User talk:Bellerophon/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Deep Down And Dirty (Stereo MC album) to Deep Down & Dirty (Stereo MC album) ‎

I think it should really be: Deep Down & Dirty (Stereo MC's album). Thanks again for your help. Robvanvee 17:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Already done ;) Pol430 talk to me 17:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I meant the 's after MC. Robvanvee 17:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia's generally accepted standard is that disambiguation caveats should be in the third-person. As such, "Deep Down & Dirty (Stereo MC album)" would seem to be correct. Pol430 talk to me 18:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

ACC access

Hi Pol, I've unsuspended your account. Please make sure that you thoroughly review the guide and proceduresbefore you begin dealing with requests pages as a lot has changed in your absence. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Callenecc, I've read through the guide and procedures and thanks for the updates you and others have made. The guide is now much clearer than before. Pol430 talk to me 16:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Adoption

Hello, I am a new user to Wikipedian seeking adoption. I currently spend most of my time as a Recent changes patrol, however I also edit some articles. Roborule (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Roborule, I'd be happy to adopt you. Have you taken a look at my adoption school (see my user page for a link)? We could follow the school programme, or a less formal mentoring period. It's your choice. Have a read through and let me know what you would like to do. Pol430 talk to me 21:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hm, I am not sure which would work best for me. I am interested in learning as much about Wikipedia as possible. So I'd imagine the school would work best? Roborule (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's sounds good to me. I'll set you up an adoption page containing your first bit of reading material. You'll receive a welcome message when this is complete :) Pol430 talk to me 21:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I have completed my first questions! :) Roborule (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

AfC

Hi Pol. This is a radical suggestion so I won't mind if you laugh it out, but just supposing the entire New Pages Feed / Page Curation system were cloned and adapted for AfC? It's just a thought, and I've only asked you for the moment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, presumably you mean with the interface adapted to review pages in a similar way to the current system? But hard-coded to negate the use of Template:AfC submission and a script? Yes, I think that's a good solution, particularly if deployed in conjunction with a new draft namespace and a permission to limit its use to flagged users. I don't expect such a complete system to come to fruition but that would be my wish list. Pol430 talk to me 15:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The principles of NPP and AfC are so similar, it would be a ready-made solution. I was already looking into adapting the Curation Toolbar for AfC, but then I thought that with new submissions arriving every 5 minutes, why not do the whole thing with a live feed too and have done with it. Of course, the developers of the AfC helper script etc would be disappointeed in their work becoming redundant, but that, in IT, is progress. Food for thought. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, my only slight concern is that reviewers might be tempted to only deal with drafts as they come into the live feed. Older drafts, that require a little more effort to review, could sit at the back of the feed forever. Perhaps the feed could push the oldest drafts to the front by default? Pol430 talk to me 15:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good idea. In any case, although there is a large backlog at AfC (discounting the ones that are being deleted at G13), it's nothing compared to the one at NPP. However, this is something for the future after we have got a 'draft' namespace created. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

GOCE September 2013 drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors September 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter The September 2013 drive wrap-up is now ready for review. Sign up for the October blitz! – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

AFC reviewers do not all review alike

Regarding this edit: You said

I think notability is an area that AfC can sometimes get a little hung up on. In terms of notability, AfC's job is to keep out articles about obviously non-notable subjects; this includes cases where a very solid policy-based argument for not including a subject can be made. Where notability is borderline, then articles need to have the opportunity to receive community discussion about their inclusion in Wikipedia, this means accepting a submission without prejudice to it being nominated at AfD.

I generally hold a tighter standard - I try not to approve an article unless it's very likely to pass AFD if it gets nominated. Your idea of "approval without prejudice" (and, I hope, without a visible AFC banner on the talk page) or even a similar idea of "approval, with direct nomination to AFD" may be things we want to have as "listed options" at AFC. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

As you say, not all reviewers review alike. My own philosophy is that AfC was originally a system for allowing non-registered editors to create articles - I try to employ that ethos in my reviewing. I'm sure you can remember in its early days AfC submissions were held to a fairly low standard by many reviewers. The system has de-facto evolved into much more than that now, and we have a large number of register editors using AfC as a form of peer-review. I know that some reviewers take it personally if submissions they have reviewed end up at AfD. I have also known administrators make quite debilitating comments about the ability of AfC reviewers should a submission end up at AfD. Personally, it doesn't bother me and I try to remember that no individual can have in depth knowledge about every subject area that comes through AfC's doors. As for your suggestion, I would be quite happy for approval without prejudice and approval with direct nomination to be included in the reviewing instructions as options for reviewers to consider. Pol430 talk to me 16:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I simply do not understand what more is required

Hi there,

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

You have asked me to provide references/citation to reputable sources to warrant the sugject's notability.

Almost all the references/citations I have provided link to reputable broadsheet newspapers e.g. The New York Times, The Times of London, The Financial Times and others. The subject I am writing about is an opera singer of 'notability' in many countries across the world. All the references I have given link to reviews of his 'notability' in available-to-the-public newspaper-of-record columns. External links include one to an independent authority website recommended by Wikipedia: Worldcat.

What more can I do? I really do not understand what else you require.

Please advise. Your help very much appreciated. Sorry to be a nuisance.

Many thanks.

Maglinders

Maglinders 18:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mag-Linders (talk • contribs)

I have not done anything to your submission other than clean up some excess administration templates. But as you asked, I have had a brief look over the submission and its references and my opinion is that although the references are of good quality, they don't really lend significant coverage to Miles, they simply review the performance and mention him in a sentence or two. To satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria we need to see that Miles himself has been discussed in-depth in reliable sources. WP:VRS might help explain things. Pol430 talk to me 18:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Journal reference added

Hello,

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Alastair_Miles

I have added a citation under References to a long interview with the subject in the year 2000 with Opera magazine, a journal of record for classical music worldwide. It is a solo interview extending over five pages. (It is not available online but can be found in any public library.)

Does this sufficiently warrant his notability?

Thank you again.

Maglinders

Maglinders 07:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mag-Linders (talk • contribs)

On the balance of probabilities, yes. I've accepted the article. Pol430 talk to me 16:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Want you to create an article for me

Hi, Sir I want you to create an article for me. Can you please help me in this regard? I am looking forward at your response.

Regards Ikram Afzal Ikramafzal (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

GOCE Blitz wrap-up; join us for the November drive

Guild of Copy Editors October Blitz wrap-up Participation: Out of eleven people who signed up for this blitz, eight copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we copy edited 42 articles from WikiProject Film's backlog, reducing it by a net of 34 articles. Hope to see you at the November drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor. Sign up for the November drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Xsyon Features Section

Hello, I would like to improve the article regarding the online game, Xsyon. You stated that the Features section needs rewriting from a more neutral point of view. Here is the section - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xsyon#Features

What portion of this section should be rewritten? The first part, between the Features title and the Playable Area section? Or do you feel the entire Features section, ending with Events should be modified? Can you give me some pointers on what sentences or paragraphs are not neutral enough?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Budwickb (talk • contribs) 17:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sobhi R. Mahmassani

Hi Thank you for your review and comments. I see your point about NPOV. Part of it was in response to the initial review which felt that notability had not been sufficiently established. If you believe we have crossed this hurdle I think it can be "toned down" to pass the NPOV criterion. I read your FAQ's which I thought were helpful. I will try to address to the best of my ability. If you have any specific suggestions or instances those would be much appreciated.

Thanks again. (Masmahwik (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC))

Hi there, yes, I think the notability hurdle is sufficiently overcome for the purposes of the articles for creation process. On Wikipedia it is ultimately the job of the wider community to rule on a subject's notability. In terms of NPOV, my concerns apply to most sections of the article. It is often difficult to write about a subject we are passionate about in a 'neutral' manner. I would suggest you have a good read through as objectively as possible and if you're really struggling ask a friend to read through as well and see if they think it's tone is neutral. Once you feel you've done as much as you can, I'd be happy to look at it again. Also, thank you for reading the faqs, I'm pleased you found them helpful. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 00:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you; I see your point. I believe I have carefully removed most statements that might be construed as non-NPOV, and have resubmitted the mew edit. I would greatly appreciate your assessment if you have a moment to spare. Many thanks again. (Masmahwik (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC))

Amy Blankson article for creation

Thank you for your input on my article! It was clear, and I believe I have cleared things up for editors now! I wasn't sure if I should resubmit it (apologies for being such a nub at this), let me know if I need to do something less to push this forward to publication?

Ben

Whiteben (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Re. Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DialAFlight

Hi there, I'm not sure if I should leave this message on your talk page or if you have had an automatic message telling you about my response to your response on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2013 October 22#Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DialAFlight. Anyway, I have responded and would appreciate your feedback (in your own time of course). Many thanks. --Evenmadderjon (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. No, I was not alerted to your reply. I shall respond here as that thread is now archived. On Wikipedia, the term notability is used in reference to WP:NOTABILITY, rather than any more general definition. To be considered notable the subject of an article should generally have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources; this is more explicitly explained at WP:42. The sources listed tend to make greater mention of Lotus Group or Peter Stevens than they do of DialAFlight and so do not assist in establishing the notability of DialAFlight because on Wikipedia notability cannot be inherited and is not cascading. It may be that either Lotus Group or Peter Stevens are more notable than DialAFlight, but the sources listed do not establish that either. As far as the other other articles you mentioned go, I have not read them yet (but will do shortly). English Wikipedia has well over 4 million live articles and we know that there will be many pages out there do do not fully meet our guidelines, so thank you for bringing them to our attention. However, arguing that DialAFligh should be accepted because other similar pages exist is an WP:OTHERSTUFF fallacy and not conducive to building a better encyclopaedia. It may well be that DialAFlight is notable enough for Wikipedia but the current sources do not demonstrate that to an acceptable standard, please read the various guidelines I have pointed you to which should give you a clearer understanding about the depth of coverage required and the quality of sources required for the submission to be accepted. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 17:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of WP:42 and try to ensure that all my contributions to the wikipedia site follow those guidelines. Hence why I have included ten references (minus one if you discount the company's own Charity site, possibly not independent), these are from 'reliable sources' ie national newspapers (fasttrack.co.uk make the Fast Track and Top Track lists that are published in The Sunday Times) and reputable trade papers, rather than "forums, fansites, MySpace, Facebook, or most blogs" which WP:42 counsels against.

I am uncertain about whether the page should be for DialaFlight or Lotus Group. Regarding the sources, some mention Peter Stephens, but I believe (having done a company director search) that he is a co-director of DialaFlight as well as the managing director of Lotus Group. This makes the notion of cascading and inherited notability moot in his case. Counting the references up, I would say that Dialaflight gets three (1, 4 and 5), Peter stephens gets two (2 and 3), Lotus Group gets four (7, 8, 9 & 10 - the last two referring to the company's charity). It could be that Lotus Group is more notable than DialaFlight, I am not arguing one way or the other. I would appreciate your help on this - they are neck and neck! (DialaFlight is certainly better known, but Lotus Group seems to have slightly more press coverage, and Stephens is relevant to both.)

I feel however that saying "the sources listed do not establish that [notability] either" is rather tenuous. According to the Federation for Small Businesses there are 4.9 million private businesses in the UK, http://www.fsb.org.uk/stats. So, if a company makes it into The Sunday Times' list of "top 100 private companies with the fastest-growing profits three times, and the list of Britain's leading mid-market private companies with the biggest sales seven times" this is a notable company. In business terms at least. If it handles the travel arrangements of 500k people each year, this is an indication that it is notable too. Surely?

Finally, I agree with the WP:OTHERSTUFF fallacy or what non-wikipedians call 'two wrongs don't make a right', however this entry has been written with the WP:42 guidelines firmly in mind.

Where is the significant coverage element in these references? I'm seeing passing mentions of DialAFlight. You speak of coverage in "'reliable sources' ie national newspapers", what you actually mean is that they have been mentioned in a list published by a national newspaper. This does not represent significant coverage. The subject of the submission is DialAFlight and so I am only looking for significant coverage of DialAFlight. Reference 1 is simply a company profile. Reference 4 mentions DialAFlight and discusses them in some detail, but is not in and of itself sufficient (it is however the best reference there). Reference 5 mentions DialAFlight twice. If you feel there is more coverage in independent reliable source for Lotus Group or Stephens then write an article about one of them instead. Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to assist you with this submission as my real life commitments are severely limiting my Wikipedia time. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 21:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Updated revision Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sobhi R. Mahmassani

Hi-- I have followed your helpful suggestions and carefully removed most statements that might be construed as non-NPOV. I have resubmitted the new edit. I would greatly appreciate your assessment if you have a moment to spare. Many thanks again. (Masmahwik (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC))

I've had a look. Two things stand out for me: 1) remove WP:WEASEL phrasing like "He went up the judicial ladder" and 2) please remove all the external links in the body text, such as the ones to his four sons. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 21:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you-- I have made these corrections, and a couple of minor other ones. I had added the external links because a previous editor had included links to various items mentioned in the text, so I followed suit with anything that I thought was linkable. I have now removed the links to the sons but those to the universities and books. The WP:WEASEL link was useful (it is good advice for any technical writing exercise, I think)-- though I believe I had already pretty much removed most previous instances of it. Again, thanks for your effort. if you have other suggestions they are always highly appreciated. (Masmahwik (talk) 04:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC))

I've cleaned up a couple more examples and removed the rest of the external links in the body text. I have reformatted some as references and generally tidyed up the page a bit. It has now been Accepted. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 09:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your effort and your constructive help -- I will continue to learn the protocols for wikipedia and do a better job next time. (Masmahwik (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC))

Re: AfC - Jon Younger

Thanks for your note regarding the article submitted for review. I can't find a note or comment regarding why the submission was denied. Can you please point me in the right direction? Thanks 71.251.206.31 (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC) HudsonSCG

The reason for it being declined is noted in the big pink decline template at the top of the submission page (within the grey box). The submission page can be found at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jon Younger. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 16:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

New RFC on draft namespace

Hello,

As one of the participants in the previous related discussion, you are requested to comment on the RFC on creating a new Draft namespace at the Village Pump.

Thank you, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Wanted to see if you would adopt me

I am looking for an adopter and saw you were volunteering! Today's Xtra (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Bellerophon, just dropping in to say I have already just adopted Today's Xtra and you won't have to go to any trouble. Thanks, Rcsprinter (natter) @ 16:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks RCS, My Wiki-time is limited atm. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 11:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi!! I am looking for an experienced user to adopt me. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and I deal primarily with geology, but I would also love to learn more about copyright and vandalism. Skolithos (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013 GOCE drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors November 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter The November 2013 drive wrap-up is now ready for review. Sign up for the December blitz! – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It was a rash remark ...

... please disregard. I apologize for making it. Daniel Case (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Apology accepted :) Bellerophon _{talk to me} 14:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Marcel Gagnon (musician) page

Apologies if this is unnecessary, but I've responded to your much appreciated remarks at [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summerbell (talk • contribs) 23:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Werner Theunissen may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[File:Werner Theunissen along with band members of Sweet Reaction.jpg|thumbnail|Composer Werner

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I though I got rid of you!? If someone had made a bot that fixed unpaired brackets, now that would be something... Bellerophon _{talk to me} 23:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dum-Doodles_(Cartoonist)

Many thanks for the correcting and in depth viewing of article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dum-Doodles_(Cartoonist) regarding the inline citations. -OPINIONCHECK OPINIONCHECK (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Apologies to bother again, I am also about to edit a page based on fine artist Phillip Butah but recently added sources to this article for inline citations as they were missing if at all possible if you have the time. I perhaps may need to make sure this article is finished on my part before i endeavor to contribute to another! If theres any more that i can do before i move on, please instruct - Many thanks and all the best.

OPINIONCHECK (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Leicester GLF

Hi, Thanks you for your comments, I have been very careful to avoid bias and have referenced all material fully so hope this is not a problem. Thanks again GeoffSteveandgeoff (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope, it was a pretty solid article. I just cleaned up the formatting for you. Unfortunately, your edits yesterday and today did rather break the formatting in a way that I couldn't easily unravel. Because of this, it was necessary to mass revert your most recent edits and then remake the constructive changes you did make. You seem to be struggling with Wiki markup language, so I will direct you to: WP:CHEATSHEET which should help you with how to code an article page in the standard format. Also, Wikipedia has a manual of style, which can be found at WP:MOS that governs how we layout articles on Wikipedia. I don't expect you to read this document in its entirety, as it's rather extensive, but you might find it helpful. Welcome to Wikipedia. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 18:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Rejection Inquiry

Thank you Bellerophon for taking the time to review my submission. Unfortunately I could not find any comments from you as to why and what needs to be revised. Could you please clarify this? Thank you. Tinacornely (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi! The concerns are detailed in the decline template on your submission (the grey box, inside the big pink template at the top of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sabina Louise). For brevity I will repeat it here: Are Sabina Louise Cornely and Tina Cornely the same person? If so where does it say this? Also, article should be titled according the name most used in the various references, per WP:COMMONNAME. Also, is this an autobiography? Bellerophon _{talk to me} 13:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Thomas (International Designer)

The fact is he is retired now, this is a memory of his brilliant work, his work has done 94 awards now, why would we won't not recognize that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.175.236.39 (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so he's won 94 awards. What awards? Also, the entire submission is referenced to the subject's website. We're not psychic, unless you can demonstrate the subject's notability, the reason I declined your submission is perfectly valid. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 17:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Amalric Walter

Hello, I am the author of both Amalric Walter and Almeric Walter articles. English and American people identify Amalric Walter under the false first name Almeric. That is why I created the article about "Almeric" and asked for a redirection onto the real article "Amalric". No trick from me : only description of reality. Erwan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.2.77.252 (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that shows English speakers spell his name 'Almeric' then I'll create a redirect. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 17:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Review of Articles for creation/Voice to Skull

Bellerophon, thank you for taking the time to review my article. Per your advice, I have added one more source that backs up the Voice to Skull name. As for the "WP:SYNTH/WP:OR angle", I am not sure I understand. Any further explanation as to how I can improve the article in this respect would be highly appreciated. Synsepalum2013 (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

me myself irene

I searched for me myself irene because it is much quicker and easier to type than Me, Myself, & Irene. Most people don't type punctuation marks when they search for articles, so shortcuts should be redirected to the main page.202.175.26.132 (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Mediawiki's search function is quite capable of correcting for the problem you raise and the title you suggest is not really usable as a Wikilink. This notwithstanding, another editor, User:Nyttend, created the redirect for you. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 19:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Redirect request: Frog egg salad

I wasn't certain my request would be accepted. None the less, that is the name by which I've always known the subject of interest, and to my credit, I think my name is more descriptively accurate. (Which looks closer to [2], this[3] or this[4]) In any event, the only evidence I could find in support of the alternate name are these: [5] [6]. 67.171.210.88 (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Bellerophon _{talk to me} 19:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Made requested changes & resubmitted

Hi Bellerophon! Could you take a look and let me know your thoughts? Thank you! Tinacornely (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Bellerophon _{talk to me} 19:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

GOCE December 2013 Blitz wrap-up and January Drive invitation

December Notes from the Guild of Copy Editors The December blitz ran from December 8–14. The theme for this blitz was articles tied in some way to religion. Seven editors knocked out 20 articles over the course of the week. Our next blitz will be in February, with a theme to be determined. Feel free to make theme suggestions at the Guild talk page! The January 2014 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on January 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on January 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in October and November 2012 and complete all requests placed before the end of 2013. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in October and November 2012", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! Coordinator election: Voting is open for candidates to serve as GOCE coordinators from 1 January through 30 June 2014. Voting will run until the end of December. For complete information, please have a look at the election page. – Your drive coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Because I don't know who to ask...

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, but have studied its policies and am very fluent with the English language. I am having troubles with the AfC editing bot when I've made a decision on the article. I can't accept, decline, or unmark for editing. Your help would really be appreciated. Thank you --Leo A. Mercer (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

GOCE 2013 Annual Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2013 Annual Report The GOCE has wrapped up another successful year of operations! Our 2013 Annual Report is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Article rejected, again

Hallo Bellerophon, I worked on an article of HellermannTyoton, it's a company for injection molding products. This article is rejected the third time. And now I'm pretty sure it's rejected because my IP shows that I do this at work. So now I'm very skeptical regarding meaningful self-cleaning process of wikipedia and I think the structures are the same as in the policy. In particular If I see other article of companies with wrong information arn't rejected.

So can you help me, how can I delete this article in creation?

--Paul HT (talk) 09:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Sport terrorism

Hello Bellerophon,

I have been working on the sport terrorism page for a while. I cleaned up the links after having a hard time with them and did the edits you suggested. Could you take another look at it for me and tell me what you think? The subject is obviously very timely and exciting so I was hoping to have this up soon. There is not much information in academics about this, though it is becoming very popular.

Thank you and best wishes, Tom (Drviolence) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drviolence (talk • contribs) 22:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Xsyon Features Section

Re. Xsyon page - features section. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xsyon Hi, can you help me to further revise the features section of the Xsyon page, which was rejected because of neutrality? Are you able to give me some specific pointers as to which part is not neutral enough? Is it the whole section that needs re-written or just a portion of it? I have read the afc faq on NPOV, and the only thing I can think is that the use of the word 'unique' in the first sentence is not neutral enough, the rest of the section does not seem to have any 'peacock terms'. I have removed this line from the section, please let me know if there is anything else I can do, your help is much appreciated in clearing up this matter. Thank You.Vireya (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation March 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Bellerophon:

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

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1400 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

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

GOCE March drive wrapup

Guild of Copy Editors March 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter The March 2014 drive wrap-up is now ready for review. Sign up for the April blitz! – Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

Guild of Copy Editors March 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Thanks to all who participated in the drive and helped out behind the scenes. 42 people signed up for this drive and 28 of these completed at least one article. Final results are available here. Progress report: Articles tagged during the target months of December 2012 and January 2013 were reduced from 177 to 33, and the overall backlog was reduced by 13 articles. The total backlog was 2,902 articles at the end of March. On the Requests page during March, 26 copy edit requests were completed, all requests from January 2014 were completed, and the length of the queue was reduced by 11 articles. Blitz!: The April blitz will run from April 13–19, with a focus on the Requests list. Sign up now! – Your drive coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

April blitz wrap-up and May copyediting drive invitation

Guild of Copy Editors April 2014 Blitz wrap-up Participation: Out of 17 people who signed up for this blitz, eight copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 28 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the May drive! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Adoption questions

After my long period of inactiveness, I have decided editing. I have completed my current set of questions. Roborule (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Roborule, I've been inactive for quite a while. I'll respond at your user page shortly. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 09:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Life of pie

HI dont know how you came to this conclusion as I have not made any comments about the life of pi I have indeed not even seen the film though now I may make now the effort to see it,I hope this straightens things out for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.45.39 (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It was probably directed at a previous user of your IP address. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 09:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Room in your life for one more adoptee?

Hi there. I see you have some adoptees already, and wondering if you have the space to take on one more person? I've done one small edit but am a little stuck on how to be more involved. I would love any help you can provide with basic navigation, editing and governance. Thanks so much! Rachel.dicerbo (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rachel.dicerbo. Sorry for the belated response. I'm afraid I haven't had time for Wikipedia recently. I hope to get back into it soon. If you're still looking for an adopter give me another ping. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 09:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)