User talk:KJP1/January to 10 February 2018

Cragside scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Cragside has been scheduled as today's featured article for 9 February 2018. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 9, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the beauty, ""the most dramatic Victorian mansion in the North of England”, and its equally dramatic 15,000-acre estate. The house is notable, too, for its technical innovations using water power, providing electric lighting and water-powered spits, dumb waiter, dishwasher and dinner gong"! - Here's a gong for the conductor at the end of the DYK section with whom I had the honour to sing in choir once, his last concert, and not forgotten, - I forgot which year, but remember that it was Good Friday, the theatre lights were hot, and he wanted to see us in white. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Venetian helmet-crown

Hello. Given Victoria's analysis, which is typically astute, I'd be inclined to accept this. Unfortunately, or as the happily case may be, fortunately, I don't have much immediate time to help out. Best as always from Cork. Ceoil (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil - Doing it now! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Request on 19:59:59, 21 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by David el Dee

• David el Dee (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Reginald Thomas Newman Tyrwhitt, 3rd Baronet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I cannot understand a word of your refusal, and nor can I understand a word of the technical reasons. I have known the subject person since 1966, but there is no reference for this. He was commissioned into the British Army and I quoted the London Gazette entry. He was appointed a Deputy Lieutenant and again, I quoted the London Gazette entry. His father has an entry; his grandfather has an entry - as a Deputy Lieutenant and a baronet, I believe he ought to have an entry. Clearly I am incapable of providing such an entry. Where is the 'save' button? David el Dee (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

David el Dee - Hello David, thanks for getting back to me. I'll try and explain the reasons for my decline, and make some suggestions below. You've been editing Wikipedia for a while, so I'll assume a bit of prior knowledge:

• Reliable sources - these are the bedrock of Wikipedia, as they allow readers to verify the accuracy of what they are reading. Personal knowledge can't substitute for this. You say you have known Sir Reginald for fifty years, and I don't doubt you have, but tell me how I can verify this without a cited source?
• Citations - this is how we give a source for a claim in an article, to enable readers to verify the claim. So, when I say Sir Reginald is a Deputy Lieutenant of Lincolnshire,[1], I support it with a citation. The problem with your citations is that they aren't placed next (inline) to the fact they claim to support. So they don't support it.
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons - Wikipedia has particularly strict rules regarding living persons, to avoid defamation etc. So inline citations are required. Your draft article doesn't have them, so I declined it. But the issue can be rectified and I'll show you how.

I'll go and do a little work on the draft article, to give you an idea of what I mean. If you need any more help, just give me a shout. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

And now edited. Best of luck with the article. KJP1 (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Request on 20:26:41, 21 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Piravlos

• Piravlos (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ethereums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for your comment, you are 100% right. I have added it on the Ethereum main article. Have a look. Piravlos (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Piravlos - I'd certainly prefer one article on this topic than two. KJP1 (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Help Regarding Draft:Lawn Love

Hello KJP1 (talk), Thanks for your feedback on the Draft:Lawn Love. Since your feedback, I have tried and edited the content to make it neutral. Request you to have a look, and let me know if now it feels better. If you could pointedly tell which lines or para are not written as a neutral POV, it would be great help for me to improve it further. SVSM (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

SVSM - Sure, I'll put my comments on the draft. KJP1 (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

And have now done so. KJP1 (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

11:40:43, 22 January 2018 review of submission by Maxkostenko

• Maxkostenko (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Tutor Ninja (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It`s not an adverisement aricle. I don`t need no advertisement. Please, would you help me to improve this article in the way statisfying you? I will be so pleased. I just want to create article about new type of education, there is can`t be any advertisment. Please, review this article one more time. I hope you help me with it. I wrote this article for several weeks, and i`m very sad now. Thank you Maxkostenko (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi - I see you've resubmitted. I'll leave my comments on the article draft. KJP1 (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Now done. KJP1 (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Süleyman the Magnificent's Venetian Helmet has been accepted

Süleyman the Magnificent's Venetian Helmet, 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 may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• 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 .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that's all sorted properly with the merge tags and everything. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:MyChat

Hello, thank you for your review. 1. "Issues are many - one reference, to the company's own site." No, 3d2f is not MyChat company. Network Software Solutions is MyChat company and link to their official website is listed in "External links". Only one reference because MyChat was initially oriented on Ukrainian and Russian audience (MyChat has approved articles in Ukrainian and Russian Wikipedia sections). 2. "It's not an article draft, but a simple list of product features. Basically, straight-forward advertising." Agree. I am thinking about adding "History" section. 3. "Editor is not making improvements, despite three previous declines." Disagree. Previous editors told me about secondary sources to establish notability and that English Wikipedia is open to non-English written sources. I added 4 sources in non-English language which are considered to be reliable in our country. They didn't told me about any other weak sides of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astronomich (talk • contribs) 11:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Astronomich - Hi, thanks for your comment. My apologies for attributing 3D2f to you. I'll go and have another look at the article. KJP1 (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Myo Myint Nyein

Hey, I went ahead and moved this to mainspace. Looks notable and while it has some POV-language, it doesn't appear to be an advert. Moving it to mainspace where more people can work on it seems best. I know you were trying to help redraft it, so I thought I would let you know. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni - appreciated and thanks for letting me know. He absolutely merits an article and there's more than enough material. KJP1 (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Reza Izad

Hello, KJP1. Firstly, thank you for taking the time to review my draft submission for Reza Izad. From my understanding, the main reasons it got rejected were because you felt that a) the subject wasn't notable and b) the article was written like an advertisement. I plan on learning from your feedback and incorporating it into my drafts moving forward, but I just had a couple questions:

1. Do you think the draft would hold up stronger if he had more third-party sources that profiled him in more detail?
2. How could the draft be written less like an advertisement or what do you see written like an advertisement? Everything from what I see is factual and not too fluffed up.

Thank you. JacobPace (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

JacobPace - I'm afraid that assisting paid editors to burnish their puff pieces isn't part of what I do here. KJP1 (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@KJP1: I am just looking to get feedback on my draft. I am following the rules as a paid editor here on Wikipedia. Jytdog, just pinging you since you've always been pretty helpful with my situation and are also good at giving me perspective from the Wikipedia community. All I'm looking for is some honest, constructive feedback. Believe me, I want to get done with this just as much as everyone else here but an answer would be very helpful to continue moving forward whether that means fixing something on this draft or not submitting until a certain criteria has been met. For the record, I agree regarding Reza's current lack of notability. JacobPace (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

JacobPace - And "for the record", my "honest, constructive feedback" is that what you do is horseshit, and wholly inimical to the values of Wikipedia. "Believe me", we aren't going to agree and further discussion is quite pointless. KJP1 (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@KJP1: Understood, thanks. JacobPace (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Review of Submission by SFNC

Thanks for reviewing my submission on LiveRamp!

I revised and added additional citations from the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, TechCrunch, Business Insider, a case study on the business by Harvard Business School, and a case study on the business by Stanford Graduate School of Business to better capture notability. I believe the subject is notable, as it's a large public company with a large body of articles that have been written about it. If there's anything I can do to make it more encyclopedic, would love your suggestions or direct edits. Thanks!

SFNC - Will have another look but, before I do so, can you clarify: do you have a connection, personal or professional, with Draft:LiveRamp, or Rapleaf, Auren Hoffman, Stephen Travis May, or other of their companies or colleagues? These articles/drafts appear to be the only areas of Wikipedia in which you have an interest. If you do have a connection, could you clarify why it isn't declared, as per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest?

09:07:14, 24 January 2018 review of submission by Earworm.ooo

• Earworm.ooo (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mentimeter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Two questions: 1) I don't understand why you think it is an ad. I've written it with the most partial language. I even used examples from other pages on how to write it. Why do you think it sounds advertorial? Can you please show an example? 2) Regarding notability. There are only 2 other companies that offer a service similar to Mentimeter: Kahoot and Poll Everywhere. Mentimeter has over 20 million users. How is that not notable? Please explain. Earworm.ooo (talk) 09:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Earworm.ooo - I didn't discuss the subject's Notability, although I don't think it is notable. I did describe it as an advert, which I most definitely think it is. It's a straightforward description of a product, with details of its functions, a how-to-use guide, and a description of its payment models. Topped off with contact details. If you don't think that's an ad, it's unlikely we will agree on the point. You can, of course, resubmit, but I note I'm the third editor that doesn't think it belongs here. KJP1 (talk) 09:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

All right. I will add I guess company details and history? I mean, it has to have the description of what the service does. I was basing my entry on the Kahoot one. I will review and resubmit. Thanks.

11:52:18, 24 January 2018 review of submission by Cfbillingham

• Cfbillingham (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The Durham Revue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for your advice as to how to improve the page for the Durham Revue. I have added ticket listings from independent sources, news articles in which the subject is either mentioned or fully discussed. Please could you review the page again as I feel you were unnecessarily nit-picking. In comparison with other wikipedia pages for student comedy groups, in particular, the Oxford Revue, this page is certainly more detailed and contains much more reliable sources. Thank you. Cfbillingham 24-01-18 Cfbillingham (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Cfbillingham - Thanks for your note. A few points in response:

• You've enhanced the sourcing. This is good and will certainly improve the draft's chances of acceptance;
• Assuming you are the Charlie Billingham listed as a member of the revue, I think you should declare a Conflict of interest, as per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest;
• Comparison with other articles is rarely a strong argument for acceptance, particularly if those other articles are not themselves strong. This essay gives more detail as to why, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, but, in a nutshell, the fact that one weak article may exist doesn't make a very compelling case to accept another;
• Lastly, a minor point of style and approach - if I were asking another editor for further assistance, I don't think I would describe their previous efforts to help as "unnecessar(y) nit-picking". Just a thought.

All the best with the draft. KJP1 (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

01:55:18, 25 January 2018 review of submission by Oriz123

• Oriz123 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The Divi Project(cryptocurrency) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I am not sure why this was declined tbh. I provided several objective sources, from Forbes, Inc. Entrepreneur, etc. I wrote it as neutral and objective as possible while at the same time describing some of the features(and I didn't even go into all of them - because I really didn't want it to seem like a promotion). Cryptocurrency is in a huge boom right now, and many new people to the space google what it is about and find info on wikipedia. I think it is important and in wikipedia's best interest to be able to inform people about as many different options out there as possible. That is what I'm trying to do - Divi was only my first. The process seems so grueling though, that it really makes me want to reconsider...I am willing to put in the work and contribute because wikipedia only has a couple dozen coins right now out of almost 1,500. I think that needs to be improved, and once I actually manage to get my first article published, I will publish more. For now, I stripped it down further, and hopefully it is neutral enough(albeit very short but more can be added later on I guess) to be approved now. There are many other pages for coins out there, including some very recent approvals, that contain their own website as a source even though I was told that's a no no. There's also shameful advertising on those pages, things I am not tring to do. I can post links to the pages I am talking about if needed, but I feel like pages going alot more against terms than mine have been approved. Please let me know what I need to do to have this page up. Thank you Oriz123 (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Oriz123 - Hello and thanks for your message. I'm afraid you and I fundamentally disagree as to whether Wikipedia and its readers would benefit from having 1,500 articles on bitcoins. As such, I'm really not best placed to assist you. Other reviewers may well take a different view, however, and I see you have already resubmitted the draft. I will make one suggestion - the argument that other, poor, articles exist on the same topic is rarely a strong argument for acceptance. See this essay for more information as to why, "Other stuff exists". If you want a model, have a look at some of our best articles, Wikipedia's best, not some of our worst. KJP1 (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if there is a different way to respond so just editing here. I'm not saying there should be 1,500 articles as many have the same concept, but I do think it provides value for people to learn about the different options, definitely more than exist on wikipedia today. I understand it's not a strong argument that poor articles exist, but I honestly believe that goes against wikipedia's goals. I was hoping to get some insight from you about what, more specifically, was wrong or could be changed with the first draft and/or whether or not the current draft is better, either way thanks for your response.

10:31:58, 26 January 2018 review of submission by Yorkieyork

• Yorkieyork (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sweet Cures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, Thanks for reviewing my first submission - You said the article read like an advert so have addressed that by removing the product descriptions. I tried to base this on other company pages which are on wiki already, so if I'm missing anything else please advise what needs to be done. Thank You. Yorkieyork (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Yorkieyork - Hi, thanks for getting back. I've two problems with the article, and unfortunately I don't think either can be addressed through redrafting. Firstly, it still reads like an advertisement to me. Secondly, the subject is, in my view, a non-notable food supplements manufacturer. As such, I don't think it meets the criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If you've not done so, it might be helpful to have a look at these. So, the bottom line for me is that I'm not persuaded it should be on Wikipedia. But, it's quite possible I'm wrong and that another reviewer may take a different view. So, if when you've looked at the criteria, you still think it is notable, then re-submit. One last thing; I see this is the only article you've contributed to. And that your user name indicates an affinity with the City of York, the home city for Sweet Cures. If you have a connection with the company, this needs to be declared as a Conflict of interest, and you should carefully review the policies and guidance on Conflict of interest editing, here, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

12:18:49, 26 January 2018 review of submission by Ebrown58

• Ebrown58 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:PetShop uk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please can you clarify why you believe this page is advertising? PetShop uk complies with Wikipedia's "no-advertising" policy, given that it has received significant coverage in reputable newspapers, including Independent, Financial Times and Telegraph. For example, PetShop uk is the first online pet store to be welcomed by the national dog competition, Crufts. PetShop uk is also renowned as a Prince's Trust company and has a unique subscription service called the Bottomless Bowl.

Ebrown58 (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Ebrown58 - Happy to take another look. But first, could you clarify, do you have a connection to the company or its owners? If so, what is the nature of the connection? Thanks. KJP1 (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me so soon. I am the business owner, Adam Taylor. I am already listed on Wikipedia under the Graduate of the Year 2006 (UK) where my company, PetShop.co.uk is referenced. Several of my friends and colleagues have been asking me what I have been doing since and I would like to document this under PetShop uk (I have omitted .co.uk to abide by Wikipedia's neutrality conventions).

Hi, thanks for the reply. So, a few things:

• As the business owner, you do need to declare a Conflict of interest and read the policy and guidance about conflict-of-interest editing;
• The most important, but not the only, issues are that you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles and you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly;
• I don't think Wikipedia is the most suitable place to keep friends and colleagues updated on your activities - Facebook, email, a blog or a circular letter might be better alternatives;
• Turning to the article itself, you will see from the above that you are strongly discouraged from writing it, as it is just not possible for a business owner to write about their own business and maintain the necessary Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If your business is notable, somebody will, in time, write the article;
• I am afraid I do still think that the article is more an advertisement that an encyclopedic article on a notable topic. We are likely to disagree on that. But, even if I am wrong, it just isn't appropriate to have an article on here that includes phrases such as "Mr Taylor hopes to reach the £10 million benchmark", without it being crystal clear to readers that the phrase has been written by Mr Taylor, about himself.

Regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Are you also Giraffe601, the author of Draft:Adam Taylor and Lil-lambson, the author of Draft:Alexandra Taylor? KJP1 (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi KJP1, I have declared my conflict of interest on Draft talk:PetShop uk. Giraffe601 and Lil-lambson are also PetShop uk accounts.

I'm afraid I've no idea of the protocols around running three separate accounts to create drafts on yourself, your wife and your business. I shall ask. KJP1 (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Ebrown58 I've raised a query, here, [2]. KJP1 (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Restic

Just wanted to say that I appreciated that you took the time to review the Restic draft, and that you did it so quickly - I thought it would take a couple of months or so before it was done.

That said, was quite disappointed by your take on it. If you had any idea how much time I spent and foremost how much care I took in making sure that I didn't write any claims that weren't backed up by a reference, and writing the entire article in a neutral way/tone and without bias. Suggesting it reads like an advertisement is.. Well I can't even find the words for it.

It's sad that all you look for is notability. A Wikipedia article is less about that and more about other things, but apparently that's not something you value. From a regular user/visitor's point of view, this article did cut it and would have provided value. And I'm saying this from a perspective where I could not care less about it from the projects point of view (I'm just a user of the software, nothing more) - I wrote this article 100% as a service for the Wikipedia visitors, not in any way for the purpose of advertising Restic.

In short, one could sum it up as follows: The article's purpose was to provide a good summary of restic and it's state and features, in a place where a lot of people go to find this information. This is where this information belongs, and users wanting to dig into more specifics are welcome to do so on the project's site. For a piece of software that has been around since 2015 and is evidently established and known to many people, including external and large corporations who wrote about it entirely on their own, there's very little to argue that there needs to be more notability provided. Also, who cares that GitHub is a niche site? That doesn't make restic or the knowledge about restic existance and what it can do for you any less valid.

I asked for the article to be deleted. Not because it doesn't have valid or valuable content, since it actually does, but because I think that as long as reviews of articles like this one are this narrow-sighted and only looking for notability, there's no point in trying. Feel free to delete these comments once you read them, and thanks again for trying to review it!

For reference, here's more direct replies to the comments you made:

• "Ten of the twenty-three sources are to the company's own site/publications": Yes, because this is the one and main true source for the facts presented in the article in a neutral and unbiased way. This is the source to use for facts.
• "The rest are blogs or niche, trade sites like GitHub": If you consider large companies like DigitalOcean and Rackspace to be that, then I think there are greater problems involved here than the notability of this article. Also, in what way is the medium used for article text relevant? If the Linux Journal would have written a great article about restic, you'd be inclined to use that for notability. If it so happened that it was published on their blog, it would still contain the same article text, and hence would presumably be of equal value regardless of it being on a blog or not.
• "Nothing to indicate Notability through significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources": An article like this should not exist on Wikipedia for it's notability, it should exist for its usefulness' and the value it can bring to its readers. In this case an overview and summary of restic and its history and current state is a value to those readers, and they hardly care much about the notability you speak of. Five external and well known parties having involved or written about restic suggests there's enough in terms of restic being worthy a note/article - this isn't unknown software, and it's even been starred thousands of times on GitHub.
• "The content is basically a list of the product's features": That is what the main part of an overview/summary is all about, so there's nothing wrong with that, and it's not something that should dismiss the article.

Hi, thanks for the detailed feedback. I would want to say, firstly, that I am sorry that I disappointed and upset you by declining your draft. That wasn't the aim and I very much regret that it did so. Turning to the specifics, in essence, I think we have different viewpoints as to what Wikipedia is. This essay is very helpful in that regard, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, particularly the sections entitled, "Wikipedia is not a directory" and "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal". Wikipedia's an encyclopedia, intending to provide quality articles on notable subjects, written from a neutral point of view through coverage of a range of reliable secondary and independent sources. As such, Notability, rather than "usefulness" is key. There are many thousands of other places people can go to get information on software, such that it isn't essential to have the information here. I understand you have a different viewpoint, and, should you recreate and resubmit the draft, another reviewer may take a different view. That's one of the many advantages of this place. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!

	Thank you from the London task force of WikiProject Public Art
	Just wanted to thank you for your kind words about the project page and for your hard work in creating Statue of Charles II, Royal Hospital Chelsea, Statue of Robert Clayton, Equestrian statue of William III, London, Equestrian statue of Ferdinand Foch, London and Tomb of Karl Marx. Ham II (talk) 11:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Ham II - My absolute pleasure. A small contribution to a magnificent project. KJP1 (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

16:56:31, 28 January 2018 review of submission by Bravo102

• Bravo102 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Twistlock Inc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello KJP1 and thanks for reviewing the article. I would like to correct parts that sound like advertising. I tried to write everything based on facts and referenced only independent resources that wrote about the company. I actually have much more references if needed. Could you please point out specific parts of the article that sounds like advertising and require rewriting? Thank you. Bravo102 (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Bravo102 - Hi, thanks for getting back. Unfortunately, I don't think you can re-write it to address the issue, as basically the whole draft is advertising. Source 2 is a basic company listing, with a press release. Source 3 is not reliable, as it's user-driven, and even if it were, it's again just a company statement. Source 5 is a press-release. Source 6 is the same press release, dressed up as an article. And all of sources 1, 4,5,6 are niche IT trade publications. Have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), particularly "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". It just hasn't had significant coverage from international, national, or at least regional media that isn't IT-focused. As such, I don't think it meets the Notability criteria.

I see this is the only article on here that you've ever worked on. Do you have a connection, and is there any particular reason why you do want the draft on Wikipedia? KJP1 (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've declared a COI. But just declaring it, isn't enough. You then need to follow the rules, in particular:

Editors with a COI should follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously:

• you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles;
• you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly;
• you may propose changes on talk pages (by using the {{request edit}} template), or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard, so that they can be peer reviewed.

KJP1 (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

09:52:25, 29 January 2018 review of submission by AbbieWoodAPS

• AbbieWoodAPS (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Anglia Partitions Ltd. (APS) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, First off, I would like to thank you for reviewing the article so quickly; I wasn't expecting a response so soon! I was hoping you could give a little more insight into what exactly was wrong with the article you reviewed for me. To give a little more information about the COI declaration, I am an employee at the company. I was designated with writing the article as I am very new here and therefore, was the best and keeping this as neutral as possible. Was the article not neutral enough? I ensured to only use information from newspaper articles as Wikipedia advised rather than our own sources.

Thank you. AbbieWoodAPS (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

AbbieWoodAPS - Hi Abbie, thanks for getting in touch. So, the problems that I see are as follows:

• Advertising - It reads like an advertisement for the firm. Have a look at this article, in particular the soapbox section, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. In brief, Wikipedia doesn't exist to provide another marketing platform for businesses.
• Sourcing - you've not used your own company's materials, which is good. But what we've got is: Sources 1/2, links to articles in local press about the office opening. But both are very similar, even down to the identical photos and are classic, press release-inspired "news". Sources 3/4/5, local government announcements regarding the mayor and local awards, for which APS is a contender among 27. This just isn't the significant coverage required.
• Notability - in my view, the firm is just not sufficiently Notable to warrant an article. Have a look at this, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which gives further guidance on the Notability criteria for companies. This explicitly says, "articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable". Wikipedia isn't a trade gazette, it's an encyclopedia. And I'm afraid I just don't think APS should feature here.

If you still disagree, having read the guidance above, then resubmit. It is possible another reviewer will take a different view. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Request on 20:05:55, 30 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by 80.109.12.26

• 80.109.12.26 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Womenspreading (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i have no idea how to use this editor or how the rules are. Obviously its either only "people who are trained writers only" or wikipedia is just sexist. writing about the term "Manspreading" deserves an wikipedia entry. the same thing done by women and lately beeing called "womenspreading" is called "a joke" or "inapropriate" also the hint "Also completely unsourced." is wrong since i posed a ton of links to articles about that term which have just beein ignored. fine. so if wikipedia is only for those who pay, or beeing paid for writing, then its ok. But please stop calling wikipedia a "Free" encyclopedia then. greets Roland 80.109.12.26 (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Roland. KJP1 (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

17:52:11, 31 January 2018 review of submission by Homeboy1197

• Homeboy1197 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ameer "The King" Adam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I believe I have the right to have this published. You have this article published and it is obliviously not factual. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_really,_really,_really_stupid_article_ideas_that_you_really,_really,_really_should_not_create Please reconsider and just humor me please, this means a great deal to the subject of my article. Please. Homeboy1197 (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Homeboy1197 - Hi Homeboy, well I'm afraid you believe wrong. The draft's just not right for Wikipedia. Perhaps Facebook? Sorry. KJP1 (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

06:59:22, 1 February 2018 review of submission by Btfancy

• Btfancy (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:ZOOM+Care (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for your review of my article. I see what you are saying about the article reading like a promotion. That was not my intention. I have updated the copy, and removed elements such as the timeline which could be seen as promotional. Please let me know if you need me to make any additional changes. I appreciate your feedback. Btfancy (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Tree House

Thank you for looking at my article. The article was meant to be an objective description of the place. It does not present advertising material but is a factual understanding of the place. I have since edited it to become more neutral but let me know if you'd like me to tweak it any more. Treehouseresidents (talk) 07:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Treehouseresidents - Hi, and thanks for getting back. There are a number of issues. First, it still reads like an advertisement for a tower block. Second, I assume you are connected to the project, from your username. This needs to be declared as a Conflict of interest, and you need to read and follow the guidance on conflict editing. Third, I think it will need a change of name. Wiki already has an article, Tree house, and Tree House, Crawley. I think this would need to be something like, Tree House, Singapore. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi KJP1,

No issues on the name, I will have it changed. I have already declared a COI in my account and I have read the guidelines.

This user has made a public declaration indicating that he or she has a conflict of interest with regard to the following Wikipedia article(s): Tree House

As for the content, I have tried to make it as objective as is possible and it merely describes the background, certifications/awards plus amenities of the place. How else can we write it if we do not add these details? I do not have anything written like for instance "this is such a wonderful place or beautiful place" etc. It simply states what has been achieved by the estate along with its due recognition similar to any other building. Treehouseresidents (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Treehouseresidents,

• "nestled within the Chestnut Avenue private enclaves, Tree House is a stone’s throw away from nature."
• "These structures features state-of-the-art sustainable technologies and elements such as heat-reducing windows and motion sensors that automatically activate lights."
• "Amenities-wise, Tree House possesses facilities like an Olympic-sized lap pool as well as an Aqua Gym, Jacuzzi and Rain Spa. A multi-level gym as well as a Concierge Service and public Wi-Fi is available at the common areas."

All unsourced and all advertising. Just declaring the Coi isn't enough. You need to comply with it. KJP1 (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear KJKP

Please find my response as follows:

• "nestled within the Chestnut Avenue private enclaves, Tree House is a stone’s throw away from nature." (I have adapted this to sound more neutral)
• "These structures features state-of-the-art sustainable technologies and elements such as heat-reducing windows and motion sensors that automatically activate lights." (I have adapted this to sound more neutral)
• "Amenities-wise, Tree House possesses facilities like an Olympic-sized lap pool as well as an Aqua Gym, Jacuzzi and Rain Spa. A multi-level gym, as well as a Concierge Service and public Wi-Fi, is available at the common areas." (I can't change this much as it states factual amenities we have. How would you propose we phrase it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treehouseresidents (talk • contribs) 15:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

07:33:49, 1 February 2018 review of submission by Jacob Slaney

• Jacob Slaney (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Miri Furstenberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is the inline link that needs removing the link to the Wikipedia article 'Scorpion Pass Massacre;? Jacob Slaney (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Jacob Slaney - Yep, but I think you've converted it to a Wikipedia bluelink which is fine. KJP1 (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

09:27:59, 1 February 2018 review of submission by TheMainAttraction

• TheMainAttraction (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:TheMainAttraction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I accidentally put the booking email in the bio. I just fixed that error that you pointed out, hopefully it get approved now. I also would want to say Thank You for taking your time out of your day to review my page. The review wait time was definitely amazing. I look forward to continue making articles/edits with you. TheMainAttraction (talk) 09:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

13:47:02, 1 February 2018 review of submission by 62.255.10.202

• 62.255.10.202 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Craig Bailey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi i am totally unsure what i need to change i'm not great with this at all. Could you tell me in laymen s terms what i need to change please? 62.255.10.202 (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

62.255.10.202 - Well, first you need to demonstrate Wikipedia:Notability, which, put bluntly, means does the subject warrant an article on Wikipedia. To do this, you need significant coverage from a range of reliable, independent sources, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. And here's your problem. The sources you have are:

• 1,2,3,7,8 - these are just the listings for his local radio shows, and are neither independent nor significant;
• 4,5 - links to Wikipedia articles, but Wikipedia can't source itself.
• 6 - his LinkedIn page - about as non-independent as you could get.

There's just nothing here that illustrates Bailey is Notable. That's not a critical judgement, there must be literally hundreds, if not thousands, of local radio presenters just in the UK, never mind more widely, who don't have articles. If you are still certain he is Notable such as to justify an article, then you just need to find the suitable sources that demonstrate this. I'm copying this note to the draft for convenience. Hope this helps. KJP1 (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft:BookMyShow

I have significantly copyedited this for NPOV and has also added some additional content. This now satisfies WP:CORP. Could you re-review this. Thanks. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Let There Be Sunshine - I'm afraid I don't agree that it does, and it would appear others don't either. KJP1 (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

What is the actual problem ? I think you need to start specifically pointing out the problems so that it could be understood. I don't agree with what Chrissymad said. None of the sources are press releases and have more than enough coverage independent of the subject. It satisfies WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:AUD, WP:ORGIND. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 08:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Then resubmit. Another reviewer, other than the five who have previously declined it and those who have deleted it four times before that, can then take a view. KJP1 (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

01:40:55, 4 February 2018 review of submission by Johndesuza74

• Johndesuza74 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Pericent Technologies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear KJP1, I appreciate your review and comments. Although I have taken the references about the subject from established magazines and written the content similar to couple of articles on wikipedia. Can I request you for specific issues noticed by you during the review, it will be help me to revise the Article accordingly. Once again thank you so much for your kind consideration and help. Johndesuza74 (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Johndesuza74 - Thanks for the feedback. I see the article draft has been Speedy Deleted and I think that is for the best. It just isn't notable, as most companies aren't. KJP1 (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

04:46:50, 4 February 2018 review of submission by Bristol Centaurus

• Bristol Centaurus (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Hadid International Services (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi KJP1. Thank you for reviewing my article. I have resubmitted it several times and tried to take out anything that sounded 'promotional'. I'm not sure what else to do? Could you make any suggestions as to how I can improve it? Bristol Centaurus (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Bristol Centaurus - I'm afraid I don't think it can be improved, in that some (most) organisations/companies just aren't Notable. I see it is now up for deletion and I have to say I think that would be best. KJP1 (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Request on 10:27:16, 4 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Cryptolyzer

• Cryptolyzer (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Nano (cryptocurrency) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I can add information I've researched about problems the project has experienced, including node/wallet sync delays to address your criticism of the article sounding like an advertisement, but that seems like more of a play-by-play of current/recent events. To be clear though, this isn't a "bitcoin ad." The topic is Nano, not Bitcoin, so I find your criticism to be slightly off-topic, subjective and ill-informed. Cryptolyzer (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Cryptolyzer - "Unlike the vast majority of cryptocurrencies, Nano..." If it quacks. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Re: Draft:Peter Thomas McGuigan

Hi KJP1, Thanks so much for reviewing and pointing out my draft problem at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Peter_Thomas_McGuigan. I’ve fixed it and resubmitted my entry. Please take a look and tell me if there is any other issue. Your time is very much appreciated! 1001Bookworm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

18:50:25, 5 February 2018 review of submission by CyclerForJustice

• CyclerForJustice (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Lampix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Removed a section under the lampix device about them winning awards. Not sure how I can make this better as I think every statement is backed by a independent source and factual. Any specific feedback would be appreciated. CyclerForJustice (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

CyclerForJustice - Apologies for the delay in getting back. I see, in the interim, that it has been deleted. I personally think this is for the best as it did read like an advert and I'm just not sure it would have been possible to make it read less so, however much work went in. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Please remember to check for copyvio

Hi KJP1 and thanks for your work reviewing drafts. Please remember to check for copyright violations. The particular one I saw was Draft:Michael Y Brenner, which had extensive copying from https://padla.org/page-1831060. There's been others recently as well. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Diannaa - Many thanks - a helpful reminder. I have to say, when declining, I don't routinely check for copyvio if I've already decided to decline, as with Brenner, on the grounds of unsourced promotion, or some other substantive grounds. Is the preferred approach to also always do a copyvio check? I can do this, of course, but it will slow things down, and the sheer torrent of promotional crap that comes through on a daily basis is almost overwhelming as it is! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

One thing I do is that when I open up a draft, I immediately open the copyvios check in another tab, and while it's running I start looking over the draft. That way I'm not really "wasting" time but it still gets done. Primefac (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC) {{tps}

Primefac - "You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din", a very good suggestion! KJP1 (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I get that can be time consuming, but declined drafts are typically kept for 6 months or more. The bot won't catch all of the copyvio. And the instructions do say to "Please check all submissions for copying from existing sources" — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

05:47:03, 7 February 2018 review of submission by FashionGroupe

• FashionGroupe (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Pretty Wild Lingerie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello KJP1. Noted a rejection sent on your part re: Draft:Pretty Wild Lingerie. The rejection note lacked constructive assistance in highlighting what parts should be improved. I did find some reference to an issue that this article can be perceived as advertising. While crafting it I focused on 2 aspect, mainly 1) ensuring it is of neutral light and 2) using only Magazine from highly reputable intimate industry publications, and media sources with credible interviews or insight: which also included governmental reports such as the United States Government USAID Annual Report and the Government of Hong Kong Company data. There are some parts of which I see can be improved, such are taking out words such as "sexy" or "best" which can be misinterpreted ad advertising. However I've looked at other similar articles such as La Perla (clothing) and Agent Provocateur (lingerie) when researching this topic as well as understanding the right verbiage. The latter two articles are very similar in nature and writing to my article. When comparing them, can you please give me some creative input as to how they are written better than this article. This will help a lot to improve it for re-submission.

Thanks much! FashionGroupe (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

FashionGroupe - Thanks very much for the detailed response. I shall certainly have a look at it, and take another look at the draft. Unfortunately, I'm busy today, but will try to get back to it this evening. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks KJP1, went back an gutted the article to its barebones that cleans some of what I believe were your valid concerns. Please review when time allows., and you can add comments where appropriate. Thanks.

FashionGroupe - Hi, have now had another look at this and appreciate the time taken to prune some of the more promotional terminology, and add some extra sourcing. I think it is good to go, in that it does give coverage of the company's mixed fortunes using a range of reliable, secondary, third-party sources. Just three further comments, but nothing to stop Acceptance, which I shall shortly do.

• Conflict of interest - your username suggests you may have a connection. If you do, this should be declared, and our policy and guidance on editing with a conflict carefully studied and followed;
• This, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, is a good essay on why comparison with other, existing articles, isn't always the strongest argument for acceptance of a draft. As an example, I see that the La Perla (clothing) article is currently tagged as reading too much like an advertisement;
• Lastly, I apologise for my terse comment in the original Decline. That wasn't appropriate or helpful, and I'm sorry for it. KJP1 (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello KJP1, Major Thanks for the input above which helps with future fashion contributions. I’m learning much with each small contribution. My focus is fashion and hence the user name. It’s the only subject I grasp well and will contribute more groups of articles to. I’ll follow the guidance above and read more on policies and guidance on editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FashionGroupe (talk • contribs) 22:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

06:00:08, 7 February 2018 review of submission by Saurav.webkul

• Saurav.webkul (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Webkul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, Thank you for reviewing the article and providing feedback. Can you let me know the areas of improvement where I can make changes and re-submit it? Saurav.webkul (talk) 06:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Saurav.webkul - Thanks for the response. I'm busy today but will get back to you this evening. KJP1 (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Saurav.webkul Ok, here are the problems that I see with the article:

• Advertising - to me, it just reads like an ad. The two main sections, Products, and Featured Products, are just lists of things you can buy from the company;
• Conflict of interest - just declaring the conflict is not enough. You need to read and follow the policy and guidance on editing with a conflict. This says "you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly";
• Sourcing - this is weak. You are looking for significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. What you've got is - your site, iTunes listings, press "interviews" obviously derived from PR-releases, sites that are closed, niche IT sites, blogs, mere appearances in lists....;
• Notability - there's nothing to demonstrate this and median rankings for low-prestige tech awards don't cut it;
• Tone - this is informal and promotional.

I am sorry but, to me, that doesn't have the makings of an acceptable article. KJP1 (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Request on 15:13:13, 7 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Maxgm95

• Maxgm95 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Perlego (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi KJP1, I had a quick question about the review you left for my draft article on Perlego. I saw you left a comment stating that "Many sources are to the company's own sites/products", which I assume is a reference to the fact that many of the sources I used also had a link back to Perlego within the article/piece they wrote about it. I admit I was probably a bit overzealous with my referencing (this being my first Wikipedia entry I assumed the more the better), however I do note that a lot of company pages have a large number of very similar articles which reference back to the company page. So my question is: how would you recommend I went about my referencing to make sure this article is as neutral as possible? Thanks and I look forward to hearing from you, Maxgm95. Maxgm95 (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Maxgm95 - Thanks for the response. I'm busy today but will get back to you this evening. KJP1 (talk) 06:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Maxgm95 - Have now had a further look but I'm afraid I still think it's an advertisement for a non-notable product, even down to listing the subscription rates, "an initial Premium rate of £15 per month; and a discounted Student rate of £12 per month". I'm just not seeing the significant coverage from a range of reliable, third-party sources that would demonstrate Notability. And even if it had that, it still shouldn't have the price list. My second big issue is that I am guessing you have a connection to the company - given this is the only article you've ever touched out of the 5 million plus that we have. If you do, that needs to be declared as a Conflict of interest, and you need to read and follow the policy and guidance on editing with a conflict. Which strongly recommends you don't directly edit articles you're connected with. I'm afraid I just don't think it belongs on here. If you disagree, do go ahead and resubmit. It may be that another editor may take a different view. But you still need to declare a Coi, if I am right and you have one.

I appreciate this might seem hard, given that the competitor companies listed all do have articles, but you'll see that every single one is tagged as advertisement. I'm afraid it is a fact that, for a range of reasons, weak articles do get through Wikipedia's quality checks, but that is not a good reason to add another to the ranks. KJP1 (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Request on 17:15:49, 7 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Lyza6107

• Lyza6107 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Love A Child (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello KJP1, After receiving the decline message and feeling crushed that my first article (which took me days to write, and weeks to muster up the courage to post) was declined. As it turns out, my referenced articles on WikiPedia must have been reviewed by someone who did not scrutinize as closely, nor follow QC guidelines and standards as scrupulously. So the good news is, I went right to work to repair the article based on your instructions:

• Removed any text that would seem like an advertisement
• Added more inline citations, and found more references to further the fact-finding details within the text
• Updated references in full to include page numbers from the book (that was referenced) and also the book's ISBN
• Added a "See also" area
• Read through more "How to" articles within Wikipedia, and clicked through to countless pages on how to ensure citations were accurate
• Referenced even more pages within Wikipedia to determine how to best keep neutrality in check (pages like Pepsi or Coca-cola from larger organizations were way more helpful)

In conclusion, the revisions appear to be in line with Wikipedia's best practices and standards as it relates to posting an article as if it were in an encyclopedia. I even pulled out a hardbound encyclopedia to compare details, trusty old Britannica, and things look well for the resubmit process. To reference some existing Wikipedia nonprofit pages, I do want to note the following for your preview and understanding of why I ended up shocked that mine was being rejected. The following are examples of (to me in hindsight) poorly executed articles that were approved through Wikipedia editors:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detour_House
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Girls%27_Choir
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Aid_Unlimited
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hope_for_Haiti

Please re-review and advise if this time around it passes the editing review process, and/or more specifically what can be done to address any areas of concern or interest. Thanks - New contributor Lyza6107 (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Lyza6107 - Thanks very much for getting back and for the detailed response. I shall certainly have a look at it, and take another look at the draft. Unfortunately, I'm busy today, but will try to get back to it this evening. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Lyza6107 - Hi again. First, I wanted to say that I'm sorry that my declining your article draft left you down-hearted. That wasn't my intention and I know it can be depressing to have something you've worked hard on get kicked back. I've now had a chance to review the draft again, but I'm afraid I still think it is a bit promotional, and I'm not sure that the sources demonstrate that it's Notable. Taking the sources in order:

• Source 1 - the Burnette's own book
• Source 2 - ok
• Source 3 - Christian TV station site
• Source 4 - Christian TV station
• Source 5 - their own website
• Source 6 - Christian blog
• Source 7 - their own annual report
• Source 8 - their own website
• Source 9 - not sure - user-driven?
• Source 10 - their own book
• Source 11 - fine, but does it mention Love a Child?
• Source 12 - ok
• Source 13 - Christian blog?
• Source 14 - fine, but does it mention Love a Child?
• Source 15 - a footballing blog
• Source 16 - as source 2
• Source 17 - blog?
• Source 18 - a poultry magazine.

So, you've a bunch (five) that are the subjects' own works, which can't demonstrate Notability. Then you've a bunch (four) which are blogs/websites of organisations the aims and values of which are closely aligned to those of the article subject. I'm really not sure that these can be considered to be truly independent of the subject, although I agree they are separate. Then you've a few (four) that are fine, but at least two, 11 and 14, don't appear to mention the subject at all. And then you've a few niche sources, like the footballing blog and the poultry magazine. Overall, I just don't think this gives the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which is needed to demonstrate Notability. In short, it needs stronger sourcing.

I appreciate that this will again be depressing, and frustrating when you compare it with some of the other articles you've cited. I am afraid it is true that some, weaker, articles do get through Wikipedia's quality controls. But one of the great things about the Afc process is that you can continue to work on an article and resubmit it at any time. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Which concret criteria for your comment

Draft:. Portea- Home Heath Care was deleted fro submission and redirect to edition after your coment. I need know concreat criteria) ( WHY?! Tihonata (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC) Tanks for reaction. Article was written about Portea with references and rewrite, of course, neutral. I did not find bad news about Portea. Tihonata (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Tihonata - Thanks for the feedback. The issues I see are these:

• Conflict of interest - You've declared this which is good. But you need to read the policy and guidance on editing with a conflict and follow it. That you are certain the article is "neutral", when it really isn't, shows the dangers of editing articles in which you have a close interest;
• Advertisement - the draft reads like an advertisement for the company, not a neutral overview of what reliable, independent, secondary sources have written about the article. That you can't see this, shows the problem of editing with a conflict referred to above;
• Inline citations - there are almost no inline citations. The first four sections have none at all. The section Medical services is just a straightforward list of services you can buy from the company, and is complete advertisement;
• Embedded links - you have a number of embedded links which we don't use and which need to go;
• Quotes - your quotes are all from the company's officers and owners, and are again advertising;
• Promotion - "K Ganesh is a successful serial entrepreneur with four successful green field ventures and exits" - take this, unsourced, claim. Are you really saying that is Neutral?

All in all, this is a very good example of why editors with a personal/financial interest in the subject should not try to write the article on the subject. It is advertising for a company in which you have an interest and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. KJP1 (talk) 05:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Request on 22:52:19, 7 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Clenisha Halo

• Clenisha Halo (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Aynjewl Faycc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need clear direction of what kind of proof you need to publish my article. I don't understand how giving you a link to show you there is music published by known sources like iTunes is not sufficient evidence that this artist exists. Does every sentence need a reliable source to verify its contents? As far as talking to the direct source, that is a real as it gets... how many other people need to publish information on this artist for you to publish my article? Clenisha Halo (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Clenisha Halo - Thanks for the response. I shall try to give clear directions below:

• Sources - You don't have any. Sources are essential to demonstrate Notability and to allow readers to verify what is being claimed. Without them, you can't have an article. Read the article on Referencing for Beginners which shows how to source properly.
• Embedded links - you do have these and we don't use them. They need to be removed.
• Notability - "evidence that this artist exists" - that the artist exists does not mean she is Notable.
• Conflict of interest - I see this is the only draft you've done. Do have a connection to the artist? If you do, this needs to be declared and the policy on editing with a conflict needs to be followed.

I've tried to be as clear as I can and I hope this helps. KJP1 (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Nano (Cryptocurrency)

Nano is not "another bitcoin add". It's a cryptocurrency that uses entirely different technology, with an active developer team which is not anonymous. The article as it stands is essentially an add, but the technology is not and deserves it's own page. Sinsoto (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Sinsoto - Hi and thanks for your feedback. You say "The article as it stands is essentially an ad" and I completely agree, which is why I declined it. I have no problem at all with a draft on Nano, or indeed bitcoin, which provides a neutral survey of the coverage of the subject by a range of reliable, secondary, third-party sources. Where I have more of an issue is when it is basically, disguised, advertising as in this case. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

KJP1 Sweet, glad those are the only problems you have with it. I'm trying to give it a more neutral point of view, but I'm relatively new to Wikipedia compared to you. It would mean a lot if you could check back on the article in a couple days after I rewrite it and give me some feedback. Sinsoto (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

ICONOMI

Hi KJP1. Thanks for taking a look at the article. Your comment on it being another bitcoin advert (as I've seen you do to other blockchain projects) shows some naivety. This is a 396 billion dollar asset class that deserves representation on the worlds biggest encyclopedia.

I'd suggest watching this video from yesterday where the US Senate discuss how they will move forward with cryptocurrencies (https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/06/virtual-currencies-oversight-hearing-sec-cftc-bitcoin/) to see how fast this space is being legitimised.

I would respectfully suggest that you reconsider, or let someone else look over articles on blockchain and cryptocurrency, at one point people dismissed the internet, and the car too.

It'sMeSatoshi (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It'sMeSatoshi - Hi, and thanks for the feedback. My response is essentially the same as that given above. I have no issue at all with neutral article drafts on bitcoin and its supporting technologies which present a balanced survey of the coverage of the subject from a range of reliable, secondary, independent sources. What I am less keen on are drafts, on bitcoin or anything else, that seek to use Wikipedia as a promotional platform for a company or product, often written by single-purpose editors, such as yourself, who frequently have interests, declared or undeclared, in the company or product being described.

As to your suggestion that I "let someone else look over articles on blockchain and cryptocurrency", I am genuinely puzzled. Editors whose drafts are declined can resubmit them at any time, and a wide array of reviewers will pick them up. You obviously know this as you have resubmitted your draft. It isn't my general habit to review the same draft twice, so I am sure, at some point, another editor will have a look at it, and they may take a different view as to its merits. KJP1 (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm involved in the Iconomi community in the sense that I am active in their chat rooms and reddit pages. I've also followed crypto more generally and several other projects for a few years. I'd like to comment on some of what has been said above because I feel like something outside of the context of this draft is being argued. This Iconomi draft is in no way shape or form some sort of advertisement for Bitcoin. No more than a Wikipedia article about Vanguard or Fidelity or Coinbase or Kraken is an advertisement for the USD or BTC or ETH. Iconomi is a company, this company currently resides legally in Malta with the Headquarters in Slovenia. The company has 40 employees roughly with a book value approaching $400,000,000 and a market cap that has ranged from roughly $200,000,000 - $500,000,000 over the previous year. The second part of what was stated above is that perhaps this draft is being written as a promotional platform for a company or a product. I find this argument to have at least a basis in what could be reality, as perhaps this could be considered promotional for the Iconomi company itself. Clearly this would not be promotional for Bitcoin but let's say that this would instead be promotional for Iconomi. If a draft is declined on the basis that it could be considered promotional, let me ask you, what specifically could be edited in the article that would remove this from being the case. I can find dozens if not hundreds or thousands of examples of publicly traded or privately held companies with lower market caps which have Wikipedia pages (Bandwidth , Digimarc , Cinedigm , Hibbett_Sports , etc ). Clearly companies of this size can and do have relevant pages on Wikipedia. So rather than dismissing the article as a whole, could you please detail which pieces of the draft seem to in some way be promotional, and what could be done in your eyes to mitigate any bias and improve the article?Stephenallanross (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Front page

Nice to see Cragside on the front page today. It's an excellent article and you and DBaK should be rightly pleased with your efforts. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat - Schro, many thanks. It was a highly enjoyable collaborative effort, sparked by our mutual interest in a wonderful house. Exactly what I like about this place. All best wishes. KJP1 (talk) 07:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat - Thank you very much for your kind comments. It must be obvious to all that KJP1 did all the heavy lifting and I just fiddled with semicolons and so on; nevertheless, it has been a great experience to be involved. Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

04:21:13, 9 February 2018 review of submission by Mery1994

• Mery1994 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Menkes Developments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, could you please tell me what part of this makes it an advertisement? What do I need to change to make it seem less like an ad and just info on the company? Mery1994 (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Mery1994 - Hi, the answer to the question, "what part of this makes it an advertisement" is all of it. The answer to the question, "what do I need to change" is all of it. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Cragside

Gosh, how long had we had the wrong Edward up there?! I must have read past that 1000 times! Sheesh - glad someone picked it up! Cheers (and sorry, I owe you email) DBaK (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Response to Notability and Reference Checking Against Wikipedia Guidelines

Hello KJP1, Thank you for taking the time to respond. I'm hopeful to get there and be amongst the newer and improved writers on Wikipedia - to give it the credibility it deserves.

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Love_A_Child# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyza6107 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

In response to your comments:

Taking the sources in order:

• Source 1 - the Burnette's own book

1. Question for your comment on Source 1 - Why would this be considered non-notable? Please allow me to share why I feel it is a notable source: 1.) There is no reasonable doubt to the book's authenticity. 2.) The book was not self-published, meaning that this Wikipedia article posting is not about Bobby and Sherry Burnette, but it's about Love A Child, Inc. (the subject in which notability is being questioned for the article). 3.) The book reference as an inline citations should at least be considered a reliable source of information due to its third party publication through Whitaker House (i.e. not self-published by the authors). My understanding of using citations was that they were to showcase where facts or details were pulled. 4.) The details within the article may have been pulled from the book itself, but the facts were further substantiated for the full article by additional inline citations from third party sources provided. 5.) Side note: I actually purchased the book through Amazon - Retrieved from: https://www.amazon.com/Love-Something-Sherry-Bobby-Burnette/dp/1629115606 - and found listings to back the book on Goodreads.com - GoodReads listing. Retrieved from: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27037767-love-is-something-you-do. Goodreads.com is an entirely independent source to corroborate the book's notability. 6.) According to Wikipedia's own guidelines on sources: "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

• Source 2 - ok
• Source 3 - Christian TV station site

1. Question for your comment on Source 3 - The mention of "Christian TV station site" is what I'd like to learn more about. It is not user-generated, nor self-publsihed. You mention that you are not really sure that they can be considered truly independent, yet the referenced Christian TV station is an independent source, and as indicated in the above: According to Wikipedia's own guidelines on sources: "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources - Under "Biased or opinionated sources" ... Wikipedia itself has published articles on all 3 TV stations mentioned in the article, so I'm wondering why that would not be considered independent.

• Source 4 - Christian TV station

1. Question for your comment on Source 4 - Same question for Source 4 comment as I have for Source 3

• Source 5 - their own website
• Source 6 - Christian blog

1. Response to your comment on Source 6 - I see now that the website can be considered a "blog" and that blogs are not typically seen as acceptable references. I will work to pull a better reference in this case.

• Source 7 - their own annual report
• Source 8 - their own website
• Source 9 - not sure - user-driven?

1. 'Question for your comment on Source 9 - Would you consider checking the source? Global Atlanta is considered a reputable news site. See: https://www.globalatlanta.com/about-us/. This was not a user-driven comment. There was an actual journalist (the Publisher of the Global Atlanta) who covered the full story. This is a 3rd party independent source that falls in line with citing sources guidelines and standards through Wikipedia.

• Source 10 - their own book
• Source 11 - fine, but does it mention Love a Child?

1. Question on comment "but does it mention Love a Child?"- Would you be willing to open this citation and read it? The Harvard Humanitarian Initiative document goes into extensive detail about Love A Child's involvement of the humanitarian relieve provided after the earthquake in Haiti in 2010. On the grounds of this one document alone, the subject of the article can be deemed as "notable". This is a 3rd party independent source that falls in line with citing sources guidelines and standards through Wikipedia. Notability requires verifiable evidence, and there is no greater source than a multi-page document published by Harvard for notability in this case. They thanked Love A Child throughout every page of the text, discussing the partnership.

• Source 12 - ok
• Source 13 - Christian blog?

1. Question on comment "Christian blog?"- Would you be willing to open this citation and read it?- ChristianPost.com is the nation's most comprehensive Christian news website and was launched in March 2004, incorporated with the vision of delivering up-to-date news, information, and commentaries relevant to Christians across denominational lines. The source in question was written by a journalist. This is a 3rd party independent source that falls in line with citing sources guidelines and standards through Wikipedia.

• Source 14 - fine, but does it mention Love a Child?

1. Question on comment for Source 14- While it doesn't mention the subject of the article, it provides the basis for the research that went into what was written (which coincides with the subject matter of the article). Is this not allowed?

• Source 15 - a footballing blog

1. Response to your comment on Source 15 - I see now that the website can be considered a "blog" and that blogs are not typically seen as acceptable references. I will work to pull a better reference in this case.

• Source 16 - as source 2
• Source 17 - blog?

1. Response to your comment on Source 15 - I see now that the website can be considered a "blog" and that blogs are not typically seen as acceptable references. I will work to pull a better reference in this case.

• Source 18 - a poultry magazine.

1. Question on comment for Source 18- As it relates to good, reliable references, this listed reference for the article found on the PoultrySite meets the criteria listed as a verifiable, reliable source. 5m Publishing employs a well respected and highly motivated editorial team to keep ThePoultrySite.com and other publications up to date with the latest industry news, events and technical information.

So, you've a bunch (five) that are the subjects' own works, which can't demonstrate Notability. Then you've a bunch (four) which are blogs/websites of organisations the aims and values of which are closely aligned to those of the article subject. I'm really not sure that these can be considered to be truly independent of the subject, although I agree they are separate. Then you've a few (four) that are fine, but at least two, 11 and 14, don't appear to mention the subject at all. And then you've a few niche sources, like the footballing blog and the poultry magazine. Overall, I just don't think this gives the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which is needed to demonstrate Notability. In short, it needs stronger sourcing.

• Response: I counted 8 of the 18 sources that are now left as what would be deemed as "notable, reputable, reliable sources" based on the guidelines stated through Wikipedia. Overall, the remaining references were used to substantiate the facts shown (which were derived from independent, third party sources, not just one particular place). With 700 words in the overall article, 8 solid references, and at least 9 ancillary references listed shows a sincere effort was placed in the direction towards notability.

Thank you for addressing the other articles I found were not well reviewed. I can list dozens more that have not had the review you have provided on this particular entry, but I'd like to focus on making this one pass the test.

Please review the comments in full and let me know if you are willing to answer these remaining questions.

In gratitude, New contributor Lyza — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyza6107 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Lyza6107 - Hi Lyza, I'm really sorry but I don't have the time to go line-by-line through every source with you. I set out my concerns re. the draft and declined on that basis. You can of course resubmit at any time and another reviewer may take a different view. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

RE: My article submission for "Get Up"

Hiya, i'm 46albertsquare, first, thank you for reviewing my article, second, i disagree with your opinion, it cannot be called a "advertisement", as it is not one, i have phrased it in the best possible manner so it cannot be considered an ad, i have used in a factual and neutral way from the references i've provided, and paraphrased them in the best form of matter, attempting to leave out phrases that could consider it an ad in the first place, i would like to invite you to please reconsider your decision, thanks! (also, i apologize if i did something wrong to your page, it's my first time on a user's talk page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46albertsquare (talk • contribs) 10:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

46albertsquare - Hi and thanks for the response. But I'm afraid we'll have to disagree, as I think it absolutely is an advertisement. You've three sources, although 2/3 are the same. They are both niche publications, and the first two are standard, PR-release inspired, interviews. The third just mentions the studio is leasing some space. There's no significant coverage of the show from a range of reliable, third-party sources; there's nothing on reception, audience figures etc., as there can't be because it hasn't aired yet. In short, it's a trailer for an upcoming show, for which there is no indication of Notability. To me, that's an advertisement. And no worries about my Talk page, it's fine. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 10:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

To add pictures on my creation

Hello user, I m dedicated to my account please help me Nipe Cold (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Nipe Cold - I'm sorry but I've no idea what you are talking about. KJP1 (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Conversation

I have no idea about how to add pictures or image on my creation works based on any person that picture or photo of that person Nipe Cold (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Nipe Cold - So, you want to upload an image? OK - first make sure you have the copyright and that the image is suitable for Wikipedia. Then get it in a digital format on your PC or whatever. Than go here, [3]. Then, press the big blue button on the right labelled Upload. Then follow the instructions. If you can't make it work, there's a helpdesk. Hope this helps. KJP1 (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Walks on ordinals

I do not understand your draft submission refusal.

The article is/was in its stub state. The first reference is the most reliable one for being cited 220 times The second reference is the most reliable one for being cited 99 times;

Since the article contains ONLY the method definition and the method definition belongs exclusively to its author, Stevo Todorcevic, there is no need to add anything. --BTZorbas (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)