User talk:Onel5969/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Archive 21: August 2015

Southwestern United States

Re: the subject article and my edit, AWB doesn't center anything. AWB is an editor's aid that doesn't automatically do anything but suggest changes that I then accept (or reject). But on top of that, I sometimes do manual edits. I actually didn't do any centering that wasn't already in those image captions. All I was doing was balancing the <center> tags with a </center>. If you don't want those captions centered, then take out the center tags. I'm going to politely revert your revert, then you can correct at will. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Stevietheman - that's what I thought - but take a look at the first change in your edit, which has a centered caption. I saw your edit added the /center. What I didn't realize was that the caption was already centered. So the initial center should be removed, along with the /center that you have now added. I'll take care of it.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, lol... that was weird. I went to change them, and they weren't centered. Thought I was losing my mind. Thanks. Take it easy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI question

Is there a reason why you deleted this? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Erpert - No. There was an edit conflict, and I simply added it to the end on that screen. Thought that would take care of it, didn't see any deletions. Sorry. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Have a nice evening. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hafspajen

• Dunno, I think you were right. this is not a secondary source. The only one I found mentioning it. http://www.gideonhart.com/blog/photography-for-the-brackenbury/ Hafspajen (talk) 12:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hafspajen - always nice to hear from you, but I think this comment was for someone else. :) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Noo, you reverted a guy with a Gideon Egg, - tried to find sources, were none. I think you were right, I mean. Hafspajen (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_foods_named_after_people&curid=318891&diff=674360834&oldid=674359745 Hafspajen (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Now I see. Thanks.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Celebrity Big Brother 3 Edit

I've managed to provide reliable sources to the Celebrity Big Brother 3 edit, that I made. So I've re-added it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugdadi (talk • contribs) 11:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

recent August 2015 Berserk character page edits

The spellings I had were the correct official spellings for the characters/locations names, the one you reverted are incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.233.102.73 (talk) 03:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Tag on "I'm The One"

That was fast. Please don't remove it. - Visnvoisnvo

Hi Visnvoisnvo - That's why I tagged it, rather than nominating it for deletion. I wanted the creator and other editors to know that in its current form, it does not meet notability requirements. However, it might be improved to meet those standards. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

AFD closures

Hi Onel5969, When closing AFDs please remember to add "Non admin closure" before your name (IE (non-admin closure) –Onel5969 18:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)) so that people are aware you're not an admin, and when closing them as Speedy Keep you need to put either "Nom withdrawn" or "WP:SK1",
Thanks for closing AFDs & helping to clear the backlog :)
Thanks & Happy editing, –Davey2010^Talk 17:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Damn. I knew that, Davey2010, simply forgot. I think this is only the 2nd closure I've done. But will try to remember that in the future. It will get easier if I do it more often. But thanks for the reminder. I thought I had put nom withdrawn (under my nomination, where the instructions told me to). Anyway, just trying to do what I can when I can. Take it easy. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

Ah right sorry , Exactly you're not gonna be perfect just like that, It all takes time & practice - I've been closing them for roughly a year and I still occasionally fuck some up so don't worry about it :), –Davey2010^Talk 17:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

How do I edit the title of the page?

I want the last name capitalized in the title on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_belshe. Is that possible or do I have to start a whole new page?

Thanks user: Tiffneyh

Hi Tiffneyh - at the top of the page, to the right of the "View History" tab, is a tab marked "More". If you hover over that, it should give you the option to "move". Click on that. On the screen that comes up, simply capitalize Belshe. Then put "correct capitalization" in the reason box. Finally, click "move page", and it should work. Let me know if you have any issues and I'll do it, but it's better for you to do it yourself, if possible. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi my screen isn't showing a tab marked "More". The tabs are in this order: Read, Edit, View History, (Star), Search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiffneyh (talk • contribs) 17:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Tiffneyh - that probably means you have been editing long enough to be granted those "rights" yet. I'll take care of it. Also, two things, when writing on a user's talk page, or the talk page of an article, always remember to "sign" your comments by adding ~~~~ after your comment. Also, see how I indented these comments? That's a Wikipedia convention, and it's polite to maintain it, as it makes following the thread easier. But keep on editing. And don't be afraid to ask questions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Great thanks! Tiffneyh (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Question about quality sources.

If a source was written (or co-authored) by the person that the article is about but is published by a reputable third party, is that source still not very good to include?

If I have at least one third party publication for each data point, still leaving primary sources, then will that be ok?

Thanks

re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_belshe user: tiffneyh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiffneyh (talk • contribs) 17:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Tiffneyh. There are two main kinds of sources, those for notability and those for verifiability. I'll try to explain the difference. References for notability have to show how and why the person is notable. Therefore they should be from independent, reliable sources. If person X writes an article about how great he is, that really doesn't show they are notable. If an editor at Time, or The Washington Times that means that the person has been noticed, which is usually a clue to notability. References for notability purposes should also be in-depth, in other words, they should primarily be about the subject, not simply mention them in passing, or have them on some list.

References for verifiability, however, can be primary sources, as long as they are verifying facts, and not stating opinions. For example, you say X is married to Y. You can use a bio of them on their own webpage as a source to verify that fact. Same with DOB's, kids, positions held, etc.

You can leave the primary sources, as long as they are there to substantiate facts, but you definitely need others to show notability. I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Ok so I've added many more 3rd party sources, making sure that there's at least one or two for each data point in the article. Can you check to see if the article now meets standards or let me know what I can do to remove the tag? Thanks! re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Belshe Tiffneyh (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, Tiffneyh - Okay, so here's my rundown. The first cite is good to verify that Belshe was involved with the company. The second link is very good for notability. Though a blog, it is a blog by an expert, so it's okay. #3 is good for verifiability, but not for notability. #4 is a primary source, therefore doesn't go to notability. #5 is a primary source. #6 is good for verifiability, and helps with notability, but not a great deal. #7 is good for verifiability. #8 is good, but not great, since it's partly an interview, which makes it primary, but it has a bit of info on him. #9 and #10 are primary sources. #11 is good for verifiability.

So, you have one really good source, another good one, and another which is okay. If you could come up with another 1-2 sources like #2 I think you'd have the notability issue licked. Preferably from non-blogs. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so I took a look at the history and see another editor has removed a bunch of references. And I agree with the removal. Having more sources doesn't always help, and in your case it didn't. Most were primary or non-independent. As I said above, 1-2 more independent sources would be great. Here's a good article - will help that he's being quoted in Forbes, although it doesn't say much about him. This] is another useful post from a good RS. This might help, as well as This. You can look through a google news search on Belsh, and pick out non-press releases to see if you can find anything else. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Rockburn Branch Park

RE: Rockburn Branch Park

This article is still under construction. I do not need to seek assistance. I will be supplementing with additional sources in the coming weeks.--Scott218 (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Added Category

Hi, I added a category to my page. Please let me know if this satisfies or if there's something else I need to do to remove the tag. Thanks! re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Belshe Tiffneyh (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Take a look

at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations I have nominated the article Christopher Wilder for possible TAFI help.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Remember...

Remember to sign your comments! Sionk (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Snowycats has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Park and Pedal Commuting response from WlkrMrk

Re: Park and Pedal Commuting

I'm kind of new to this, so hoping my latest edits support all page claims with enough verifiable sources.

I don't think I've left anything open to question, but if there are still issues preventing this page's approval, if there's any way you can be more specific I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WlkrMrk (talk • contribs) 17:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Stephen G. Woodsum

The article was actually created by User:Cam.woodsum here who left a typo in the submission request. I just fixed the typo. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ricky81682 - I moved the notification to his talk page, so he would know it was declined. Then deleted it from your talk page, where it did not belong. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Finding independent source for my game

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thomas_A._Dunkle/sandbox#

How do I find a independent reliable source for this game I am describing. We had a 30 year reunion and we play this game at all of our reunions. We invented while attending a boarding school in Rome in the 80's. There were two brothers that owned the bar but find I think they have passed away. What type of in depended source in this case do I need to find. We have a Facebook page with many members that can help me find information.

Thomas A. Dunkle

Thank you for help Thomas A. Dunkle (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Jenny Skavlan

Materialscientist (talk) 11:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

12:29:05, 14 August 2015 review of submission by MidasRezerv

• MidasRezerv (talk · contribs)
  • User:MidasRezerv/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

MidasRezerv (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I am trying to figure out exactly what about the description seemed too much like an advertisement. I am trying to get Midas Rezerv's entry approved, and just want to make sure I am following the proper guidelines, but also wanted to make sure I accurately described what they are doing with the company. If there is any insight into what is wrong with the language, it would be a great help to get some feedback!

Thanks,

Chris

Hi MidasRezerv - Articles describe/explain. Advertisements sell. That's it in a nutshell. For example, in your article, the first sentence is fine. It explains what the company does. Then the next 3 sentences are all promotional, intending to sell the product. Phrases like "modern solution", discussions of costs, and statements like "now everyone can..." are all meant to promote the organization. Take another pass at it, and message me here and I'll take a look at it when I can. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Fatawa-e-Razvia

Greetings! I have added several reliable sources into the Fatawa-e-Razvia and hope to find more. Kindly remove the AFD tag. ScholarM (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi ScholarM - That's not the way AfD works. Once an article is nominated, other editors take a look at it and offer opinions, and then an admin will adjudicate. Took a look at your new sources, the new ones you've added don't add much to the notability argument. Only In the Path of the Prophet has some nominal value, and being such an obscure source (doesn't have many hits on Scholar), its value is minimal. It was nominated on the August 10, so it still has several days to run. Keep working at adding sources which focus on the fatwah (most of these sources focus on Khan, and only mention the Fatwah), and let's see what other editors think. Good luck.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Greetings! Can we remove AFD tag from this article. Additionally can you help remove some non reliable sources from some articles? ScholarM (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

15:10:57, 14 August 2015 review of submission by Csinacola

• Csinacola (talk · contribs)
  • User:Csinacola/sandbox/PerryRosenthal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have added additional references to Dr. Rosenthal in media and journals, and additional footnotes to support statements in his biography and career. It is unclear whether the objections are to Dr. Rosenthal's notability, that is, whether he qualifies for a profile, or to the volume or quality of references. Please advise further. Thanks. Csinacola (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Added additional references to Perry Rosenthal profile. Unclear whether the concerns are his notability, that is, whether he qualifies for a Wikipedia profile, or regarding the number and quality of footnotes. Have added as many as I can find in media, independent journals. Please advise further. CsinacolaCsinacola (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

That was a tremendous help to clarify! Thank you very much!

Cheers!

18:31:56, 14 August 2015 review of submission by MidasRezerv

• MidasRezerv (talk · contribs)
  • User:MidasRezerv/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have made some edits to the entry based on the feedback you gave. I was wondering if I should send it directly to you instead of resubmitting so I don't look like I am spamming the system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MidasRezerv/sandbox

Thanks!

Chris

MidasRezerv (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi MidasRezerv - nice job. I tweaked it to remove the remaining promotional stuff, and did some housekeeping on it. Resubmit and ping me here, and I'll move it to the mainspace. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

(dropping by) MidasRezerv, You might want to think again on that; I see no evidence of notability, because all the references are essentially based on press releases, and I will list it for deletion unless there are better ones added. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Always a pleasure for you to drop by, DGG, however I think you're off base here. The article has at least 3 in-depth sources:

• submitted by independent journalist to a site with editorial oversight
• same as above
• same as above
• (although this is a reprint of the bitcoinist.net article)
• while based on a release from the company, econotimes.com has an editorial staff which has vetted the information in this brief article, making it non-primary.

Regardless, I'd rather hash it out here, than go through the AfD process. No use wasting the time of a bunch of editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I've re-checked every reference in full. There are some remarkable similarities in detailed phrasing among these articles. Several paragraphs of each are literally identical, including a long direct quote from the company. Even the titles of many of them are almost identical. Most end with the sentence " You can learn more about Midas Rezerv at https://midasrezerv.com/." The YahooFinance item is from AccessWire, a press release service. EconoTimes carefully indicates several times in the text that it is just copying the claims of the company. BitCoinsNet says honestly that they "reached out to their PR spokesman..." Raunaq Gupta is a blog, and its wording is a copy of the other items. BraveNewCoin also says it is copying the company's own statement. AllCoinsNews also says, "according to the startup..." BitNewsFlash is essentially a copy of the others. It's helpful that some of them acknowledge they're just reporting the companies PR. It makes our work easier. This is not unique--I've seen the same pattern hundreds of times now. I haven't checked yet, but I would not be surprised to find the same in every article on companies in this field. I am thinking of proposing that we make an assumption of non-notability for every new business enterprise, with a specified limited range of acceptable sources to show otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not between the two of us; I try to never get involved in that sort of negotiations. Anyone who wants to can put an article in main space; anyone who wants to can nominate it for deletion. The community decides. Sometimes it agrees with me, sometimes not.

I had occasion to quote a sentence from this just now at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/ DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

MidasRezerv

I apologize if the links I submitted are somehow not meeting standards. I have attached 3 links here to see if these are better or make no difference? Thanks!

Chris https://www.techinasia.com/tech-in-asia-tour-road-to-tokyo-2015-bangkok/

http://www.topfunded.com/startup-news/four-thailand-based-start-ups-presented-at-tech-in-asia-tour-in-bangkok/

http://cryptonewz.tumblr.com/post/124326090380/new-post-has-been-published-on-cryptonewzcom

Terris

Can you please help me out with the Johnny Terris page. I'm not used to Wikipedia. From what I can see you approved it. Someone else is trying to put it up for deletion AGAIN despite hat sources are there and it was fine. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.238.169.74 (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

That was me--see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Terris (2nd nomination). DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

article you accepted from AfC.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Terris (2nd nomination). You may wish to comment. DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes please do comment Onel5969. This guy is trying to delete this article AGAIN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.238.169.74 (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Three things, first, thanks for the heads up, DGG, I will be commenting.

Second, to the ip editor, DGG isn't "this guy", he's a very accomplished wiki-editor, who, while we may not always see eye to eye, I respect the work he does.

Three, the AfD process lasts a week, so don't panic. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm getting very upset at this point. I've been trying to re-instate this page for MONTHS now. It was re-instated and now he turns around and puts it back up again and then ignores me when I try to talk to him about it. He may be DGG to you, but to me he is just a guy who is trying to delete the page yet AGAIN. and the AfD process lasts a week..fine. It already DID. Now he put it up again and it's going to take longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.238.169.74 (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, it was deleted almost unanimously the first time. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps DGG, that was past tense. This is present. And it had no sources at that time. It now has more than one source. Credible ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.218.68.240 (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

DELETE IT

Can you just delete the whole thing I lost my will for it anyway. Thank You! MAY GOD BLESSES YOU EVERYDAY OF YOUR LIFE DDAENT (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Can do. Take it easy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

MidasRezerv

Thank you so much for your assistance! I have resubmitted the article. Again, your help was tremendous! Cheers!

) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MidasRezerv (talk • contribs) 13:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi MidasRezerv - Good, but please see DGG's comments above. He makes very valid points. I see another editor has already rejected (for adv), but that's based on the sources, not how it reads. Try to find independent sources, which do not rely on the PR of the firm. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 15:54:37, 15 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Didgeri

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

I am writing it because the references are quite clear and as per the Wikipedia instruction, the references cited by me are legitimate enough to show the notability of organization.

So please suggest which line in the article needs more citation or clarity.

Didgeri (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

want to know which line in the article needs more citation or valid relevant references.

Dear,

You reviewed the draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:HttpCart. As per your message I gone through all the instruction pages specified by Wikipedia but I was able to drive that all the references are legitimate enough to justify the notability of organization.

So please suggest which line in the article needs more citation or relevant references.Didgeri (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Didgeri There are two issues with the article. First, and what I declined it based on are the current citations. None are in-depth, several are not independent (from company's own site, or obvious press releases). Second issue is the pov of the article, which has it stands as a pretty promotional piece. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't good faith

Just the heads up. You reverted an edit at Survivor Series (2001) recently from User CCage96 and marked it as "good faith". It wasn't. If you look at his edit history and his talk page, it was anything but. I've slapped a final warning on his talk page, and if you catch him again I recommend reporting him - unless I catch him first of course. 121.214.28.199 (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the info. FYI, unless it's pretty blatant vandalism, I always AGF. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Tampa, Florida

User:Zeng8r reverted your edit to Tampa, Florida, feeling you should have looked up the reference yourself. If I looked up the references for every unsourced edit I delete every day I'd never have a chance to add content. Half my time on Wikipedia is spent deleting vandalism and stupid unsourced edits to the 6000+ articles in my watchlist. I'm with you. Delete it and let the person who added it find their own reference. If it's important enough, they will. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

If I may be so bold to jump in since I've been mentioned... with this little edit, an IP editor added a phrase that clarified when a major university opened. There was nothing "stupid" about the addition, and no indication that it was vandalism. I noticed the original and the revert (16 minutes later) on my watchlist, and with one single little click, I glanced at the article about the school and confirmed that the added info was correct. Literally took about 3 minutes to check and cite.

I'm not judging Onel5969 as a person or an editor; I believe this is the first time we've interacted on Wikipedia. However, I obviously think that was a unnecessary revert, and not only because the information was correct and extremely easily verified. What message does it send to potential new editors when their first tentative contributions are instantly erased? Not a very welcoming one. So, yes, please revert obvious vandalism wherever and whenever you see it. But if you don't have time to fact-check a plausible edit, at least drop a tag on it and let somebody else check it out. Thanks. --Zeng8r (talk) 10:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Magnolia677. Yes, obviously I agree. While I don't have 6000, I do have 2000, of which over 1000 are pretty active. The edit in question had three issues with it: first, it created a structure issue within the sentence; second, it was uncited; and third, simply inserting that phrase created more questions than it answered. Zeng8r have very little interaction (I think we both reverted some vandalism on this same article at some point last year). His edit of the IP's information solved all 3 of the issues I had. That being said, I probably would have fixed it, except I didn't think the information was necessary in the Tampa article. Definitely needed in the article on the University. It's not trivia, so I don't have an issue with it being included, but I felt the article was fine without its inclusion, therefore I wasn't going to put a CN tag on something which didn't need to be there. And the message it sends? Be welcome, but do things correctly. As Zeng8r points out on his userpage, Wikipedia gets crammed with unreferenced trash which remains on the site for years. Anyway, take it easy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 01:47:33, 17 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Meemee215

• Meemee215 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Meemee215/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, You recently declined a submission of mine about Lu Sierra, the model. I am very new to this and I would like to bring the article up to the Wikipedia standards but I am having a bit of a hard time. You stated that the primary reason for declining the submission was its lack of Neutrality.. I understand and I edited out all (or what seemed to me) the "cheerleading" bits of the article, but it was still declined. If you would be so kind and help me a bit, I would be grateful.

Also I had another question about sources. I tried to dig up as many "reputable" sources as possible, but for the modeling world, especially back in the 80's its all very scarce. Will the sources I have be sufficient or is there a minimum number that I should have?

Thank you very much.

Meemee215 (talk) 01:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Meemee215 - Okay, the basic difference is that an encyclopedia article is here to inform, while a promo piece is meant to build up and promote the subject. In additional to being promotional, your article also suffers from a non-encyclopedic tone. I'll give you some examples of both below:

promotional: use of peacock words like "iconic", and phrases like "recognizing her talents", "Because of her accomplishments and her expertise", and "knowledge as a top model" are all promotional in tone.

non-encyclopedic: phrases like "opened the door", "came calling for her runway style", "she decided take her career", "has also been invited", and "has allowed her to transition" are all informal phrasing which you wouldn't see in an encyclopedia.

In general, be neutral, state the facts. And you'll also need to back those facts up with citations. A lot of the stuff in your article needs citations, things like being called the Bob Mackie girl (which you also mis-spelled), her working with other famous models, her training of the Miss Teen, etc., her work in China... all of that need citing, as do other items in the article. I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

13:03:26, 17 August 2015 review of submission by 217.37.15.77

• 217.37.15.77 (talk · contribs)
  • User:NeddardBark/The National Counselling Society (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Onel5969. I have been trying to add the entry for the National Counselling Society, and have been told that there's no evidence for its notability, however I have included links to the Professional Standards Authority (PSA), who are a UK Government Statutory and Regulatory body that oversees the quality of registers of healthcare professionals. I would have thought that being one of the few professional bodies that receive accreditation from them would be an indication of notability? There's not much unbiased press covering counselling/psychotherapy accreditation bodies, or any research papers based on them, so the PSA website is probably the best evidence out there of notability.

What kind of thing would you be looking for, if not newspaper articles or journals?

Many thanks for your help with this - trying to get it right.

Megan

217.37.15.77 (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Megan. My first suggestion is creating a user account. You definitely don't have to, but it does make communications easier.

Second, please remember that simply because an organization exists and is accredited, does not make it notable. I suggest you read WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY to understand better what constitutes notability on Wikipedia, also, since this is an organization, WP:ORG. WP:RS talks about what makes a source reliable. But in a nutshell, to answer your last question: yes, that's exactly what they are looking for. For an organization to be notable, they should have 2-3 in-depth articles about them in independent newspapers, journals, books, etc. I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Active Power

Hi, I must admit I am becoming quite frustrated with the Wikipedia process. As an employee of an advertising agency, I realize that it is a conflict of interest for me to create a page for our client, Active Power. Therefore, I researched and followed proper procedure and requested that a page be created by an independent editor. As a newcomer to Wikipedia, I also reached out to editors on the WikiProject Talk pages for Energy, Technology, and Computing in a effort to expedite the process after several months of waiting. An editor on the Computing page responded, saying that they felt that Active Power was notable enough for an entry, so I asked them to create one with the reliable independent sources (newspaper articles, trade publications, etc.) I provided. They responded saying that I should just create a bare-bones skeleton page that only stated facts, avoiding puffery and advertisement language. That's why I made the entry the way I did. I also followed the instructions I received to post it as a Draft on my Talk page and create the actual Active Power page (which is still up). Now, I see that my draft has declined by you. My frustration is that it seems everyone on here is willing to review my entry and tell me what's wrong with it, yet no one is willing to make the edits themselves using the third-party sources I have provided. Wouldn't that be easier and solve the whole conflict of interest problem? Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BBGdavidhamilton (talk • contribs) 19:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi BBGdavidhamilton - I understand the process can feel frustrating, but your reaching out and asking questions is the best thing to do. COI exists for a very good reason - Wikipedia isn't an advertising network. The principle behind COI also realizes that while the author of an article can attempt to be neutral and objective in their writing, their close connection to the subject sometimes makes that difficult. Especially when its the only, or one of a few, articles that editor works on. Regarding Active Power, articles need to tell us about the subject, not attempt to sell it to us. Keep the article objective, remove claims which are not substantiated by independent sources (e.g. "To date, Active Power has shipped more than 4,000 flywheels ..."). Also remove adjectives, like "significant", although I don't find many in the article. Remove phrases that are sale descriptions of a product, "The company’s products and solutions support and enable mission critical applications ...", "...solutions that integrate critical power components into a pre-packaged, purpose built enclosure ..."

The verbiage used in your timeline is a pretty good example of non-sales talk. However, the timeline itself should probably be converted into prose (without getting promotional).

Finally, editors get involved in stuff that interests them, for the most part. That being said, experienced editors will often help out new editors who seek out help, which you have done. I'll be more than happy to work with you on this article. But be patient, I'm working on several different projects, as well as several articles of my own, so this could take several days. Be patient, and we'll get it done. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Onel5969 Thank you very much for your help with this. It is greatly appreciated. BBGdavidhamilton (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

ATEC: Thanks and a little request

Hello Onel5969, thanks so much for your help creating the Advanced Turbine Engine Company article through AfC! I truly appreciate your review of the entry. I now have a logo I'm hoping can be added to the article. If you get a chance, would you mind adding it to the infobox. Here is the file: File:ATEC Honeywell Pratt Whitney Logo.png. Also, because of a minor typo (totally my error) in the markup, the website in the infobox wikilinks to the URL entry, rather than the company's website. Would you be able to change [[URL|www.atecpower.net]] to {{URL|www.atecpower.net}}? Because of my paid COI, I prefer not make direct edits to the live article. Any additional help is much appreciated. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

22:45:03, 17 August 2015 review of submission by Roma247

• Roma247 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Joseph F. Rigge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Onel5969,

Sorry to bother you; the last reviewer gave me a lot of great constructive feedback, and I made extensive revisions yesterday, but in your rejection, it wasn't clear to me what you would like to see revised. I guess I'm new to this and am still trying to figure out the system. I didn't get any message from you with any notes, so I have no way of knowing why it was rejected and what you might recommend in order to bring it up to proper standards. I know you are too busy for hand-holding, but I fear I will be unable to respond to your concerns appropriately without at least the briefest feedback from you. Thanks very much. Roma247 (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Roma247 (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Roma247 - I didn't add a comment because the issues are pretty much the same. There is still much of this article that is not written in a formal tone that you'd expect in an encyclopedia. Phrases like "Father Rigge arrived to take his place as its first President", "His explanations of many of the latest inventions were impressive enough", "it is said his first faculty request" (which also has a citation issue - can't find anything to back that comment up in the book cited), "he begged to be allowed", and "a duty he found nearly unbearable, as it required many days, even months sometimes" are an informal style of writing, and in some cases also have a non-neutral POV. I think you've done a nice job at reducing the dependence on the primary source, so that's no longer an issue, but there are still claims made in article which need citations (e.g. the first and last paragraphs in Marquette section). I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Thanks for taking the time to give me that specific feedback. I've done a lot of writing, but not specifically encylopedia writing, so sometimes it's hard for me to see the areas where I'm not being neutral enough. I added the page number reference for the citation you couldn't find, and I added the reference tags for the other two (which came from the same reference as the middle paragraph).

Lastly, I cleaned up those trouble spots you mentioned. I hope that helped; again, I seem to be having trouble noticing areas that are non-neutral, so if you find any more that need fixing, let me know. Otherwise, I did resubmit it for review and hopefully it will pass this time! :)

Thanks again for your help and your patience. Roma247 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Article Declined

Hi,

I would like to make a few points.

1. You declined the article I wrote for using primary sources. In academia, you must use primary sources, secondary sources are considered less reliable and have the potential to be biased, contorted, hazy and often wrong.

2. You claimed that I used Youtube as a reference when I did not.

3. You have claimed that the remainder of my citations are mere listings or promotional pieces? I'm not sure what you mean by this, the listings are proof of what is being said in the article and the 'promotional' pieces have been written by other people, magazines, websites etc. and do fill the criteria as secondary sources. The subject of the article cannot control what has been written about them online by other people on verifiable links that add substance to the article.

4. You offered no help or guidance on these issues and left the talk section empty where you were meant to explain your decision.

5. Is it possible to have other editors to review submissions? I noticed on your talk page that you are very new to this and don't fully understand the process yourself.

6. You seem to be under the illusion that the subject of the article is merely a musician when it quite clearly states he holds several other positions of note aside from being a musician.

More citations have been added from BBC Radio 1, BBC6 Music and the BBC Asian Network, ABC Australia and several other places. I hope the BBC can meet your criteria as reliable secondary sources.

Any other help you can offer would be most appreciated.

Electrozip (talk) 07:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Electrozip - First, I think you'll find your time on Wikipedia easier if you take a less confrontational tone. Now to your points:

1. Wrong. Please read WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC.
2. Wrong. I listed YouTube as one of several examples of non-reliable sources, never said you used it.
3. Correct. There are two types of references, those which can be used for verifiability (verifying the facts of the article), and those which can be used for notability (showing how the subject of the article is notable). This second type of sources need to be from references which are independent, and the articles should be in-depth about the subject. Promotional pieces, such as interviews, are primary sources as well as being promotional, and can't be used for notability. The other type, listings, such as the discog references are fine for verifying facts in the article, but don't go to notability. See WP:RS for what is a reliable source.
4. Wrong. I did leave a comment, albeit brief. In fact, you quote it above. That comment, along with the canned response in the declination, should have given you the direction you needed to go. But it's apparent from your above comments that you didn't take the time to read the guidelines.
5. Wrong. Not new to this. That would be you. And yes, it is possible to have other editors review this. Trust me, I won't be looking at this article again.
6. Wrong. I think you make that statement due to the fact that I declined it as a music category. That is this person's major claim to fame. When a subject can't meet the criteria of WP:GNG, sometimes they can be notable enough using the lesser criteria of specific categories. Music was this guy's only shot.

In closing, you should also look at WP:CIT to learn how to properly format references. Good luck with your resubmission, as I said, I won't be looking at it again. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Editandsave

Message from user: Editandsave Query on the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gaurav_Narayanan Hi, Thank you for the review on my first article about Gaurav Narayanan, Indian film director. With my understanding I had rewritten the article in simple way without highlighting the subject. Can you please guide me with how should it be improved? I am not not understanding where I am wrong. Please advise. Thank you. Cheers, editandsave — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editandsave (talk • contribs) 09:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Editandsave - First, avoid making subjective statements and the use of adjectives such as "upcoming", "aspiring", "guru" and "important". Also phrases such as "expected to be a comic thriller", "strong passion". Just state facts, not opinions. In addition, you'll need quite a few more references to show his notability. See WP:GNG. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Acadamics impact

Dear Onel,

thank you for re-rewiewing my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wilhelm_Schneider

I have gone through the notability rules now for the third time and asking myself what else to do to comply with them:

I found the following:

"4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education.

->> I thought that this could be proved by accessing the kvk (German university meta search engine - see the references) and showing the circulation of a textbook within German university libraries. This information should be reliable - or do you see any doubts?

5. Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments. -->> I tried to prove this by the official website of the university - why should a german state institution give false information on its website?

Logically wiki states in its rules: "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." So what else can I do? I have referenced the article, given numerous publications, researched the circulation of textbooks - what else could be done?

Thank you so much! 89.0.28.28 (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Check out a google scholar search. While you can't cite the search directly, it can help reviewers determine the notability of scholars (based on how often their works are cited. When it gets to that level, I usually let another editor who has more expertise in academics review. Here's a link. I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for you nice comment. As I would base the notability as suggested in the rules by the circulation of the textbook that is just what I did. The kvk (http://www.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de/kvk.html) is a german meta seaech engine powered by one of the leading technical universities in Germany. I just searched one textbook in the latest edition (there are two which have reached 4 and 5 editions respectively) and according to the kvk are circulated quite widely. With "wilhelm schneider" and google scholar (thank you!) you also find several articles and citations. With "wilhelm schneider" and jahresabschluss also some citations. Hope this helps 89.0.34.251 (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

14:34:26, 19 August 2015 review of submission by Capturespolarbears

• Capturespolarbears (talk · contribs)
  • User:Capturespolarbears/sandbox/FDAmusic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am seeking clarification on notability. This artist is already referenced in other approved Wiki articles (see Kevin Gates). I am merely trying to help document notable rappers living in Houston, TX. I browsed some articles you wrote to try to gain some clarification, but I notice you've written articles about people whose notability is also up for debate. Is there a resource I can turn to which will explain notability in terms that aren't quite so vague/biased? Capturespolarbears (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Capturespolarbears. To answer your questions in order: first, referencing someone in another Wikipedia article does absolutely zero for notability purposes; second, not sure which articles you're referring to. I keep my articles watchlisted, and as far as I know, none of them have been tagged for notability - if you could provide which ones you're talking about, I'd be glad to have a look; WP:GNG is the go to resource to describe notability, and since he's involved in music, you can also check out WP:NMUSIC - to see what qualifies as a reliable source, see WP:RS; not sure what you mean by biased. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

GAN "on hold"

Onel5969, I've noticed that you've been editing the GAN page directly to put a nomination "on hold". Unfortunately, that doesn't work.

The way to place a nominated article "on hold" is on the article's talk page, where you edit the GA nominee template's "status" field so the value becomes "onhold"—if previously on review, the status would have been "onreview" before you placed it on hold.

The GAbot automatically checks the article talk pages and updates the GAN page after a new nomination is added, passed, failed, or a review initiated or status set to onhold. The bot runs about every 20 minutes, so it doesn't take long for the update to be made. Please let me know if you have any questions about the process. (Or, if you prefer, check the GAN instructions page at WP:GANI, where it gives instructions on how to put an article on hold among other things.) Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset - I misread that. My apologies, I haven't done a whole lot of work at GA, but am attempting to broaden my contributions. Won't forget in the future. Will correct. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

14:50:36, 20 August 2015 review of submission by Dr. Schul

• Dr. Schul (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Dirk Schlottmann (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dr. Schul (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I translated the German article about Dr. Dirk Schlottmann in English. The german article was accepted but the English version was not. I can not see why (notability? ... hmmm ). What can I do to improve the article?

(Dr. Schul (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC))

Hi Dr. Schul, and thanks for translating into English Wikipedia. I attempt to reciprocate the effort from time to time myself. Each wiki has their own standards for notability, on English Wikipedia, to show notability there must be "substantial coverage from independent reliable sources". That means there should be citations from well-known publications. However, since Schlottman is an academic, you check out WP:NACADEMIC, and see other ways to show his notability. I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

03:13:11, 21 August 2015 review of submission by Chemsciguy

• Chemsciguy (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Heroes of Chemistry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I actually started this article at a Meetup Associated with an American Chemical Society Meeting. It was a topic that was selected by the editors there and discussed in some depth, struggling to determine how much information simply to copy from the ACS site. Facts like the past winners are referenced there as the primary reference. All other reports of winners are ultimately derivative of the granting organization.

Chemsciguy (talk) 03:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Chemsciguy - I understand your reasoning for creating the article. But not every award is notable. It seems to me that this one should be, but the current references, in my opinion, just don't cut it. I won't re-review, and perhaps an editor with a different point of view will approve it. Right now, only the Philly article goes to notability (the Midland one isn't bad, but it mirrors the press releases too closely). The rest are press releases, and don't go to notability. Oh, and you shouldn't use another wiki article as a referenc (Maryanoff). I did a search, and only turned up the press releases and the Philly article. Take a look at a Google News Search, and you might find some good articles. I found this article on the first page. There might be others. Good luck. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

15:59:06, 21 August 2015 review of submission by MPrado

• MPrado (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Vic Meyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Vic Meyer was a major contributor to clinical psychology and created some of the most important developments in today's psychological treatments yet there is no wikipedia entry for this. Thank you. MPrado (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi MPrado - okay. Never said he shouldn't have an article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 16:49:39, 21 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by MPrado

• MPrado (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Vic Meyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I appreciate the fast review and offer of assistance and apologize for not knowing how to do this. I was confused that one of the reasons the submission was declined was stated as because of notoriety. Vic Meyer was a far more impactful psychologist than many other psychologists listed on Wikipedia. The problem seems to be that as a first time contributor, I am failing your system which I apologize for. The first feedback was that there were over 400 submissions ahead of mine and it would take at least a week to be reviewed. I was hoping I could improve it by then. Any help would be appreciated because I obviously need to understand the system here better in order to contribute. Thank you for taking the time and interest and willingness to help, and again, I apologize. I want to help Wikipedia with this important psychologist's contributions for others to learn. If not for Vic Meyer, tens of thousands of people suffering from obsessive compulsive rituals today would still be unable to function. Thank you. MPrado (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi MPrado. There are several things you ask and/or point out. First, just because there might be articles on other psychologists which don't meet notability is not a valid argument to include another. Second the "first notification" was simply a notice saying that your submission was accepted for review. Now, in draft status, you have the opportunity to work on it to get it in shape and resubmit. Now to the crux of your message. How to improve it. The subjects of articles must be notable enough to include in Wikipedia. Those guidelines can be found at WP:GNG. A Google news search doesn't give any results which would indicate Meyer would pass GNG. However, Wikipedia at some point realized that certain types of individuals might not meet those guidelines, due to their line of work. Scholars/Academics also have a set of more specific guidelines, since main newspapers/magazines don't cover them. Those guidelines can be found at WP:SCHOLAR. A Google scholar search didn't turn up anything which would lead me to think Meyer will meet those qualifications. His works just aren't cited that often.

It also helps reviewers if citations are formatted properly, you can go to WP:CIT and see ways to format. Hans Eysenck's article should show you what is considered notable. You can see he meets both GNG and SCHOLAR (he has many works cited thousands of times). If you fix the citations which are there, and work in a few more, you should be able to get it passed. Here are some I found:

• BMJ
• Cambridge
• book by Martin Herbert

Adding a link to the Bruch book here it is, also helps

Once you do that, let me know and I'll take another look. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

vic meyer

thank you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vic_Meyer MPrado MPrado (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

re declined page henri du couedic de kererant

i dont understand the resons why this page is being declined twice. i have inserted many citations, links to other pages including wiki to substantite veracity of what is written. i have included, (even as pics) newspaper articles. so in spite of reading around without understanding what is wrong, i am left not understanding the decline reason, please can you be more specific as per wht i need to change, i took out a peacock temr "famous" and it seems to me the article is pretty staight forward describing a career of an admiral of the french navy, the main ships he cpmmanded, some of the important battles he fought and his various decorations. all this seems pretty matter of factly, so please give me a few ind if anthing else is required. thanks

Paul David Pope

Why was this page declined? What can I do for it to be accepted besides removing Peacock terms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikki5417 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nikki5417 - Getting rid of the peacock terms is only the first step. The entire article is written in an informal, subjective story-telling form. Phrases like "Throughout his childhood, Paul heard stirring stories ...", "... designed to raise the potential of humanity", "the highly sensitive and potentially explosive", "It has become Pope’s life missions ...", and "Details coming soon!" to name a few, need to go away. The lengthy descriptions of both books need to be cut to a sentence or two each. Also, don't use first names.

Then there are the citations. 3 major problems there. First, not sure there is enough there to meet the notability requirements. There might be, but I'm not sure. Once you work on it, I'm willing to take another look. I think he is notable, but am not convinced with the current references. Second, please take a look at WP:CIT to learn how to properly format references. That helps reviewers - a lot. Third, this is a blp (bio of a living person), and almost every assertion you make in the article needs to be backed up by a reliable source. For example, much of the biography and other ventures sections are uncited, and his early life has zero citations. In addition, you need to make sure that what you say in the article is backed up by the citations. For example you state towards the end of the article, "is in development with a major television network". That's not what the source says. The book was optioned. There's a world of difference between the two. It's kind of like equating the creek that runs through my back yard with the Mississippi River. Tens of thousands of books/stories/ideas get optioned every year without ever going into development. It'd also be better if the source wasn't a PR announcement from Pope.

Anyway, I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, your current External links section needs to delete everything in there. Press releases are pretty much worthless, and the links to other wikipages don't belong there - if they are relevant, they should go as a wikilink in a "See also" section. I've set one up for you. The interview stuff should go in the external links, formatted the way I did the PBS one. I also did some other minor cleanup - don't wikilink common terms in section headers, the persondata stuff has been deprecated. Good luck. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the text and added the citations. Can you please take a look again to see what else I can do to fix it? User:nikki5417

Want to Improve Andre Taylor Page

Hi, You declined my submission. It was moved to draft, so I'm working on improving.

Is the main issue, moving the sources to footnotes? It seems to me the style is pretty consistent with Wikepedia.

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

TwoQuarters

TwoQuarters (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi TwoQuarters - JSFarman has made the formatting changes to conform to Wiki guidelines (Nice job, JSF!). Now the citations need work. JSF left you two links to provide guidance on how to do that. And you are doing the absolute right thing by asking questions. Most editors are more than willing to help newbies who want to learn. I would also encourage you to look at WP:CIT to learn how to properly format those citations. I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

How can I find independent sources or what would be an example?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thomas_A._Dunkle/sandbox#

How do I find a independent reliable source for this game I am describing. We had a 30 year reunion and we play this game at all of our reunions. We invented while attending a boarding school in Rome in the 80's. There were two brothers that owned the bar but find I think they have passed away. What type of in depended source in this case do I need to find. We have a Facebook page with many members that can help me find information.

Thomas A. Dunkle

Thank you for help Thomas A. Dunkle (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Thomas A. Dunkle (talk) 05:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Thomas A. Dunkle - if you look at the decline box on the draft, towards the bottom you'll see "Find sources: "sandbox" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR · free images · wikipedia library". Click on those, and they'll begin a search for you. I've moved the article from your sandbox to a draft space, so the search will now come up automatically. Although I looked at the News and Highbeam searches and they revealed nothing.

An independent source is something like a book, magazine, or newspaper. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

06:54:12, 22 August 2015 review of submission by Michalco

• Michalco (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Daniela I. Norris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Michalco (talk) 06:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I am trying to understand why you've removed the entry Daniela I. Norris - what copyright does it violate? Was it just the amazon description of Crossing Qalandiya? This is the first article I am creating and would like help please. Can you restore the content and I will remove the description of the one book if that was the problem? Was everything else ok now?

I am learning to create wiki articles and starting with one of my favorite authors which is not on wiki. Can i please know why you removed the content? If it is because of a book description from amazon, can you please restore it and I will delete the book description? Was eveything else ok? I am doing my best but this is all not very clear...

Thank you, Michal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michalco (talk • contribs) 06:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Michalco - it wasn't just the Amazon copy, but also stuff from here, which your current draft still has. In addition, you should check out WP:CIT about how to properly format citations. But the biggest issue (after the copyvio problem) is notability. With the current references, the author does not meet the guidelines of either WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

review of an article on Organizational Anatomy - Olkonol

Dear Onel5969, thanks a alot for your prompt review of my article 2Organizational Anatomy". Yes, I am completely new to Wikipedia, and so, my apology for not being very efficient. I have followed your comments and have added more references from published sources and now the list of references stands for 9 works. Would you think it will be sufficient?

Thanks Olkonol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.71.179 (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi! The sources help, but you need inline citations, to show where the information is coming from. Else, it looks like original research, which is a no-no. While not necessary, if your sources are available on-line, that helps reviewers check. If you check out a Google Books search, there might be some other sources you could use. I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft

Hi User:Onel5969

I suggest you look at Draft:Alex Gilbert. Please give your opinion on this article. New reliable sources have been added to this article. I think it is now notable for Wikipedia, otherwise please let me know why.

Thank You! Dmitry --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi DmitryPopovRU - the article is currently being discussed at Deletion review. I'll let the outcome of that discussion answer your question. Once that discussion is concluded, as Primefac pointed out, there'll be no prejudice against you resubmitting, at that point shoot me a message and I'll take another look. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

08:00:37, 23 August 2015 review of submission by Danielkahena

• Danielkahena (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sears Outlet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Onel5969,

Thanks for reviewing the "Sears Outlet" article draft. Sears Outlet is a separate business to it's parent company ("Sears Hometown and Outlet Stores") and I believe that it deserves its own article due to this. This is very similar to the structure of "Sears Holdings". The Sears Holdings Wikipedia page contains a list of it's subsidiaries with some basic information for each business. Many of the subsidiaries have their own Wikipedia page as well. See - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sears_Holdings.

At the time of the original review, there was very little information in the draft, thus understandable why the decline was made. Since then, I have added more content unique to the page that describes the Sears Outlet business history and operations.

I ask you to reconsider your decline of the article due to the above point that this is a separate legal business that deserves it's own Wikipedia entry. Can you advise if my reasoning is fair or what additional changes would be required in order to build a separate page?

Thanks so much

Daniel

Danielkahena (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Danielkahena - While similar to Sears Holdings it is not the same. This is a sub of a sub. While some of the subs on the Sears Holdings page do have their own page, none of the sub's subs do. And there's simply not enough information to warrant any of them to have their own page, when they can easily be included in the parent article. Even though there has been information added, it is still pretty much a stub, or at best a start, class article. There's nothing wrong with stubs/starts, unless the information can be included in a well-established article. I think your efforts would be more well used updating the Sears Holding and Sears Hometown and Outlet Stores articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

11:31:22, 24 August 2015 review of submission by Mlsemar

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

Reason for refusal is not clear this time. The subject is notable, WittyStore invented the fist Soap 3d printer and is a company based in Ireland. 2 external and reliable independent references where added.

Mlsemar (talk) 11:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mlsemar - please read the guidelines at WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The first added reference is a mere mention, and therefore doesn't rise to the standard of "substantial coverage". The second one is much better, but from a fringe, niche source. It's not to be ignored, but you'd probably need 5-6 of these types in order to show notability. I that article had been in the Irish Times or Dublin News, that would definitely hold more weight, and you'd only need about 3 articles to show notability.

On another note, even if you show notability, the current article, while short, reads like an advertisement. Articles need to tell us about the subject, not attempt to sell it to us. I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Vic Meyer

Thank you for the most helpful feedback and suggestions in improving the draft for Vic Meyer. As a novice, I struggled with the Wikipedia formatting requirements and embarrassingly, could not figure out how to communicate in the Teahouse, but I appreciated the invitation. I am confident this current re-submission is highly improved and hope that it will meet the standards of Wikipedia and be worthy of publication. Thank you. MPrado (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice job, MPrado - I moved it to the mainspace. It still needs a lot of work. It could use an infobox. You can go to that other psychologist's page and copy the infobox from there and fill it in with Meyer's information. Then create a lead section, see MOS:LEAD about what it should be like. Some of the citations still need formatting. And beware of using euphemisms, like "passed away". And don't be afraid to ask questions, always the best way to learn. Good luck! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 14:38:34, 25 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Easytiger1981

• Easytiger1981 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Easytiger1981/Intersog (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, Onel5969, I need more explanation form you about the rejection of my submission "Intersog", what exactly sounds like advertising? Please point to exact paragraphs or sentences, otherwise it looks biased. Thanks

Easytiger1981 (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Easytiger1981 - Here's a hint, when you're looking for help or direction, it's usually not a good strategy to make demands and false accusations. Doesn't really engender the editor being asked to offer help. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

14:38:58, 25 August 2015 review of submission by Watches1521

• Watches1521 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Govberg Jewelers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Watches1521 (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering if you could provide me with some details on why the Govberg Jewelers draft was declined. I saw that you referred to it as an advertising brochure. I have updated some wording and added some additional references to the page to support some phrases. Looking forward to hearing from you how I can adjust the page more. Thank you. Watches1521 (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Watches1521 - In a nutshell, articles tell us about the company, advertisements try to sell us the company. First get rid of all peacock terms, like "luxurious" and "unique". Second, get rid of personal commentary. Phrases like "took a risk", and terms like "unfortunately" add a casualness to the article which shouldn't be in an encyclopedia entry (this really has nothing to do with advertising, but more with tone). Finally, the lists of features and brands need to go away. They are clearly meant to sell the store and its amenities. It's okay to briefly mention them, but in a neutral way. I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Harriet Fawkener

Content and references the Georgianera article have been removed until fresh, original references can be made.

Harriet Fawkner was a notable political hostess and close friend of Charles Fox, Sheridan, Gainsborough, and Reynolds, as mentioned in the article. I would have thought that was sufficiently notable.

If you feel that the article is still lacking then please delete it.

Max LangMaxMLang (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Take a look

..at the article about Ester Claesson. Thank you.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks good BabbaQ - made a very small tweak. I would like to see more about her death. Self-inflicted? Murder? etc. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Follow Up for Al Stohlman Award

Hello Onel5969,

I am a graduate student who has taken a personal interest in the history of leathercraft and have decided to try to get more information available through a series of cross referencing articles with substantial research... partially because there is a wide gap in available online information and partially because my brain has been programmed to think link that during thesis research (which is completely unrelated).

Tandy Leather is still the dominant player in leathercraft, so I started there. Then I worked on an article about Al and Ann Stohlman, who really turned it in to a modern art. From there, I was going to create an article about the prestigious industry award that was established in his name as a potential starting place for building articles about some of the individual crafters who have made an impact, not only on the craft, but on a larger scale.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Al_Stohlman_Award_for_Achievement_in_Leathercraft

The two flags that I got for my first draft submission were that the resources were limited to only the one industry publication and that it seemed promotional. I'm working on the resources (ignore them right now, some are blogs that are there as notes to myself on leads to other articles), however I was curious what portion of it seemed promotional? I plan on editing all of the profiles with the new sources, so if there is something I should be on the look out for as I edit, please let me know.

I was curious if a mini bio for each crafter was relevant, but seeing as there aren't pages for any of the individual crafters and the online resources about the craft are limited, this would compile the information about the award in one place and serve as a centralized article to start weaving together the potential network of articles.

Any advice or feedback that you can give on the subject would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you!

TheMagnusOpus (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)TheMagnusOpus

Hi TheMagnusOpus! In its current state, it is promoting the award, rather than simply telling us about it. And where this takes place the most is in the bios of the winners. These are highly promotional about non-notable individuals. Pick and choose which facts you use. Most of the winners deserve a simple mention of their name, with no bio information. Avoid descriptive words like "enthusiastic", "innumerable", "established" (as in talented), "countless", etc. When one of the winners has done something notable, which can be cited, note it in a neutral way. For example, Beard's signature tools or designing something for Reagan; Van Horne becoming the executive director; Laier a trustee; Geer's work for Wayne and the Emperor; Butler's saddle maker of the year. But talk about their lives and how wonderful they are, leave out. I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

19:49:48, 25 August 2015 review of submission by Helen Seslowsky

• Helen Seslowsky (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Nadine Robbins (painter) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have made the changes suggested by the reviewers - made the tone more impersonal/encylopedic and cut out a good deal of the resume-like references, peacock and weasel words leaving in only the notable/accredited accomplishments and linking to an expanded exhibition list as the reviewer suggested. I'm pretty new at this so I hope this is now acceptable and in compliance with WP protocol. If not - please let me know and I can edit further.

Helen Seslowsky (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

USER: Helen Seslowsky Re: Page Nadine Robbins - American Painter In response to the comments left by your reviewers I have edited out weasel words & peacock words and changed the overall tone to be much for formal. I have also taken out all but the most significant exhibitions with a link to the full list on the subject's website (as suggested by one of the reviewers in their comments). I hope this is sufficient to pass a re-review - if not please let me know what more needs to be done and I will make further changes as deemed necessary. Many thanks§HelenSeslowsky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helen Seslowsky (talk • contribs) 19:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Helen Seslowsky - much better! I've done some formatting and copy edit on it. See what I did to the first reference (removing the brackets?), please do that for all the others. After you do that, hit resubmit and let me know, and I'll move it to the mainspace. Nice job! As you develop the article, you might want to put in an infobox, you can find the template HERE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For lauditory work reviewing DYK and GA nominees. LavaBaron (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, LavaBaron. Just trying to help out when I can and where I can. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Article rejection

Hi, seems you rejected a page on Dalal Times on the ground of it looking more like an ad. Wanted to understand better as neither do i work for / with Dalal Times and nor did i miss out on any external references / sources to my information. Help me understand better so that the other articles don't get rejected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sonalkumbhat/sandbox

Hi. You seem to understand, since you've removed most of the advertising material.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

07:51:24, 26 August 2015 review of submission by Ohopenhouse

• Ohopenhouse (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:OH! Open House (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ohopenhouse (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Senior Editor III Onel5969, I noticed that you declined my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:OH!_Open_House This is the second time it has been declined but I believe that I have edited the overall tone to be neutral. My references are independent sources, most of which are local newspapers. Would you mind pointing out exactly which part sounds too much like an advertisement so I can focus my re-editing efforts? Thank you in advance for your advice and time.

Hi Ohopenhouse - the entire article is crafted like a promotional brochure. The individual years read like an advertisement, and indeed, just looking at the artitute citation, that's a blog which reads like a pr, complete with a link to the event site. I haven't check many of the citations, but most seem to be of the pr/blog ilk.

For example, the 2009 entry could be cut to: "The first edition of OH! Open House was modeled on a block party, based in 6 shophouses along Niven Road." That's it. The rest is promotional. Cut out the lists of artists if they are not notable (i.e. they don't have their own wikipages). I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

08:32:00, 26 August 2015 review of submission by 58.1.241.128

• 58.1.241.128 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Shu Shinkawa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi I would like to know why you declined the page shu shinkawa, I put links as references, where you can see the videos etc. Could you tell me what I should add or change to make it accepted ? thank you in advance 58.1.241.128 (talk) 08:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. This commercial director does not seem to meet the notability criteria of WP:GNG. Coverage provided is not substantial. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

i looked at the link you sent me, and everything is respected so I don't get the point... In the references, I linked the pages you can find his name, his works, so if you take a second look to the page you'll find everything asked by wikipedia. as for pages in japanese, it is written that it can be posted in any language. as it is linked on the page, his name is on vogue, japanese news, sites, and videos ending. So then I would like you to take a second look to the page and, if you still don't agree with the page, please tell me precisely what I need to change or add to make it acceptable. thank you in advance.

The language isn't the problem. He's definitely mentioned, but has no "substantial coverage", which is the notability requirement. Because of the nature of their business, most commercial directors will not get that type of coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"While nice to have, demanding substantial coverage creates a greater hurdle than that required under WP:SIGCOV and is not a policy nor guideline mandate. As long as an external source covers a topic directly and in non-trivial detail, the instructions at WP:SIGCOV are met. Coverage in external sourcing does not also need to be "substantial" in content in order to meet guideline instruction toward significant in offering non-trivia detail." copy pasted from wikipedia. the japanese version of wikipedia accepted this article, but I assume whatever the language it is written in, wikipedia has the same rules from a country to another, so why wasn't it a problem in japanese and would it be a problem in english ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.1.241.128 (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Harriet Fawkener

I am the joint owner of the blog - https://georgianera.wordpress.com/2015/01/15/mrs-bouverie-and-mrs-crewe-two-whig-hostesses-from-the-18th-century/. Thank you for picking up on this copyright issue.

We noticed last night that someone was trying to include information over which we hold copyright. Whilst we are more than happy for information about Harriett Fawkener to be included on the Wiki page, we would like to be given full credit for information cited.

Many Thanks

AllthingsGeorgian (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Vic Meyer

Thank you for all your help. There is much to learn. MPrado (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, MPrado. Happy editing! And yes, there is a lot to learn. I've been doing this pretty actively for the last 2 years, and I still ask questions all the time. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

14:38:04, 26 August 2015 review of submission by JackRouseWiki

• JackRouseWiki (talk · contribs)
  • User:JackRouseWiki/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

JackRouseWiki (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Good morning. I am not requesting a re-review yet, just some feedback on the specific content that was found objectionable. If we removed the language regarding awards, would that be sufficient to have the article approved?

Jack Rouse Associates Article Rejection

Good morning:

I am look for some additional feedback on the "Jack Rouse Associates" article rejection posted by JackRouseWiki. If the "Awards" section was removed, leaving just the "history" and "projects" sections, would that be sufficient for acceptance? All of the external links/sources were well-circulated industry publications or objective, third-party local, national and international news sources.

Thank you, JackRouseWiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackRouseWiki (talk • contribs) 14:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi JackRouseWiki - That's only one of the issues. First, is the use of peacock terms, like "top" professional, although this is not that prevalent, it still should be looked at. Second, lose the list of projects; the "Markets and projects" section will suffice, although it needs to be better referenced, preferably by independent sources (in other words, not from the company website or from company press releases). The history is okay as well, although written a bit informally (and all those short paragraphs - they need to be combined). The awards section is not a problem in itself, but as written is highly promotional. Just give the facts, don't try to build he individuals or the company up, let the awards speak for themselves. Lastly, get rid of the line about the firm's services in the lead (put the year of founding in one of the other sentences). Listing services is only promotional. I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Rajasanj1/sandbox

Hi

This is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rajasanj1/sandbox

i just got your message about declining of my article

I would like to know exactly what notability is required

1. Book is already published and is been sold thru many online agencies as per given in my External links section

2. ISBN number of book is given in article

2. Publishers details are given in article

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajasanj1 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rajasanj1. First, please always sign your comments with the four ~, that helps editors respond. Second, just because a book is published and is for sale does not make it notable. Take a look at WP:NBOOK, for the guidelines for books. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

15:51:55, 26 August 2015 review of submission by Cpasztor

• Cpasztor (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:MBI (Michigan Biotechnology Institute) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! I've added in citations per your request, including information from reliable sources regarding president Obama's visit, as well as information on MBI's $4.3 million grant from the DOE, as well as information on the collaboration with Bolt Threads. I've also added in links for the original speech from the CEO of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, one of the original sponsors of MBI.

Please let me know if these changes are helpful in denoting MBI as a notable non-profit. However, I didn't include one link, which I'm attaching here, where MBI is mentioned by Inverse along with Bolt Threads for bringing future technologies to today (3#). https://www.inverse.com/article/5402-8-sci-fi-predictions-that-are-coming-true . Would something like this be notable, since it seems like it moves into more of a pop-culture reference?

Thank you!

Cpasztor Cpasztor (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Cpasztor (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cpasztor - Nice job! I've moved it to the mainspace. Just be aware of WP:OVERCITE, for example at one place you have 5 citations - not necessary, pick out the best 2, get rid of the ones which simply mention the company. Anyway, congrats! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi onel5969 - Thanks for reviewing and approving the article. I'll be sure to clean up the 5 citations to the 2 that are best represented. I believe I can use the others for another paragraph of useful information. I have a bit of work to do to raise the quality of the article and that is the next step. Thanks!

Cpasztor Cpasztor (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Denver

Hi, i updated attendances figures with last available data for 2014 season, you can check them here, those you just put aren't accurate :
NFL : http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance/_/year/2014
MLB : http://espn.go.com/mlb/attendance/_/year/2014
NHL : http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance/_/year/2014
NBA : http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance/_/year/2014
MLS : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Major_League_Soccer_season#Average_home_attendances

Brio-En (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi - I changed the column to capacity, not attendance, which is the norm. Probably since it wouldn't have to be updated each year. The capacities are correct, as per each venue's own published information. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, i understand for capacity, but i think attendance give more value to the article and is more valuable for a reader. it's not a big deal if it has to be updated, we are here for that, i put links to make it easier for future contributors.
Brio-En (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brio-En - No worries, I don't have an issue with that format, simply the way it was being done, without references, led to a lot of uncited changes. Since you've added the references, which will make it easier to update annually, and verify, that should work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Hastie

Hi,

I've added more sources from Australia's major newspapers and the national broadcaster (the ABC). Is anything further required? His medals are the standard ones issued to Australian soldiers who served with SASR in Afghanistan, and there's a reference to the MUC all members of SOTG received. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Klobfour/sandbox/Andrew_Hastie_%28politician%29#See_also — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klobfour (talk • contribs) 00:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Klobfour - He appears to meet WP:GNG, before moving it to the mainspace, it would be good if the raw citations were formatted properly. I've done the first one as an example. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Colin E. Davis page creation

Hi. Thanks for your concern on the creation of this page. I am working on updates and content related to the musical band Vile, and some members. The individual bio page for Colin E. Davis relates to his work as a well known extreme metal music producer and mastering engineer - credited on many of metal albums. I have updated the Vile page recently as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vile_(band) I am rather new to this process.  :-) I expect to continue with band member Juan Urteaga, also a well established producer from the band who has produced bands such as Machine Head and others.

Thank you,

Will — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Bramin (talk • contribs) 02:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Will Bramin - Take a look at WP:BIO, WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG for what constitutes notability. I did searches on News, Highbeam and JStor and couldn't find anything on this individual (although, it was a bit tedious, since Colin Davis is such a common name - there was nothing when using his middle initial). But if you think you can find reliable sources and create an article, contest the deletion, and state your reasons, similar to what you did above. Also, if you're new, you might want to go through the Articles for Creation process, where editors can give you input. Also, feel free to ask questions of other editors. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the links and advice. I appreciate those and went and read all of the criteria. Colin Davis is surely a popular name, so searches for "Colin Davis Vile" or "Colin Davis engineer producer" should turn up the results. The use of the middle initial is not as common for this individual. Davis and Urteaga are indeed notable individuals with hundreds of album credits. I will make sure I locate substantiating third party sources before I continue. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Bramin (talk • contribs) 08:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Rajasanj1

Rajasanj1 (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Thanks for your comments.

Would like to clarify further following.

1. This is my First notable work and i am not a Historically notified author yet. 2. I have not yet won any Award yet. 3. The subject on which book is written is very significant and notable subject. 4. So if My publisher , University lecturers, politicians and Newspaper journalists columns can publish this in newspaper that the subject is major and notable and also the author is good, so in that case will the article be accepted. 5. Please tell me how many such references are minimum required to quality the criteria.

Thanks

Rajasanj1 (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)rajasanj1

Hi Rajasanj1 - There are a few issues with this draft. First, it appears that you have a WP:COI regarding this article. You need to post a notice on the talk page of the draft. Second, there shouldn't be an infobox on the author. Third, the prose reads more like an essay, rather than an encyclopedia article. Fourth, the discussion of the book's chapters is much too detailed. Fifth, the bibliography section needs to go away. Same with the other sections after it... not sure what they have to do with the book. Sixth, please look at WP:MOS and MOS:LAYOUT to find out how to style and layout your article. Seventh, there are no in-line citations (WP:ILC). And finally, Eighth, the current references show no evidence of notability. Read WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK to see what qualifies as notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

12:30:55, 27 August 2015 review of submission by 94.145.48.9

• 94.145.48.9 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:India: the Urban Transition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Added more reliable secondary sources. Note that most of the sources are several pages. The quote by Rahul Mehrotra - possibly the highest authority on the subject - was conveyed directly to the author. How could it be made verifiable?

Exact quote: "I very much enjoyed the range of issues you touched upon and based on your first hand experiences! The fine grain reading of issues in the Indian city is a an important contribution so is the attempt to connect so many dots to make sense of the moving targets we encounter in Urbanism in India." Rahul Mehrotra, 16 July 2014

94.145.48.9 (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, it seems to be notable. But take a look at WP:MOS and MOS:LAYOUT to see how to properly format and layout your article. Very nice job on the citations. After you lay it out correctly, message me back and I'll take another look. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 14:27:30, 27 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Nikyvoyage

• Nikyvoyage (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Agop Melkonyan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I do not understand what errors the articles have. Dear Onel5969, I know that I am not very experienced and that only enthusiasm is not enough but... Regarding the two articles that I submitted (Agop Melkonyan; Ivan Sarailiev), I fail to understand which requirement I do not meet and what further I can do to improve them. I added more resources and references on both pages. Could you, please, be more specific what can be improved. Thank you very much and kind regards, Nikysilver

Nikyvoyage (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nikyvoyage - They are both really close, in my opinion. On Agop, I think one more good source and you're there, in terms of notability. You could use citations to back up the claims regarding the U of Sofia comment, and the final sentence in the article. On Sarailiev, pretty much the same things. Another good citation, and make sure the things in the article which are currently uncited, get citations. I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Question: "a severe NPOV issue"

User: Kamishiro Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:%28S.G.%29_Sinnicks

I wonder if you could be more specific as to what "a severe NPOV issue" is. Looking at the 3 paragraphs that form the body of the article, it does not seem to include flowery language - merely statement of facts. Specific notes would be helpful and appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamishiro (talk • contribs) 14:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kamishiro - here are a few: "joined Canadian legend", "he is now known across Canada and the U.S.", "the historic working-class", "received very positive reviews", "A constant supporter of the "working class"", "playing major music festivals"; then there's the list of awards, not one of which is notable. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

16:43:51, 27 August 2015 review of submission by CliffGarber

• CliffGarber (talk · contribs)
  • User:CliffGarber/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, Onel5969, and thank you for your help with my first submission. I have gone over a lot of the documentation on inline citations and I don't know what I've done wrong, unless I've cited too many references for a source. Could you tell me exactly what needs to be fixed, please? Thank you, Cliff CliffGarber (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

CliffGarber (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi CliffGarber - This is a blp (bio of a living person), so almost everything in the article needs a citation. Let's take your first section, 4 paragraphs, a single citation. Everything in that section needs a citation. The same is true for each of the sections. Then at some place you have like a gazillion citations at the end of the line. Usually, a single source, or two, will suffice. If the sources aren't that reliable, or the item being discussed is particularly contentious, than a third may be warranted. I've never seen anything that requires 4. Take a look at WP:CITEKILL. Also, take a look at WP:CIT on how to format citations. And don't be afraid to ask questions. I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Pink Jeep Tours article

Thank you for your feedback.

Per your comments, how do you suggest I utilize the references on Google News? I'd be inclined to add a general statement to the opening paragraph of the article that describes the longevity and scope of business operations, citing the various publications you mentioned: Jackson Sun, CNBC, Phoenix Business Journal, LA Times, Daily Telegraph. Is that an oversimplification? How do I describe the company's achievements without being labeled promotional?

Also, the original draft cited several awards and accolades, which the first reviewer said were not usable. To me, these increase the company's notability. Is that correct, or does this list sound like propaganda? 2008 Arizona Governor’s Tourism Award for Preservation 2011 Sedona Fire District Service Award – Outstanding Organization (Carried their crew and equipment to a plane crash in a remote location that they couldn't reach.) Nevada Magazine best tour company in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2012. LVCVA Hospitality Hero Award for National Tourism Week four years in a row. Received TripAdvisor Certificates of Excellence for achieving annual customer reviews of 4.5 and above. Las Vegas Concierge Choice award for best Ground Tour 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015

Again, many thanks for your assistance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Pink_Jeep_Tours&redirect=no — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobM PAG (talk • contribs) 19:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi RobM PAG - Regarding the references, inline citations are always best. Stay away from PRWeb, since press releases suck. The Jackson Sun article is excellent, and anything in that source, you can use in your article, since it will be sourced. Same with the others I mentioned in my comment to you. The Daily Telegraph article is good simply to show that the Pink Jeeps have a Las Vegas presence. Use them in specific places which back up information you have in the article, and do it in-line. That way they verify the facts of the article, and if you use several of them, they show notability.

Regarding tone and the use of the awards. Tokyogirl79 is a very good editor. What they said was not that you shouldn't use them, but that they don't really show notability. You can use them, but don't clutter the article with a lot of yokel awards. They're pretty spot on regarding their assessment of those awards, I've italicized the awards I think you should include above. This is definitely a notable tour group, I actually had it on my list of articles to write.

Remember when you write an article on Wikipedia, you are telling us about the subject of the article, don't attempt to sell us on anything. Let the facts speak for themselves. Feel free to ask questions, of me or the other editors who commented on the article. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'd agree on the italicized awards, although I'll warn you that these are the ones that would likely give partial notability and probably not complete notability (meaning that they'd pass notability guidelines just by winning that award alone). The problem with awards is that there are a lot of them out there, especially industry awards. As a result Wikipedia has grown pretty strict about what they consider to be usable as far as awards go. I've always told people that less than 5% of any award given in any situation (meaning all awards, from Oscars to innovation awards to sports trophies) would show notability- it's just that strict on here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

ThothX Tower

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThothX_Tower good, you undone my revision,, sorry, I deleted main thing.thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.113.209 (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Rajasanj1 redux

Rajasanj1 (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Rajasanj1

HI Onel5969 Thanks for your review and suggestions , please find this and suggest further

Hi Rajasanj1 - There are a few issues with this draft. 1. First, it appears that you have a WP:COI regarding this article. You need to post a notice on the talk page of the draft. - I have removed the photo of author , I hope this is ok , if not then what notice should I post on talk page.

No, that doesn't suffice. You need to take a look at WP:SELFPROMOTE, and WP:DCOI.

2. Second, there shouldn't be an infobox on the author. - I have Removed the infobox of author.

That works.

3. Third, the prose reads more like an essay, rather than an encyclopedia article. - I have Improved and made necessary changes

Nice job

4. Fourth, the discussion of the book's chapters is much too detailed – I have Improved and made the necessary changes

Nice job

5. Fifth, the bibliography section needs to go away. - I have Removed and made the necessary changes

Good

6. Same with the other sections after it... not sure what they have to do with the book. - I have Removed and made the necessary changes

Good

7. Sixth, please look at WP:MOS and MOS:LAYOUT to find out how to style and layout your article. – I have made the necessary changes

Better, but I've made some changes. Take a look at them, and make sure the article conforms with them. The article also needs a copy-edit.

8. Seventh, there are no in-line citations (WP:ILC)- I have made the necessary changes

No, you haven't. There are still no in-line citations. While you don't need them in the sections which deal with the chapters, you'll need them in the new background section I created.

9. And finally, Eighth, the current references show no evidence of notability. - So if publisher, University lecturers, politicians and Newspaper journalists can publish the column in newspaper and declare this as notable work, and how many of those are references are required minimum so that the article gets accepted at Wikipedia.

Check out WP:GNG as to what qualifies for notability. In a nutshell, it takes 2-3 articles from independent sources to show notability.

Thanks Rajasanj1 (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Rajasanj1

I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

09:49:14, 28 August 2015 review of submission by JKhade

• JKhade (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Asad Khan (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

You have declined the article with the reason "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability". Performing on the Nobel peace award stage not a notable?? Being a part of Academy award winning music is not a notable?? What is notability by your point of view??? There are other artists who not even achieved half of what he have achieved. They can have Wikipedia profile but not this guy?? I am giving up here. There are professional Wikipedia page editors contacting me and asking me to do this work professionally. If you people want me to this professionally then simply let me know it. But don't give me reasons that difficult to accept.JKhade (talk) 09:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Correcting formatting, signing & removing excessive spacing.
Also, note that we are not "professionals". We are all unremunerated, freewilled, titular volunteers. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 11:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Mattias Bärjed

Hi! Many thanks in writing what could actually be improved in the article draft (pointing to a general guideline is only efficient up to a certain point). It seems you werethe draft was lacking "substantial coverage". Now I've added a link to an interview, plus extra ref regarding the Guldbaggen, plus mention of the Gentlemen score Grammis nomination. Would these things make any difference? Allt the best.--Paracel63 (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Paracel63 - Now that you have an independent cite or the Guldbaggen award, that pretty much clinches it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks! Should the draft be resubmitted for another review?--Paracel63 (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I've added some more reference links now too, so I guess it's time for a re-review? Best, RKUV — Preceding unsigned comment added by RKUV (talk • contribs) 19:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I sure could use some specific help regarding what the draft is supposedly missing in "notability". He is indeed a prominent figure, from a swedish viewpoint it is especially hard to see what is crucially missing - since it seemed to be pretty much "clinched" above. Can you help, Wxidea? Is it a specific part that could use more references? Grateful for some words of advice. All the best, RKUV

14:11:59, 28 August 2015 review of submission by AnnandaleComms

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

AnnandaleComms (talk) 14:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi and thank you for your review. I had based the content on another associations' page - specifically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Wind_Energy_Association

Would you mind letting me know which sections in particular contravened the Wikipedia guidelines? As far as I could see there were no notes on there. I had also thought I'd adequately referenced publications (particularly news publications) so that it was suitably encyclopedic.

Any assistance much appreciated.

AnnandaleComms (talk) 14:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi AnnandaleComms - Not quite. While the other article does have a slight neutrality issue, this article is almost pure advertising. The priorities and leadership sections need to go away. The aims are given in the lead. You could also use a few more independent sources. Check out Google News. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

correction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pacers

Please advise why Lyn Treece has been omitted from the content of this page also, why you feel its necessary to erase him from the history of the team? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.135.63 (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It's uncited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Article entitled Ron Hendren

Thank you for your kindness in contacting me. You are right, I'm baffled and frustrated. My bio and national television credits speak for themselves. What do we need to do? There have been articles about me in TIME, Newsweek, The New York Times and TV Guide, to mention just a few. My thrice-weekly commentaries were published in many newspapers. I was, during my time at Entertainment Tonight, widely heralded as one of the principle contributors to its enormous early success. As for the TODAY program, TV Guide called my reviews "...perhaps NBC's finest hour", clearly hyperbole, but I was the nation's first on-air critic of television at a time when it was unheard of for networks to tolerate on-air negative criticism from within. Thanks in advance for any help you may be able to provide. I must confess that my "plus conlumn" does not include much computer operating literacy. But enough that you can reach me via email at rhendren@fmrealty.com 174.109.161.78 (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be more than happy to help, but I can not find which article you are speaking about. There is no article named Ron Hendren, nor a draft titled Draft: Ron Hendren. If you copy the title of the article you are referring to, and bracket the with double [[ brackets, then that will let me know what you are talking about. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

EURenOmics

Hi Onel5969,

I recently got your rejection of my proposed article about our research project EURenOmics Draft:EURenOmics.

Yes, I know that a lot of first authors get their articles turned down, but still I feel I’ve been given a “copy and paste” rejection. Especially the accusation of “advertisment”. As your own page does not indicate that you have any interest in science, please can I just make a few things clear: We are a group of mainly academic scientists, we do not have anything to sell, we don’t get any academic credit, nor nobel prizes, nor further research grants or career advancement from being on Wikipedia. Therefore we have NO NEED for advertising. We do the above things by publishing in scientific journals. EURenOmics partners have published over 100 such papers up to now, but I did not include them in the article, as they are often not accessible without payment to the public and usually require quite a lot of prior knowledge about the subject to understand the significance. A small number of start-up companies are part of our project, but they don’t even get any advertising on our own website, nor are there are links to the company pages from our own web page.

I just want to give you one example. We do INDEPENDENT research on atypical haemolytic uremic syndrome. This kidney disease is rare, but not as rare as you might think as it gets little press. One of the most expensive drugs around eculizumab is used to treat this disease. Now $300m per year is what I call commercial interest and an incentive to advertise. There’s a huge Wikipedia article about eculizumab and no one seems to mind the advertising side. (NB.: I don’t object to the article itself, as I think it is important to inform the public, but then even more so do they need to know about independent research into alternative treatments). So please say anything rubbish about my article, but not that its advertising. I think the public has a right to know what happens with EU taxpayers money, and that the EU sponsors a lot of very good research indeed. One of the Commission’s requests in more recent calls (not the one that we received funding through) is that more effort is made to make results available to the general public and not just the scientific community. That is one of the reasons why we considred it good practice to provide information to the public that is easily accessible.

I would be grateful if you could give me a more specific reply to what you thought was not objective and what kind of claims need more sources. That would be much more helpful. If you think referencing scientific papers is better, than I'm more than happy to do that.

regards --C gimpel (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi C gimpel - Here's the thing. Advertisements sell; articles tell. Sometimes it can be a fine line. In the case of your article, the issues come up in the research activities and press coverage sections. The first section could be re-written along the lines:

The organization's main focus is using technologies such as genomics/next generation sequencing, proteomics and metabolomics, to study pathogenesis and the treatment of kidney diseases such as:

• Steroid resistant nephrotic syndrome
• Membranous glomerulonephritis
• Tubulopathies
• Complement disorders such a haemolytic uremic syndrome
• Congenital kidney malformations

The consortium's scientists have access to one of the largest rare renal disease cohorts assembled to date, with detailed clinical information and comprehensive biorepositories of DNA, blood, urine, amniotic fluid and kidney tissue.

Regarding the press coverage, just saying that the organization is cited, and the WP:CITEKILL, is promotional. Work the valid references into the body of the article, citing specific facts. I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Take a look

.. at Lo Kauppi, Micael Bindefeld, Anna Bråkenhielm and Saga Becker.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Good Article question

Hello again, Onel5969! So, I've got a question for you. I've never gone through the Good article process, and I noticed your name here so I figured you at least knew the process. Anyway, I stumbled across the fact that Elisha Cuthbert was formerly a Good article, but was delisted (and last assessed) in 2010. So I assumed that this will be a good(heh) article to start out the Good article process with, because it's already been a Good article, and is still listed as "B-Class", so it probably shouldn't be too much work to get it back up to snuff.

So, my basic question is – what's the next step for me here ('cos I can't really figure it out!)? Thanks in advance for any help you can provide on how to launch this process! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi IJBall - I've only just begun nominating articles for GA status, so I might not be the best person to ask. The best advice I can give, is to review WP:GAN/I. There are 6 general criteria, which can be found at WP:GACR. Go over those. Once you're done with the article, review it yourself. If you feel it meets the criteria, nominate it. Then be patient. I've been waiting almost 3 months to have my first nomination reviewed. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, this is very useful – this is just what I was looking for. Thanks! (And, yeah – as with WP:NPP, I had gotten the impression that WP:GA has gotten backlogged...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 16:26:54, 29 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Mistamystery

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

Hi!

Looking for feedback on the DONDA company wiki page I created. I just re-submitted it with the bulk of the descriptive language (that you may have felt was peacocking ((not intentional! :)) removed.

It's been stripped down to the basic facts now - please do let me know if you feel these changes are sufficient! Mistamystery (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Mistamystery (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mistamystery - Yeah, looks much better. I'm going to let another editor take a turn reviewing it. I still feel that this company is only notable due to its connection with Kanye West, but another editor may see it differently. Nice job on the changes. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Bellerophon5685

What new references do you suggest I find to establish notability. Perhaps an overview of the subject in an academic journal?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

fact vs flowers

Thanks for your input on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:(S.G.)_Sinnicks

However, I seem to be missing something as regards facts vs "flowery language" "joined Canadian legend" - a fact that Stompin' Tom Connors IS a noted Canadian Legend, and Sinnicks joined his band & tour "he is now known across Canada and the U.S." - strictly a fact "the historic working-class" - quite literal, meaning the historic working class Irish who built Hamilton and various other towns, canals, locks, etc. in the area in the 1800s "received very positive reviews" - if this is trus and cited, how is it not a fact? "A constant supporter of the "working class" - also factual, Sinnicks is noted for his performance of working class, union & Irish national songs, especially at political events to which he is frequently invited "playing major music festivals" - perhaps a matter of some opinion as to what "major" means (if it's a difference between 20,000 and 100,000), but a fact nonetheless

"then there's the list of awards, not one of which is notable" - awards, by their very nature, are 'notable'; the one's Sinnicks has won are extremely notable locally and Nationally in Canada - some of his contemporaries (and people he has played/recorded with on numerous occasions) are not only listed in Wikipedia, but sans awards or much content even - though they have been awarded similar to Sinnicks in some cases. Point in case, Tom Wilson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wilson_%28musician%29 and his bands: (for example) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackie_and_the_Rodeo_Kings

Kamishiro (talk) 03:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Kamishiro

If you can't see the difference, then I can't help you. Take it easy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Whitaker AfD

Thanks for the source links - coverage outside AZ makes a difference, though it may not be significantly different. MSJapan (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 06:10:14, 31 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by 94.145.48.9

• 94.145.48.9 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:India: the Urban Transition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Regarding the citation of Harvard Professor Rahul Mehrotro would the website of his company (http://rmaarchitects.com/) be considered a "reliable" and "verifiable" source?

94.145.48.9 (talk) 06:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. No, not really, not for notability purposes. There are basically two types of references, those for verifiability and those for notability. The website you refer to is okay for the former, but not the latter. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 09:07:02, 31 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Roberta Buoite Stella

• Roberta Buoite Stella (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:HighStep System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Onel5969, I would really like to know more about the reason behind the decision of declining my article about the HighStep Sytem, if you don't mind. I would be extremely grateful for your input as an experienced Wikipedia editor, in order for me to try to improve it and create an article which could be useful for the users. Of course you may think we are just aiming at creating a marketing page, but that was not the thought behind the article. Our product is new and innovative, it received attention both from the press (despite mostly in German language) and the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. We are concerned with safety at work and want to contribute with a new safety concept in the world of working at heights. As we really believe in the role of Wikipedia as a source of knowledge, we would really like to be able to extend it with this new concept. Therefore, my question was: do you think with our current references do we deserve an article for our product and we only have to edit it in order to make it more neutral or do you think it doesn't meet at all the criteria of notability in order to be accepted? I would be happy to make any edits you think are necessary in order to respect the Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you very much in advance for your patience and your help! Kindest Regards, Roberta Buoite Stella (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Roberta Buoite Stella (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Roberta Buoite Stella - There are two main issues (and perhaps 3) with your article. One I did not know about until your message, and that is that this article has a conflict of interest issue. Wikipedia doesn't prohibit COI articles, but it is recommended against. Please read the link I just provided. At the least, you need to place a comment on the article letting other editors know there is a COI. The reason that COI articles are discouraged, is because it leads to the second major issue: the articles almost always read like an advert. The difference between an article and an advertisement is that adverts sell, articles tell. When you describe processes or "parts of the system", that becomes promotional. Sometimes its more of the tone. Sentences like "The development of the system continued and new climbing devices were invented (HighStep Easy, HighStep Protector and HighStep Lift), while the Rail remained always unchanged." and phrases like "The fall protection is ensured ..." go beyond simply telling and attempt to sell the product. I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969, thank you very much for your answer! I will definetely write my COI in a comment (I thought that it was enought to state it in my User page), furthermore I will edit the article to make it sound more neutral, and tell only the plain facts. Just one thing is not that clear: the list of the parts of the system was created to explain how the system works and what are the components, how can I do that otherwise? If I take that part out it's not very clear how the system works. Do you have any suggestion? Or maybe an example of a good article of such a complex product that describes it in a good way? Thank you again for your time :) --Roberta Buoite Stella (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit reverted from Dick Rowe page

Hi,

I was reading about Dick Rowe in Wikipedia and noticed a glaring error.

What is the procedure when you note a glaring error?

Just delete it?

I thought putting something in brackets with an explanation may have a third party evaluate and deem it worthy of deletion.

Just new to this stuff and want to know the best approach.

Cheers

Tone

Mowdamowda (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Mowdamowda

BTW, Al Hibbler was an American Jazz and pop singer and had nothing to do with Dick Rowe or the U.K. Decca label.

PS

Not sure what the four tildes mean or where they Mowdamowda (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC) should go.

Hi Mowdamowda - First the four tildes simply go at the end of your comment. They create a signature using your username. Second, when you see something which is incorrect, make the change. If other editors disagree with you, they will revert that change, then you can open up a discussion on the article's talk page. Putting parenthetical comments into an article is never a good idea, and they will always be reverted. In addition, I have no idea what point you were trying to make with your comment. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969,

Understand now. Thanks for the explanation. Will follow this in future.

Mowdamowda (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Following up on my article (ID Wholesaler)

Good morning, Onel5969 -

Thank you for taking the time to review my latest draft and provide a clarifying response to the changes I incorporated (referencing article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:ID_Wholesaler&redirect=no).

I do have a second article written by Internet Retailer on ID Wholesaler and can add that citation as well. We were recently awarded a Google Trusted Store badge for our exceptional customer service and shipping performance. In addition, we have received numerous awards over the past 11 years for our notable business acumen, customer service and website technology savvy. Would these accolades suffice as "in-depth?"

Also, can you please provide some clarification as to why the Advertising Age article was not "substantial?" The success of the promotion they covered is actually quite substantial for a small B2B organization.

Again, thank you for your time and consideration.

MaeDarla MaeDarla (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)MaeDarla

Hi MaeDarla - I'll answer the second question first, it's a few brief paragraphs in a trade publication. A second in-depth article from the same source isn't really going to help your notability. Notability isn't dependent on the size of a company, the same criteria are used for start-ups as to DJIA companies. As a general rule, if you had 3 articles like the IR one, but they were from more wide-spread sources (rather than industry sources, e.g. Washington Post, or the Minneapolis Star Tribune) that would qualify for notability, if industry trades are used, you'd probably need 5-6 of the size and quality of the IR article, from different sources. If the industry is so small that it only has 2 or 3 trades, than the sources can be duplicated, as long as the articles are separate. I hope this helps.

One other thing. You clearly have a conflict of interest on this article. That must be stated on the article, so that other editors can know. COI articles are discouraged, because they usually tend to get promotional in tone. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Gyrus Systems company page

Hello,

I understand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gyrus_Systems submission was declined due to not non-objective language and/or opinion.

I reviewed the site and all the references for non-objective language and/or opinion so it would be very helpful if you can give me specific examples.

Last week we won the Training Industry Top 20 Learning Management Systems watch list award https://www.trainingindustry.com/learning-technologies/top-companies-listings/2015/2015-learning-portal-companies-watch-list.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virenkapadia (talk • contribs) 15:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in advance.

Viren Kapadia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virenkapadia (talk • contribs) 15:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Virenkapadia - First off, please always remember to sign your comments, using the 4 ~'s (that automatically signs and puts a time stamp on your comment). Second, there is a conflict of interest issue with the article. Wikipedia frowns on, but does not prohibit, COI contributors. The reason being that it is very difficult for such editors to remain objective. Look at the COI guidelines, you need to place a COI statement on the article. Third, I actually did not decline it for a lack of objectivity. I didn't get that far. In its current state, the article does not meet the notability criteria as per WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Much of the article is based on a single article from a Richmond newspaper. There is another article from the same source. And the article from HR magazine, which is mostly about one of their pieces of software. That's it. The rest are brief mentions, or simple listings, or non-independent sources. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Gyrus draft FYI

Someone happened to come in and ask about this on IRC while I was there. The editor is clearly associated with the company, and while I don't know who it is, I'd venture a guess that it was whomever is the main/most recent contributor to the draft. I see no need to open a COI on a draft article that was declined, but it should be noted therein that it is a distinct possibility. MSJapan (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi MSJapan - another editor has tagged the article with the COI tag. See the comment right above this one regarding the article. Thanks for the heads up though! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

21:06:03, 31 August 2015 review of submission by RFreeman5713

• RFreeman5713 (talk · contribs)
  • User:RFreeman5713/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I just wanted to ask the reviewer if any of the citations in this draft article meet the criteria and, if so, which ones. Also, how many approved citations there need to be.

Thank you,

21:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)~Robin Freeman

RFreeman5713 (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi RFreeman5713 - There are two types of references/citations: those which are good to verify facts in the article, and those which are used to show notability. First of all, technically, you don't have any citations in this article. You have a list of "See also". But that's just semantics. If you had titled that section "References", then they would be references. But regarding them as valid references, let's call those which are good for verifying facts "A", those which are good for notability purposes "B" (which can also be used to verify), and those which aren't good for either, "C". You have 10 listed. In the "A" category are: 1, 2 (a very weak one), 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 10; in the "B" category - none; and in the "C" category: 4.

The book may or may not be useful. There is no page cited, so I have no idea. When a source can be used for verifying, it should be used as a footnote, not a general reference. If not, then your impulse to put it in a "See also" section is the right direction, although "See also" means that it points to another Wikipedia article. You'd want to create an "External links" section, and put them there. You should also learn how to format references. You can find out about citations at WP:CITE, and about formatting them at WP:CIT. You can also learn about what constitutes notability at WP:GNG, in general, citations should be in-depth from non-related sources. Typically those are newspapers, magazines, etc. (but not press releases). I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

21:22:04, 31 August 2015 review of submission by Wills473

• Wills473 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:C. L. Edson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear One15969:

I'm not requesting a re-review at this time, but I have some questions for the reviewer.

I see that the response paragraph outlining your reason for declining my submission is boilerplate, so I’m not sure if all of the violations enumerated are actually a problem in my submission. For example, I don’t see an example of a peacock term, and also don’t understand the problem with my references.

Respectfully, I would appreciate it if you could point to examples of what you have in mind as violations of encyclopedic style. Also, the reviewer of the previous submission of the article cited length as a problem, but this version is much shorter. Can I assume the article’s current length is acceptable?

Best regards,

wills473

Wills473 (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Wills473 (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wills473 - You're absolutely right, it is a canned response. To be more specific, peacock terms are those which build up the subject in a subjective way. Sometimes they are not grandiose terms, but are more simple, such as saying "major New York newspapers". Drop the major, it's subjective, and mean to puff up the comment. But I don't see a lot of peacock terminology. In your case, it's more of a style issue, phrases like "Edson’s father was educated, and driven to become wealthy", "the dream of a socialist paradise", "furnishing it on Edson’s modest salary was proving difficult", "He immersed himself in primitive backwoods life, fishing, raising corn, smoking his own meat, and cutting railroad ties for cash." "arrived in possession of the inside story of the Appeal to Reason debacle", "But Edson was not destined to remain long in this job either". These are examples of informal writing, not of an encyclopedia article. Your article is chock full of them.

In addition, you have quite a few statements in your article which make declarative statements, without any sourcing, such as: "a staple of newspapers at the time", "In the wake of a scandal Edson was dismissed, although he had nothing to do with the false reporting.", "But Brentano's, his publisher, felt that the book might stimulate more interest if promoted with a teaser advertising campaign." These are just a few.

Overall, there is way too much detail about his personal motivations, too much detail about each of the books. When you become overly detailed, that in and of itself is form of "puffing" up the subject. I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Antoni Koper

Thank you for reviewing and accepting Antoni Koper. I realize that I could have created the article without submitting it for review by AFC, but I am eager to become a better editor, and hoped to learn how to improve my contributions based on the feedback. I have to admit, as I review the examples of other start class and c class articles, I am a bit disappointed and confused by the start class designation. Please don't misunderstand me: I don't mean to challenge or question that determination in any way. I just want to better understand it. I know this is a lot to ask, but would you be so kind as to offer me some specific advice about how I might improve the article to a c-class article?( Due to the limited verifiable encyclopedic content available on the topic, I doubt it will ever qualify for b-class.) I know the article needs an image; I'm expecting one to be available in the commons by the end of the week. But otherwise, I'm unsure how to proceed. Thank you in advance for any assistance or advice you might offer. Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Malcom Gregory Scott - No worries. It was a borderline call, I relooked and moved it to a C. The difference is depth. I don't think anyone will argue with a C designation. Pictures are nice, but not required. There are C articles with no picture. No B articles, but C. Overall, nice job. Keep it up. And don't be afraid to ask questions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to reconsider. Your decision and your message are both very encouraging. Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

22:15:35, 31 August 2015 review of submission by 108.222.145.105

• 108.222.145.105 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Angel "Pato" García (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Onel5969, thank you for reviewing my article.

When writing this article, I made sure to follow Golden Rule and to use verifiable, independent sources (such as: Diario ABC Color and Primera Edicion Newspaper).

As far as the notoriety of the artist, if you simple Google "Pato Garcia" you can see pages and pages of results, including photos and videos. This is the biggest artist out for Missiones, Posadas and very well known not only in Norther Argentina, but in Paraguay, Italy and in the latin folk music world.

Please kindly re-review or provide me with suggestions as to how to improve this article. But it is a true shame that such an artist does not have his own wikipedia page.

Thanks!

108.222.145.105 (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi - you simply need to add more independent sources, if they are that big, that shouldn't be an issue. You should have at least 4. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)