User talk:Rankersbo/Archive 2

A beer for you!

Thanks for your AfC comment on my Talk page, it was appreciated! JMHamo (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Rankersbo (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

[[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation (Babettet (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)) ]]

Dear Rankersbo - sorry I am very new to this (so hope i am answering your query in the right way as well - not sure!) - I am sorry I delete the templates from Charles R. Conn submission - I am afraid I don't know how I did this so thank you for spotting it! Your advice is very much appreciated as I attempt to get my first Wikipedia article approved, it is quite a challenge! (Babettet (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC))

Don't worry about it. Doing these little fixes is what I'm here for. Rankersbo (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

G13 Rescue

Dear Rankersbo: Thanks for helping out with the G13's. I am having trouble keeping up, and I hate to see them go down unchecked. There sure are a lot of them! —Anne Delong (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope I've put some ground between the coal face and the bot (I think having human nominated pages helps). Unfortunately I can't spare much more time on it. Rankersbo (talk) 10:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Clarification on guidelines

Hi Rankersbo,

You have rejected my article on Sense forth stating there are no independent sources. Both the sources listed are leading independent online magazines about Indian startups having no financial or other relation to the topic. Could you please clarify why you think they are not independent?

Ritz7286 (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry I didn't spot those. the references were overlooked because there were only two of them buried at the bottom, and because the article is overloaded with external links. The reflinks code picks up no reference, so that section looks empty. I will correct the advice on the page, sorry. Rankersbo (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rankersbo, No need for apologies, I should have marked the references correctly. Do let me know if you need me to make any changes to the article. Thanks for reviewing this.

Ritz7286 (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rankersbo, thanks for your comments. These are blogs but not personal blogs. They are widely followed online magazines. I agree none of them have a physical form or are a newspaper, but I believe that should not be a requirement for notability or being independent source. Moreover I have see these sites as references for numerous approved articles about indian startups. Anyway, its your decision. Thanks for your review.

Ritz7286 (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

If you're confident the references are the best you can find I can reset the article to try again, but I'll have to leave it to someone else to accept. Rankersbo (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Schumacher Center for New Economics

Thanks for noticing that I left the AFC template on that article. The AFC helper script doesn't work on old browsers so I closed the AFC by hand, and I didn't notice my error. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Learned from you

Thanks for the cleanup on my Tris McCall AfC. I had no idea that a pipe wasn't necessary to form a Wikilink from part of a word, and now I'll be using that shortcut in every article I edit. Much appreciated! Lwarrenwiki (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Courtney Ruiz

Either something is wrong with the system or (more likely) I don't understand how it works. I deleted a mainspace copy of this article, found that an unsubmitted AfC version also existed like this, tweaked it so that it displayed properly like this, with header saying "It is not currently pending review", and advised the author to work on it and submit when ready. That was yesterday, and she hasn't edited since; today I got a decline message from you.

What puzzles me is:

• How did you come to treat it as submitted?
• Why did the notification come to me rather than the original author?

Rather than pass a discouraging rejection message on to the author for something she has not submitted, I have reset it to an "unsubmitted" state. You might check that I have done that right. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I can explain your first point, at least. Look at the bottom of the article in the diff you quoted: there's another AfC tag that was still active, so that's how it was still in the queue. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

JohnCD- The article had the code {{subst:submit}} in the section hidden by the broken tag. When you fixed the tag, it activated this code and submitted the article- in your name. So then I see an article with two AfC boxes. It's normal for there to still be a draft box at the top when someone has submitted the article, so that's how come I treated it as submittedf. Rankersbo (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I understand now. She did click "Submit" with her second edit, but it was masked by the faulty /ref tag, and I didn't see it after I fixed that. I think I will leave it in the "unsubmitted" state, though (unless that will confuse the system?) because I have given her advice on that basis. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

@JohnCDHaving looked at it and had a think, I think leaving it as a draft and writing a note on the talk page would be better than just submitting the article as the editor intended, and acting accordingly. Rankersbo (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I see, you have that covered. Rankersbo (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Black Aces

Dear Rankersbo -

I don't know what happened, but I resubmitted my reqeusted content again (and I think I may have done it twice now).

Here is the link. Please if you can get this approved ASAP for me, I would be in your debt!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Banda_Black_Aces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Black_Aces — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sly2kusa (talk • contribs) 16:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sly2kusa —Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at it now. I mainly do maintenance around AfC, so have done as much as I can now. Rankersbo (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! But which version are you wanting me to look at, and is it still pending approval? I included 2 because it looks like Black Aces is already taken (I need to keep it that way in the page itself, but not the URL necessarily). Sorry for the confusion on my end. Sly2kusa —Preceding undated comment added 17:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 00:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Weekend over and this is now dealt with, as far as I can tell. I am a 3rd party with respect to this issue, not an antagonist. Both the parties in this have gone quiet so I'll leave it as dealt with, and flag it straight up on the appropriate notice boards if there appears to be any resumption of hostilities. Rankersbo (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Service Recovery

Dear Rankersbo thank you for your feedback. I am new here and I think I tried to create a new page, because I could not find "service recovery" on wikipedia. The reason was that the page service recovery only had a "Redirect" to "service recovery paradox". Hence, I improved the following site and so far, it is still online. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_recovery

Michelstef (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Screwed Links

Seems some of the tidy up at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hellmuth Kolbe went pear shaped. Links like

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard_Records Vanguard] got changed to
[[[Vanguard Records]] Vanguard]  instead of the correct
[[Vanguard Records|Vanguard]]

Maybe some incorrect "search and replace"?  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks I'll alert the technical people that the tool isn't working. Rankersbo (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aviation Times

Hello Rankersbo,

I would like to ask about the declined page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aviation Times ‎ - reliable 3rd party sources on the creator have been posted to prove the person's profesionalism in the area - that is one of the possible ways as well, as I understand. Please respond and assist with the issue. Thank You Very much. Peto.figi (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you try to answer me, please? Thank You Peto.figi (talk) 09:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Please don't nag, I am a volunteer just like you are. It would help if you provided a link to the article in question, you didn'tand I got dristracted by other things before I could do the non-trivial task of tracking it down. I mainly maintain round here, so I'm not a good person to ask, you are more likely to get an article cleaned up or declined than commented on by me. Rankersbo (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

You say 3rd party sources were added, but I checked and no sources were added since the article was last declined, only the {{reflist}} template. Rankersbo (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if you think I was nagging, I was not, just thought you missed the request, as far as posting a link, I though using the brackets works as a link. As far as 3rd party sources I mentioned - They were added indeed, but since they were not English and are there to provide proof of expertise on the Person that is CEO and a creator of the article, not necessarily soemthing quotable, I did not know how to integrate it into reflist. Those were the links in the references, I'll provide a link to make it quicker. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Aviation_Times&action=edit&section=4 . Please do not feel irritated, I am trying to be honest and nice and do as much as I can to help myself. Thank You. Peto.figi (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The sources that are there were on the article when it was previously declined. No further sources have been added since then. I am not clear on how evidence of the CEO of aviation times's expertise is supposed to prove the publication is notable. They are about her, not the publication. Rankersbo (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, OK, I thought this is what proving somebody is a professional in the area meant. /as a possible source/ I guess I was wrong. OK then, thank you very much for your effort, have a nice day Peto.figi (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I would love to be able to help, but mentoring is not my strong suit, and I honestly don't have a good enough grasp of what you think you should be doing in order to put you on the right track. To prove Aviation Times is notable, you need to link to articles in reliable sources (newspapers, etc) talking about Aviation Times. You don't need to prove the credentials of the company's CEO. You have never been asked to prove that ant person is a specialist in any area. Rankersbo (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Article for Creation / Dr Agnes Callamard

Thank you for editing my first article. I noticed that you deleted then re-added the instruction to follow Wikipedia:REFB for references. I thought I followed it, and my references look right to me. Can you be more specific about what I need to fix and how to fix it? Thanks for your patience. Eveross1 (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Rejected blank article

Hello Rankersbo - could you please advise on rejection for this my first attempt at an article ? Tfitzp (talk) 10:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Tfitzp (talk) 10:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The decline box told you to check the article where the reason for rejection is clealy stated. On top of this I have personally answered this exact question on your talk page. I'm not sure what else I can say. Rankersbo (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ross Grosvenor

Hello Rankersbo. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Ross Grosvenor".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ross Grosvenor}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Rankersbo (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nicola Clayton may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:

• *[http://www.psychol.cam.ac.uk/directory/nicola-clayton Nicola Clayton] profile at [[[[University of Cambridge]] DEpartment of Psychology

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

thanks, but what what's happen for me...? Sergioke (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

hoccomocco

Cannot find page to revise.

WilliamPollock (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

I see you have since recovered the article. Rankersbo (talk) 09:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Albert Paul Weiss, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Amplification and Intensity. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Request on 09:31:18, 30 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by BookMyComfort

• BookMyComfort (talk · contribs)
  • User:BookMyComfort (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I submitted an article on BookmyComfort and would like to why it was declined so I can make the required edits. Thanks.BookMyComfort (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

BookMyComfort (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Nancy Glenn-Nieto

Sorry about this mix-up. Chaos4tu (talk) 10:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem Chaos4tu Rankersbo (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Article

Dear Rankersbo,

could you please take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Nicola_Pfund(Yes). I have improved the article and I think (I hope :-) that it can be ok. The author is in fact well known in Switzerland for his travel books (especially cycling -> “Sui passi in bicicletta - Swiss Alpine passes by bicycle (English version)http://www4.ti.ch/fileadmin/DECS/DS/Rivista_scuola_ticinese/ST_n.311/ST_311_Sui_passi_in_bicicletta.pdf , very interesting because it contains specific information on the geography and history of the Swiss mountains) and his blog ("selected among the seven biggest blogger in Switzerland”); he is fairly well known as a sport journalist http://triathletaperpassione.blogspot.ch/2013/09/spirig-tre-sport-e-un-bebe-intervista.html an interview with Olympic triathlon champion London 2012). Lastly, he has already a page in fr.wiki.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tri27 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stamford Shakespeare Company

Hi Rankersbo,

Thanks for cleaning my AfC. A question; when can I add categories? Do I wait till a successful review and subsequent move to mainspace? - Dave Crosby (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we disable categories on articles that are still in development. Rankersbo (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. - Dave Crosby (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! --Rachel Polant 12:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachel Polant (talk • contribs)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	dear thanks for ur help can u plz recheck that i make it amadment Rahulkumar987987 (talk) 07:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Movable Ink article

Thanks for offering to help explain about the content creation process. Curious as to why you deleted the submission? Every statement was referenced back to reputable business and technology publications. Appreciate any advice you can provide to get published. JacobStudley1978 (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Because you pasted it onto the help page, it was in the wrong place! Rankersbo (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind undeleting temporarily so I can repost it? Can you also provide link to where I should post it? Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobStudley1978 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Request on 07:08:02, 17 November 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Andymcfast

• Andymcfast (talk · contribs)
  • User:Andymcfast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, My article on gaeleri (16th November, 2014) was declined due to use of copyrighted material. Since I belive I am the author of the entire text I would like to know which part you consider being copyrighted material and where you have found this, so I can investigate this further.

Many thanks in advance

Andymcfast

Andymcfast (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Velosurance

Hello and good day, Rankersbo.

I deleted all references to Linkedin profiles since you mentioned that it is not a 100% trusted resource and I agree on that with you. But what did you mean by saying "The site of velosure iteslef is not indepdenent." ? Velosure INC is just a business entity name (proof of registration is linked to sunbiz.org which is Florida Department of State , Division of Corporations) that is DBA (doing business as) Velosurance, with Velosurance being the topic of the article. I am new to wikipedia and would appreciate any guidance from you. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvlasova (talk • contribs) 17:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, take a look at WP:GNG, WP:42 and WP:IRS. Articles need multiple sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. The subject's own website is not independent. I mean sure, it should be in there, at the bottom, but it doesn't prove the business is notable. Rankersbo (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Rankersbo. I revised the article and removed references to techrunch and other social sites, which do not meet Wikipedia's trust criterias. I removed reference the the independent site of Velosurance itself(thanks for explaining). Could you please take another look at it?

I also noticed that this article about another tech startup, AppSumo -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AppSumo , however, is full of references to blogs and social sites too, but is approved. Are their online communities more trustworthy then ours(like http://mtbr.com, http://slowtwitch.com and http://bikerumor.com that are one of the most respected sites in bicycling industry and have unpaid reviews of Velosurance as well as Independent mention in Insurance Journal http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2013/12/12/314297.htm ) or did the rules change recently? Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvlasova (talk • contribs) 21:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I don't generally review things twice. It's looking better and submitted to the queue. The only thing I would question would be the yahoo ref- it's clear it's reproduced from PR wire, but the fact yahoo news picked it up 'may' mean that it isn't treated as a press release. Rankersbo (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/TimeCamp

Dear Rankersbo,

I'va seen you reviewed my article. I appreciate it. My question is what is the next step. It takes really long and I'm aware that there are many articles. But should I do something more to get this article published or I just need to wait patiently? ;) Regards Magda Rogoz (talk • contribs) 08:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, no that's confusing. I haven't reviewed it at all, what I did was tidy it up ready for review and check there wasn't anything obviously bad about it. I'm like the AfC handyman, I mainly fix things up.

Next step is to wait for the actual Afc reviewer to check it over and give you feedback. If you think of improvements you could make in the meantime, go ahead it won't lose its place in the queue now you've submitted it. No suggestions here I'm afraid. Rankersbo (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Then I misunderstood the notification :) Thank you for replying --Magda Rogoz (talk) 09:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vero Precision Engineering Ltd

Patrick Corrigan

Dear Rankersbo. The article pending review is a new and unique bio submission and not a duplicate of Patrick Corrigan. Thank you. Regards, Jane Jane Raffan (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks I'll put that in the article to make it clear to the reviewer. Rankersbo (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Declined speedy

I really hated to do it, but I had to decline the speedy at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Naomi K Isted. It was deleted yesterday but the editor asked for it to be recreated per WP:REFUND. Now what I think you should do is watch it. If the editor doesn't actually edit it within a few weeks, I'd recommend resubmitting it as a speedy AfC. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Rankersbo (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Article

Dear Rankersbo, could you please take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Canal_do_Otário? It was completely reformulated and resubmitted. Please let me know if you think that more improvements are necessary. Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aktomurious (talk • contribs) 14:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Dear Rankersbo: Thanks so much for coordinating with me in the checking of the disappearing G13-eligible submissions. I'm sure that between us we checked and rescued a larger percentage of the files than we could have if we had worked separately. Enjoy your well-earned break! —Anne Delong (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Nurseling/sandbox

Hello Rankersbo. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "sandbox".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|User:Nurseling/sandbox}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC - Helper Script access

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Christopher Alfred concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Christopher Alfred, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Cheers Elephant

Dear Rankersbo,

Per the Cheers Elephant article(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Cheers_Elephant), I am curious as to why it was rejected. I recall the rejection asking for notable sources, but I'm having trouble seeing what's inadequate as 6 independent sources were used.

Myself and AndrewRLM have taken time to put together all of the article's information with clear citations as I'm wondering what we could be doing better.

Could you please review the article and specifically cite areas needing improvement so we can meet Wikipedia's standards of publishing?

Thank you, Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.240.171.160 (talk) 05:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't do the review on that one (I just did a clean-up and initial check before the review) so am not familiar with the article. For a band to be featured in wikipedia it needs to meet the criteria in this guide: Wikipedia:Notability_(music), perhaps despite the refs the reviewer felt notability was not proved. Perhaps the reviewer felt the music blogs featured were not reliable sources, and did not count for inclusion under section 1. Rankersbo (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Street Planz Tv concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Street Planz Tv, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey the bot should have notified User:Curtisarron13 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I moved the original version to AfC space (as per policy) and then the creator blanked the redirect and worked on that- so I look like the creator. Rankersbo (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't me!

I submitted no article. You have me confused with someone else. Strangely this is the 2nd time this has happened today.

166.182.3.244 (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You may be interested in this

[1]. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Review waiting

Hi, I not sure what this diff means or why those changes were made, but the stuff in that sandbox was not intended for WP:AFC; It was just stuff I was practicing on. For some reason a "review waiting" template has been added and I would like to get it removed. If you did it by mistake, then that's OK. Just please remove it or tell me how to remove it. If it's nothing that you did, and you know where I screwed up (which is highly probable), then I'd appreciate if you can tell me how to fix the mess I've created. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It just dawned on me why that template is there. I believe it's because the template I submitted for approval is still under review. Sorry for any misunderstanding. - Marchjuly (talk) 11:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You can't just submit part of a sandbox for review- the sandbox must contain one article or template when you add the AfC submission header. The article(s) on the page desperately need a lead section- as they stand a casual reader who stumbles over them will not understand what they are about. Rankersbo (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't intentionally submit that for submission. None of the stuff in that sandbox is intended to be an article for submission, I was just practicing on using this template that I had later submitted for approval. The "review waiting" template was automatically added to it, which then got indirectly added to the stuff that was using that template in my sandbox. Just an honest misunderstanding. I should've removed the template from my sandbox after it had been submitted for approval. Sorry for any confusion. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Keeping Sandbox

is it alright to delete all material in this "sandbox" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hubertus_Maria/sandbox) in order to start a draft of an article I am currently working on? Please advise. Thank you! Human 10:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubertus Maria (talk • contribs)

Looks like someone else got there before me. Yes it is OK, but it's best to put the code {{db-user}} on the page and get an admin to delete it completely so you can start over. Rankersbo (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Dune water

Hi Rankersbo, my problem with this submission is the strong focus on just one country and the lack of discussion from an international point of view. Just sharing. Best, gidonb (talk)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rosalie Muller Wright Pakenham

I've restored this AfC which you deleted as G8,as subsidiary to the main page Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Rosalie Muller Wright Pakenham, which you (properly) deleted as G13. It seems not to have been subsidiary, but rather the attempt to write the material in the proper place, and had a very recent edit. (to be sure, that edit was a decline on the basis of lacking inline citations, but it did have inline citations, just in a nonstandard but clear format, which is acceptable.) I think there's a high enough chance of notability that I will probably check, improve, and then accept the article. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:AFCHRW

Hi Rankersbo!

As you may be aware, for the past few months I've been working on a complete rewrite of the Articles for creation helper script. I've now reached a point where the new script is relatively stable. Since you're a highly active AfC reviewer (in fact, the most active user of the old helper script by my counts), I figured I'd reach out to you before further publicizing the script to ask you to give the new script a whirl in your day to day reviewing. Complete installation instructions are here (don't worry, it's not hard :) ), and I'll be happy to hear any and all feedback you have to offer! There's a "Give feedback" link visible on the main script panel, which you can click to easily give feedback without having to leave the page you're reviewing.

Thank you so much for taking time to look at this and help shape the future of AFCH and AfC! Theopolisme (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

That is scary [User:Theopolisme|Theopolisme]]- but probably because I mostly do clean ups and prep and very few actual reviews. I hope anyway! I'll take a look soon. Rankersbo (talk) 06:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Clarification regarding Julian drafts

Please see comment at Julian article. If you were reviewing a draft with three citations, you were not reviewing the draft most recently completed and submitted. The draft in question has 16 citations, an infobox, and sections (TOC). It is at the same location that you left your comment re: three citations (except at the Draft tab). I am not an Admin, or competent mover of wiki items. I am a content matter expert. I do not know how you were sent the wrong draft. Can you look to the actual Draft in question, and review your decision? Thank you. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not an admin either, I just help out with small tasks. I have some idea how this mix-up occured, and will explain on Monday, as I have a trip out with my family arranged today. In the mean time the best I can do is reverse the decline, which does not relate to the version you intended to submit.Rankersbo (talk) 05:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I think there were two versions of the article, one on at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Paul Julian (Meteorologist), which you substantially improved, the other at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Julian (Meteorologist). These submitions have now been merged. When you were working I think you treated the version at Wikipedia talk as the talk page of the article you were working on, and placed the submission template there, so it was that version that was submitted for review. Rankersbo (talk) 06:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I inherited the mess, and just came in to move the matter that had been pending too long, along. Appreciate your quick response to this, and helping getting it on the right track. I will see to having it submitted again. Have a look at this (esp. references)—it is one reason why I could not understand how the 16 refs and improvements to PRJ could not be enough [2]. Cheers, and thanks again. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)