incident. The Notability Guidelines are clear that involvement in one such incident in itself also does not merit notability all its own (his name can be included in the article for the incident). When considered as a whole, the subject's notability isn't supported solidly by the aggregate of these sources. Dalisays (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the issue was wp:ONEEVENT, you could have said as much. How are editors to solve unstated problems? This or this should be sufficient to see his involvement in grounding the Concorde. Here is another, relating to an Air New Zealand crash.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The greater problem with the article generally, in my opinion, is sourcing, and the form notice indicates as much. However, there is also a general comment on the article regarding the problem with wp:ONEEVENT. Cheers, Dalisays (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, translated articles have to be created before they can be changed. Otherwise, the process of attribution via the article history would be broken. We shouldn't comingle translation with editing.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution simply imputes that the original source of the translation be credited by tagging in the edit summary/talk page--assuming this is actually a derivative work and that the contributor didn't write the original as well. The chain of attribution is thus intact regardless of additional edits made before the article is created (additional edits don't change the edit summary). In fact, all attributed articles that are translated are subject to the basic acceptance requirements upon submittal and this process in some cases necessitates additional editing prior to creation. That is, just because a Wikipedia article exists in another language doesn't mean it will meet the reqs for inclusion in Wikipedia English. Dalisays (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Roth (professor), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

StandardSwan (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Herman (disambiguation), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Disambig-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Callanecc (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dalisays. Thank you for having accepted the category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_Request:_Category:Alumni_of_the_École_nationale_de_l%27aviation_civile. Please, could you clean up the title of the category from Category Request: Category:Alumni of the École nationale de l'aviation civile to Category:Alumni of the École nationale de l'aviation civile. For the moment, it doesn't work. Thanks a lot. Kind Regards. 78.239.175.7 (talk) 08:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have moved it successfully to reflect your request. Please check to ensure it is working now, and please do let me know. Dalisays (talk) 09:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but unfortunately, it doesn't work. The final name should be Category:Alumni of the École nationale de l'aviation civile , so without"Wikipedia:" (for the moment, the name is Wikipedia:Category:Alumni of the École nationale de l'aviation civile). You can look for an example to this category : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Alumni_of_the_École_Centrale_de_Lyon. 78.239.175.7 (talk) 09:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The final name should be Category:Alumni of the École nationale de l'aviation civile instead of Wikipedia:Category:Alumni of the École nationale de l'aviation civile or Wikipedia:Alumni of the École nationale de l'aviation civile (the same as all the articles of the category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Alumni_of_the_Grandes_écoles). Kind Regards. 78.239.175.7 (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have sorted this out, see Category:Alumni of the École nationale de l'aviation civile. By the way, thank you Dalisays for your work at Articles for creation.--Commander Keane (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the problem is fixed. Thanks. 78.239.175.7 (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the delay. I really mucked it up when I moved it from Articles for Creation. Luckily, the big guns were able to fix it. Dalisays (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for your help at Articles for creation. Kind Regards. 78.239.175.7 (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i am trying to upload Don Groves' profile, as I believe it merits a Wiki place. I have quoted 2 sources, and he can be found on Wiki linking him to several Variety movie reviews. Can you please tell me what I need to do to make Don's profile available to the rest of the Wiki community? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PW Moodie (talk • contribs) 13:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PW Moodie! So, to establish the notability of the subject, there needs to be multiple quality (independent and secondary) sources that provide coverage. As of now, it is hard to establish notability given 1) the quality of sources and 2) the coverage they provide. One source is from the subject's network, so it is not independent, the other two sources which appear independent don't provide coverage of the subject, they simply provide mention. So, to improve the article--you need to add better sourcing keeping in mind these reqs and then you should resubmit. I hope that is helpful. Dalisays (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dalisays,

I've made some improvements to the ViziApps article, including a rewrite for WP:NPOV. I've also trimmed the sources to better conform to WP:RS and demonstrate a level of notability for the subject that meets the WP:GNG threshold. I'll be making some ongoing improvements in the future, such as adding categories etc., but in the meantime, I wonder if you might help me redirect MobiFlex App Studio to this new article, since the company has verifiably transitioned from MobFlex Inc. to ViziApps Inc. Thanks! Annieh129 (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect from MobiFlex App Studio to the new article can only be done once it is created. It would probably be better if MobiFlex App Studio was merged with the new content (that is, you should add your content to the article rather than create a new one). When you are done, then the article can be moved, to reflect its new name. Dalisays (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Yamamoto, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Aaron Booth (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aggressive Legalism, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 07:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Can you please suggest what texts should be removed from this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/BroadLight in order for it to be approved.

I'm kind of losing direction as to how to proceed from here.

Thank you,

Didiivancovsky (talk) 10:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Didiivancovsky! No worries! Keep in mind, to establish the notability of Broadlight, there needs to be multiple independent secondary sources that provide coverage. So you have to nail the trifecta (Multiple, Independent, Coverage). So, right now, there are two problems w/ the sources. 1) Most are not independent. One source is a Broadlight forum; one source is a publication of Broadlight's press release. and 2) The remaining source only provides minimal coverage. So--don't be discouraged! You just have to locate some sources that are in no way connected to Broadlight that talk in detail about the company (they should do more than just mention the Broadlight or list it as a company (e.g. directories, etc). Try to hunt down at least 5 sources to this end. I hope that helps. Dalisays (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dalisays Do you need email accounts of employees or customers to help the verification process? Best wishes Duncan Hislop [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dchislop (talk • contribs) 19:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Duncan Dchislop! In short -no! To establish the notability of the subject of your article, there must be multiple independent secondary sources that provide coverage. I call this the trifecta: MULTIPLE, INDEPENDENT, COVERAGE. Try to identify/include many sources that aren't related to the subject--or simply echo what it says about itself---and that provide critical review of it (not mere mention). I hope that is helpful in your endeavor. Once you have, be sure to liberally cite your article with inlines. Currently, the sources identified are not independent and don't provide coverage, and there is not adequate inline citation. Dalisays (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dalisays

Thanks for looking at this draft for a new article.

I am confident that this article is needed but accept I have probably gone through the wrong process. Antimalarial resistance is a large and important subject in its own right, constituting a global threat to efforts to control malaria. In an analogous way there is an article on Antibiotic resistance as well as one on Antibacterials, and it is certainly not true that antibiotic resistance is significantly more important than antimalarial resistance.

Currently the section on antimalarial resistance is limited to three shortish segments within what is already a large article on antimalarials. In my view both would benefit from substantial revision, but I and presumably others are disinclined to do this if an article feels cramped and poorly structured (as is currently the case in my view). I also observed that the current resistance section has only one reference (for the statement that resistance is common).

What would be really helpful is to know what the best process is to separate this into two articles, with one obviously linked to the other. Relevant content from Antimalarials (of which there is relatively little) could potentially be transferred to the new article if there is an appropriate way to do this.

It would be great to get your advice on how to go about doing all this in the most efficient way.

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientist2 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scientist2, So, I think you have two options. The first I would recommend, the second I would not, and I will explain why. 1) You can go to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology and or Talk:Antimalarial_medication to initiate a dialogue with your peers about whether it would be best to merge the articles or to start a new one. This will ensure you have a consensus before you place you're article, which is always the goal in this collaborative effort. 2) You can resubmit your article to Articles For Creation, and perhaps a different reviewer might find that the article demands to stand on its own. I wouldn't recommend this option---because even assuming that the article was created---if a consensus of your peers does not agree going forward that it should stand on its own--then the articles could be merged without your input or it could be deleted all together, which would undermine your hard work. I hope that helps. Dalisays (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dalisys

Thanks for this - I have taken option 1 and posted new sections in both these locations describing the proposal. I'll review over time and see if a consensus emerges. I understand my draft article will not be deleted?

Regards

Scientist2 (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scientist2, Awesome! As I am sure you will, I hope you get quick feedback from your peers so you can find a happy home for your content! I am 99% sure your article will remain out there in the Wiki-ether and won't be deleted. But, of course, as I am sure you probably already have, I would recommend saving a copy of it offline just in case. Good luck! Dalisays (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for reviewing my article. I am sorry to be a nuisance here. I have submitted the article on the DCED three times for review, but each time had it turned down due to copyright, most recently by yourself. I am grateful for the help here. I will now really look at the content I wrote and try and change it. However could I ask for more specific information on why you turned the page down? I really felt that the material was different enough to any other to not have any copyright issues. The structure of the page follows similiar other organisations. The content is laid out in a different manner to the organisation's website and with different wording. Some of it is the same, but this is as some of the wording in the sector is fixed (and used across all relevant wikipedia pages), such as private sector development in conflict affected environments or sustainable poverty reduction/economic development. Numerous references are made in the article. So Im not quite sure where Im going wrong. I imagine you are very busy, but any help would be really appreciated. Thanks very much Ashleyaak (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ashleyaak, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, as copyright infringement imputes civil, and in extreme instances, criminal liability. Wikipedia software flags articles, by using software to compare information found on the internet with the content of articles submitted. The article you submitted--as you noted--was flagged after this process. Regardless if this is common wording used elsewhere in other sources, for the purposes of the article it must be rewritten in a novel way. My advice is to cross-reference the sources you used with the article to ensure that there are no more copyright violations, so the article can be reviewed on its merits. I hope that is helpful. Dalisays (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That is very helpful. Thanks very much Ashleyaak (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi:

I have been trying to complete my first Wikipedia entry since February. I have had my submission reviewed twice and I receive the same comment: Need more resources. My page is about an online health supplement company called Dherbs.com. I received most of my facts interviewing the owner and some of the employees, but am supporting their beliefs about natural supplements and holistic medicines by referencing some information I found online. Can you please help me with this? What on my page do you believe I need to better support?

Thank you so much for your assistance and your time, I will take any suggestions you have to offer.

EveofCreation — Preceding unsigned comment added by EveofCreation (talk • contribs) 14:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EveofCreation, Wikipedia only accepts a contributor's original research about a subject if it has been peer-reviewed, e.g. in an independent and reliable secondary source. While I am sure your research about the subject is valuable, unless it can be verified per sources as such, the notability of the subject, per standard for inclusion, can not be established. Perhaps, if you contact the subject again (they may know of where they have been covered) or dig deeper, you might be able to corroborate your research with other sources. I would encourage you do this, and then edit your article using any sources you might find. I hope that is constructive. Dalisays (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for looking to my article and answer so quickly! I'll try to correct it - so, please be patient, it's my first try in writting ^^

SpSofia (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can you prove this is not true?  It is impossible to prove a negative assertion.  That is the nature of logic.   :- ) DCS 03:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bwahaha--Proving the impossible--a nebolous task indeed! At least, the submission made me laugh! Dalisays (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hate tea, but love bubble tea. I hope you have the pleasure. For a relatively "new" editor, you are doing an amazing job.  :- ) DCS 03:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A smile for you You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.2.142 (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you for your review of the article regarding James Doherty. I have added references and hit the save button but not sure if it has automatically been submitted for review. Please can you advise me what I now need to do?

Neil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd2510 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neil, To resubmit your article, click RESUBMIT and then click "Save". Dalisays (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dalisays,

I've revised all my sources, and I still can't figure out why the message about them not being reliable sources keep appearing. All four sources I used are books on the Architecture of Brazil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Brazilian_Modern_Architecture Can you let me know in a more specified manner what do I need to do?

Thank you, Bellatrix — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellatrixcruz (talk • contribs) 02:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bellatrixcruz, The article is pending another review now. It looks good. The article can be reviewed based on the notability of the subject now that sourcing information is clear. Dalisays (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dalisays,

Thanks for your advice on the Hope International article. I think that you are correct in that I have let my bias for micro finance be evidenced through out the article. I have highlighted some sections for deletion or possibly revision and am wondering if you would mind giving me some additional feedback.

Have a good one!

RunLeahrun (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)RunLeahrun[reply]

As per Wikipeia guidelines I have selected Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported. Hence I should include a reference to this on the web page that includes the work in question. Here is the suggested HTML:

<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/"><img alt="Creative Commons License" style="border-width:0" src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-sa/3.0/88x31.png" /></a>
Facets of God's Creation: revealed for the seekers ofTruth by Dr. P.R.Palodhi is licensed under a <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License</a>.

(Partha ranjan Palodhi (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Dalisays --

Thanks for the review. The references did not show up in the draft you saw, so I've revised it. Will you take another look? I think I've resubmitted it correctly. It's topic is Hirsch Bedner and Associates.

Best,

BJD

Bjdean68 (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bjdean68! Sorry for the delay responding. As the last reviewer noted, although the company itself may be notable--and probably is--the sources don't yet establish so. Multiple independent sources that provide coverage of the company in a meaningful way are required to this end. Try to hunt down some independent sources that really dig into the company---that provide some good insight into the company and its significance as a player in the field. I hope that helps. Dalisays (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dalisays,

You gave me some really good advice about a fortnight ago about the page I am writing about the charity War Memorials Trust. I have taken on board comments by you and other Wiki users and have updated the page and re-submitted it, and it is currently pending.

I was just wondering if you wouldn't mind taking another look at it and giving some feedback?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/War_Memorials_Trust

Thank you! Lecari (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lecari! Great work! I've accepted the article and moved it into the mainspace. Dalisays (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo! Thank you! Really pleased to see it moved over - the first page I have created :-) Lecari (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dalisays,

Please help me: I am new in Wikipedia and I do not know how to act. My user name is VAKovalecsky, I have suggested on March 27 the article "Abstract cell complex". I have received three e-mails (also one from you) from which I learned that the refences were not correct. I have changed them and saved the article. After that I am waiting for some information from Wikipedia but I have receved nothing. The article is still not accepted. Please tell me what shell I do that my article becomes accepted. Also tell me whether this is a correct place to write to you: I have received in the e-mail the following advice:

             "To contact the editor, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dalisays"

However, when I click to this address, I can not see where I can write to you.

My e-mal address is "[email protected]". VAKovalevsky (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VAKovalevsky, Apologies for the delay; there is a severe backlog at AFC. Great contribution! I moved the article into the mainspace. Dalisays (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dalisays, Daffodil International Professional Training Institute(DIPTI) is a training institute in situated in Bangladesh. It's provide training in the filed of Information Technology(IT). It's has a web site www.dipti.com.bd which is also contain some information about it DIPTI. you said that my image is copied from www.dipti.com.bd and want to inform you that this website is our and this organization also wanted to show image on wiki. Can please help me to published this article. I am a student of DIPTI. I want to do some thing about DIPTI. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alam5131 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your inquiry, the article appears to have been blanked for copyright infringement. So, you will want to edit the article firstly to ensure it does not infringe on copyright; perhaps, you may have used material from the organisation's website? Then, once you have edited the article as such, you need to establish the notability of the organisation. You can do this by including many independent sources that provide reliable coverage of it; just keep in mind, that the sources should NOT be associated with the organisation, and that they should provide meaningful coverage of it-not just mere mention. Then, after you have done that, reread your article to make sure it doesn't appear like an advertisement for the organisation; the tone should be neutral like that of an encyclopedic article. Too many times, when someone like yourself is writing an article about an organisation they are close to, the article comes across as reading like an ad. Hope the helps. Dalisays (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dalisays,

I read your critique of the above article. I'm curious as to how you weigh WP:SIGCOV, which Abdisalan Sheikh Hassan received from coverage in the New York Times, with WP:Victim and WP:1E? While Hassan was a "victim," he wasn't your typical victim because of his status as a prominent journalist. And in terms of one event, the killing of journalists is a much larger issue, of which there are many Wikipedia articles created for journalists who have been killed. My curiosity here is not to question your decision so much as it is to learn why the judgments sway betwwen SIGCOV and VICTIM/1E. This is not the first time I've experienced this and I've gone through Nominations for Deletion that are saved primarily through SIGCOV. I'm sure your thoughts will be helpful, Thank you, Crtew (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Similar debate here: Pedro Alfonso Flores Silva, whose death is covered by The Guardian. This article could be similar to another one from Peru, such as Julio Castillo Narváez.Crtew (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one in submission now that is "Death of ... " as the incident itself was what was crucial: Phamon Phonphanit, Thailand. Crtew (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the situation seems to always be reversed for Western journalists like Gilles Jacquier.Crtew (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any guidance you can offer here would be most appreicated in light of the fact that I have a whole course of students submitting essays similar to these and May 3 is World Press Freedom Day, which will be highlighting situations like these.Crtew (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you would know other people I should talk to about this issue, I would appreciate their input as well! Thanks so much, and I really do appreciate your efforts as a reviewer. All the best, Crtew (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is one of notability, not of significant coverage; it is important to distinguish the two. A subject's notability always must be established, and then it must be supported by significant coverage. While significant coverage may give a presumption of the subject's notability, it is not a guarantee; the subject must still meet the notability threshold. So, to establish notability, WP: ANYBIO is of foremost concern, in tangent with WP:SIGCOV. Now, having said that, the question becomes what makes this journalist notable, referencing WP:ANYBIO. From the article, the subject's notability doesn't appear to meet these criterion--at least based on the info provided. So, then the sources come into play. There is significant coverage of the journalist, but only of his death, which would give rise to a presumption of notability. But, the journalist must meet the notability guidelines to guarantee it. Since, it doesn't appear the journalist meets WP:ANYBIO this is where WP:Victim and WP:1E come into play. If the journalist's notability is derived from is death (per the sources), then WP: Victim guides, and if the journalist is notable because his death was part of an event, then WP:1E comes into play, and the article really should not be about the journalist but about his death. While I understand your point about considering the wider issue of journalists' deaths, the issue is really about whether each of the journalists, subject of the article, are notable--the article is after all about him/her. While I can't speak to other articles--and it is easy to recognize the fallacy of relying on non-conforming past articles as a guide--it may be possible that the notability of the journalist in those articles is based on his/her work and then--flowing from that--- the death is mentioned. For your students, I would argue this is the best path to ensure the article is accepted and to ensure that it is not deleted down the line by some Wikipedians--that tend to be overzealous in that regard. Dalisays (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a follow-up: I would encourage you to post your question at the Help Desk For Articles for Creation, WP:AFCHD, to generate talk amongst the AFC reviewers, in the hopes that a more cogent standard will emerge so it can be applied uniformly. And, of course, your students are always welcome to resubmit their articles for a second review--noting the time sensitivity. Dalisays (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Ferraro (disambiguation), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Dalisays (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You declined it as being unsourced - I'd found out where it had come from (http://hmdc.org/admission etc) and deleted it as a copyvio (Mean as Custard had tagged the author's sandbox, but I had deeper suspicions).. Copied exactly, even to 'Hopspital'. Always be suspicious of things worded too well and looking like brochure or website - I drop a bit into Google to see what happens when I see them. Never does any harm, and only takes a moment. Keep up the good work. Peridon (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand why this article is not supported by reliable sources. Sources include the National Taxpayers Union, which refers to it in its Florida page and in its letter to Congress. National Taxpayers Union has a page on WIkipedia. I also used newspaper sources, including Tampa Bay Times, West Orlando News and Orlando Sentinel. Republican Liberty Caucus is also reliable and is an established part of the Republican Party, including Congressional members.Jerosaur (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To establish the notability of the Florida's Taxpayers Union, multiple independent sources that provide reliable coverage of it must be verified. To this end, neither the National Taxpayers Union's website nor its own website are independent and so they can't be used to establish notability. While independent, the other sources, including all those you mentioned, provide no coverage; just mere mention. To support the claim that Florida Taxpayers Union is notable, you have to hunt down some independent articles from reliable sources that delve into it, rather than just providing mention, such as a listing. Hope that helps. Dalisays (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain me why you declining the article <The Flavor of corn>. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Flavor_of_Corn I put there all need verifing resourses (You can check it up), but you denied it without even any review. Please explain why that article didint accepted? you wrote that there are no verified resourses, but there are 2 such sourses (check it up). I looking forward for you reply. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.71.151.40 (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To establish the notability of the film, multiple independent and reliable sources that provide coverage are required for verification. For Wikipedia, movie databases, such as the Italian database and IMDB, are not considered independent or reliable nor do they provide coverage. The other article which is provided as a source does not provide coverage, just a review summary. To support the film's notability, you need to include independent film reviews. Dalisays (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of judging that article (judging is most easy thing in this world) you could help me to improve it, like more experienced wikipedist. But if this is just homophobia, you can tell it openly here...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.71.74.172 (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha! I am planning to set up an Oahu Wikinic for June 23, as described at Wikipedia:Wiknic

My Wikipedia user name is Peaceray, I started about 15 months ago, & I have about 2,500 edits on en.wikipedia.org. I have been hankering to meet with some fellow local Wikipedians, especially since a few of us live in Kailua. To that end, I am sending email to or posting on the user Talk pages of 19 of us from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii/Participants page who I could identify as possibly living on Oahu.

Please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Oahu/1 & Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Oahu/1

I am open to any of the locations mentioned in the post, or other alternatives. I am like-to-operate-by-consensus type of guy, any workable location on which we could soon decide would be great!

Mahalo, Peaceray (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dailysays,

Please approve the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jorg_Janke, Please don't ignore it.

Thanks in Advance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Winningindians — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winningindians (talk • contribs) 11:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation is backlogged and needs YOUR help! Articles for Creation is desperately in need of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors and administrators alike, to help us clear a record backlog of pending submissions. There is currently a significant backlog of 2440 submissions waiting to be reviewed. These submissions are generally from new editors who have never edited Wikipedia before. A prompt, constructive review of submissions could significantly editor retention. 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 (at least) autoconfirmed? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. Click here to review to a random submissionArticle selected by erwin85's random article script on toolserver. We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 1 or 2 reviews, would be extremely beneficial. On behalf of the Articles for Creation project, AndrewN talk 23:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, had created an AfC request for Mirror link and provided some credible sources as citation. Mirror link is a growing technology & is now already widely accepted as the first step towards a new ecosystem that Nokia is trying to create. Some news websites have already written about Sony & other audio brands launching Mirror Link technology. I have already provded citations and links to those in the draft AfC. Would ask for a re-review of the request & some comments from you. -Ambar wiki (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bryan Sabatella for lacking inline references. However, the very policy quoted there , WP:inline citation says there is in general no such requirement, and I do not see the article is in any of the classes where it is required. I have therefore accepted the article.There is some question of notability, and I have indicated that. DGG ( talk ) 09:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 2440 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at 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 reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. PS: we have a great AFC helper script at 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

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 2440 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at 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? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. PS: we have a great AFC helper script at WP:AFCH! News Good article nominee 04 Aug 2012 – Parental brain (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Carina1205 (t · c); see discussion AFCH script improvements 1.16 to 1.17 Batman still works!

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

• Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 08:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

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

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

EdwardsBot (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 2440 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at 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? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. Plus, reviewing is easy when you use our new semi-automated reviewing script! Thanks in advance, Nathan2055talk - contribs

The WikiProject Articles for creation newsletter

The WikiProject Articles for creation Newsletter Volume I, No. I – December 2012 Visit the Articles for creation homepage Project news Five changes have been proposed to the AfC policy. Join the discussion here. Another change has been proposed to the courtesy blanking policy. It involves CSDing distributive submissions. Discuss it here. The beta script still needs testing. Learn how you can help here. The backlog is at emergency status and another drive has been proposed here and suggestions on changes to the structure have been proposed here. Discussion on updating the backlog notification is underway here. A discussion on whether autoconfirmed users are allowed to skip the backlog is going on here. Discussion on users not adding categories and not checking copyvios is going on here. Backlog news[1] There are 2438 pending submissions in the backlog. You can help! Article rankings[1]  FA  GA B C Start Stub  FL List Category Disambig Draft File Project Redirect Template NA ??? Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WikiProject Articles for creation  articles by quality     Refresh From the Editors This is the very first newsletter for WikiProject Articles for creation! If you find any errors or have suggestions on what to improve/include in future newsletters, please leave a message here. Contributors to this Issue Dom497 (talk · contribs) Nathan2055 (talk · contribs) Notes ^ a b Information may not be current due to caching. Click here to purge this page's server cache. Script corner: Stable: v4.1.15 - Beta: v4.1.16b2 v4.1.16b2 is now available in the beta channel! Reviewers can use the beta version of the script by following the instructions here and should report bugs here! Release notes can be found here as well as in the source code. If you are JavaScript savvy, please contact Nathan2055 (talk · contribs) if you wish to help with development. Reviewing articles and more since 2005!

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of Wikiproject Articles for Creation at 13:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on User:Ankit0012/sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. j⚛e decker^talk 19:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 1st, 2013 – July 31st, 2013.

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

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code cleanup, and more page cleanups. If you want to see a full list of changes, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.

Delivered at 13:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC) by EdwardsBot (talk), on behalf of WikiProject AFC

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2400 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. --Mdann52talk to me!

This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dalisays:

WikiProject AFC is holding a two month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from December 1st, 2013 – January 31st, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2400 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. EdwardsBot (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) at 09:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dalisays! There is a discussion that your input is requested on! I look forward to your comments, thoughts, opinions, criticisms, and questions!

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

This message was composed and sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dalisays:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2400 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

The AfC helper script can assist you in tallying your edits automatically. To view a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Sent on behalf of (t) Josve05a (c) by {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} using the MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Oahu? Edit Wikipedia or Wikimedia sister projects? You are invited to help the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center with an Asian Pacific American edit-a-thon in Honolulu this September.

Aloha!

Last summer I moved to the Seattle area after 14 years in Kailua on Oahu. I immediately fell in with the Cascadia Wikimedians User Group as it formed, joined its board and became its first president as well as the GLAM representative for Washington State.

Recently, Adriel Luis, Curator (Digital & Emerging Media) at the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center, contacted me about setting up an edit-a-thon like the previous Wikipedia APA edit-a-thon. In addition to discussing one for Seattle, he wrote:

As I was working two jobs while I lived on Oahu, I did not have the opportunity to meet your or any other Wikipedians at the time. Hence, the reason why I am contacting you now.

If you would like to help, please contact me through one of these methods:

• Email me directly at [email protected]
• Use Special:EmailUser/Peaceray to email me
• Leave a message for me on my talk page.

Mahalo,
Peaceray

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge are up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. The Australia challenge would feed into the wider region one and potentially New Zealand could have a smaller challenge too. The main goal is content improvement, tackling stale old stubs and important content and improving sourcing/making more consistent but new articles are also welcome if sourced. I understand that this is a big goal for regular editors, especially being summertime where you are, but if you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Oceania and Australia like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1700 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for the region but fuelled by a series of contests to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. The Africa contest scaled worldwide would naturally provide great benefits to Oceania countries, particularly Australia and attract new editors. I would like some support from existing editors here to get the Challenges off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile and potentially bring about hundreds of improvements in a few weeks through a contest! Cheers.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dalisays. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dalisays. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hey, can u review this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:V1T0 since last year he was featured serveral times in Croatian Billboard/Complex equivalent muzika.hr ( one article/interview with full focus on him )

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hawaii § Campaign to upload Lāhainā photographs.