User talk:SwisterTwister/Archive 11
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:SwisterTwister. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
18:39:28, 31 July 2017 review of submission by Shs326
Thanks for your review. I am new to Wikipedia, so I apologize if my work is not yet up to par. I have added additional references; hopefully they will be adequate. If the article is rejected again, I would at least like to stop the current Levantine Films link from redirecting to Donna Gigliotti's page. On her page, there is no mention of Levantine Films; in addition, it says that she is currently the head of Tempesta Films. This could be confusing. Please advise. Shs326 (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Incorrect title
Why did you do this edit without fixing the obviously incorrect title? That seems to happen in most cases where an article is moved from the Draft space to the Article space. Shouldn't things like that be routine? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- I see both words are mentioned in the article, so I couldn't know which one was the best formal; although I would imagine it was "spectrum", since it was in the bold lead. SwisterTwister talk 19:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
WP:AFC & #Wikipedia-en-help Suggestion
Hello Swister! I've had concerns brought to me by some of our volunteers in -help on IRC recently. We have had an influx of helpees that are a little confused by one of the comments you routinely make on drafts. Mainly the "please add all additionally available sources" that seems to be recurring. May I suggest you rephrase it to something along the lines of "please add additional relevant reliable sources" this may cut down on the confusion and we'd have fewer people on IRC asking about using spammy/barely relevant sources. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Pls Review Draft:DAWN ODG
I've updated the draft pls check it out Draft:DAWN ODG KofiEdward (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Pls those previously deleted page of Dawn ODG we done by people who had lesser knowledge about Wikipedia and that damage is causing the delay of get his Articles on Wikipedia KofiEdward (talk) 09:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Re: Draft:Priya Hiranandani-Vandrevala
Hi SwisterTwister. On my UserTalk page, you will see my response to your 28 July comment. Huon, one of your fellow Wikipedia editors, kindly pinged it to you on 29 July. Perhaps I shouldn't have messaged you from my UserTalk page, but your Comment line there did provide me the "edit source" option, so I used it. I will try again to hone/improve the profile in order to meet Wikipedia's standards. In the meantime, if there is any specific advice that you can provide me regarding the references that currently appear in the article, I will very much appreciate any advice and direction you can provide. Thanks again for all your assistance to date, and best regardsIan.fraser1 (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Draft: Vision Hope International
Hi SwisterTwister. I edited a new article for submission for Vision Hope International that you had rejected because of notability. I changed a number of the references, eliminated all of the information that I felt could be reviewed as "business-esque", and made the article more generic and less detailed.
Thank you for your comments and criticism. I hope that this draft is a much improved version from the first one that I submitted. If there is anything I can do to improve it, please let me know.
Warm regards JosidRidolfo (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
18:19:17, 1 August 2017 review of submission by Yiginerd
Yiginerd (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi SwisterTwister, is there any part of the submission that you felt like an advert. Can you help sanitize the language so we can get the word out to all those students in the developing world that, yes, they can finance that education opportunity in the US without cosigner.?
Mpower is a notable organization as it is one of the few lenders that give student loans to international students who cannot get loans from traditional lenders, which require a US credit history. The company was studied by the Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank for MPOWER's new lending business model that did not require cosigners. A similar company called "Prodigy Finance" has a page with comparable language. I am not sure why this article is much different than that of Prodigy Finance. Even the Google search that international students cannot get student loans without a cosigner (below paid ads, link below):
Yiginerd (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
20:19:09, 1 August 2017 review of submission by Yiginerd
Yiginerd (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
SwisterTwister, thanks for your recommendation for including more resources. I asked for help from the live chat and they identified a few links which they found disreputable. Therefore, I removed them (Techcrunch, company website, and press releases). I added more press coverage from other industry journals (American Banker), an Indian newspaper which highlights how much MPOWER impacts the lives of international students (I am also an international student, who faced financial challenges while studying in the US, because I did not qualify for Federal loans). There is also a bio written by an educational institution (INSEAD) in France. There were also references in the original draft from US News and Forbes in addition to industry blogs such as Nerdwallet. Instead of deleting, please let me know what else I can do to improve the article. Thanks! Yiginerd (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
21:04:30, 1 August 2017 review of submission by Yiginerd
Yiginerd (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC) Thanks, SwisterTwister. I removed the links that could be seen as self-announcements. We now have references left from an academic institution, a central bank, national newspapers/magazines and consumer blogs. Let me know if this is sufficient. Thanks once again for your specific instructions. Yiginerd (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Articles
I see that you have left a message on my talk page saying Advertising will not be accepted. Could you please be more specific on which article you are referring to. User:Glany222 talk 07:25, 01 Aug 2017 (UTC)
- It seems, Glany22 I was referring to the article you started in March, which in its current condition, it formatted instead as a business profile and is without the needed major independent news and, remember that announcements, notices or similar cannot be weighed into notability itself or its achieving it (notability cannot be inherited either). SwisterTwister talk 21:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Draft article comments
I don't know if you were aware of this discussion from a couple of months ago for a recent draft article you commented on. ww2censor (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
13:05:36, 2 August 2017 review of submission by Wspr81
Thanks for looking over the page, I appreciate your time.
I've added better formatting to the references to demonstrate that media coverage was from organisations independent of the ASB. I've added stats to the conference that is organised by the ASB (>800 attendees per year). I've added funding (NZ$48,000) received in New Zealand to facilitate National Biomechanics Day, which is lead by the ASB.
I recognise that the page is relatively brief but I'm hoping it can be built upon over time. Do the above demonstrate the notability of the topic?
Best regards, Wspr81 (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Review waiting for GEC article
Hi there - firstly, thanks so much for your time spent assisting and editing. Really is appreciated. I have a quick question about the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Green_Economy_Coalition It states the article has been re-submitted and is pending re-review, but your comment from 5th July (after the submission) seems to suggest it has already been declined? Thanks TheseGlyphs (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)TheseGlyphs
Draft: Maltz Jupiter Theatre
Hello Swister, your comment on the draft submission of Maltz Jupiter Theatre requested all reviews... There are quite a few over the theatre's history. Attached are some references.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Where would I include these in a submission? They seem too specific for mention anywhere organically. Thank you!
While I have your attention, I also want to ask about my draft for Invictus Security. Your comment was that my sources weighed "only as announcements or notices," which I agree with as to a couple, but four were community interest pieces in the company or major news coverage of events... The company's involvement in major world events, as evidenced by the credible references, seems to give it notoriety and notability. The sources I originally included were the most credible, unbiased, encyclopedic sources I could discover regarding the company. Are you sure they don't qualify? Daveortrud1 (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ http://www.broadwayworld.com/people/news/Maltz-Jupiter-Theatre/
- ^ http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/entertainment/arts--theater/review-maltz-jupiter-theatre-stages-powerful-version-frost-nixon/2fhp4qZZokFk72o97IMjzL/
- ^ http://www.sun-sentinel.com/florida-jewish-journal/news/broward/fl-jjbs-musical-0621-20170614-story.html
- ^ http://www.southfloridatheatrescene.com/2013/02/maltz-jupiter-theatre-doubt-reviews.html
- ^ http://www.talkinbroadway.com/page/regional/sfla/sfla553.html
- ^ http://palmswestmonthly.com/2017/03/29/review-vicki-lewis-triumphs-in-gypsy-at-maltz/
Draft: Dr. Marisa Navarro
Dear SwisterTwister,
thanks for taking the time to review the Draft:Dr. Marisa Navarro. I have introduced two more references, that I hope you find significant and relevant. If you think they are not solid or relevant, no worries. I only wanted to help talking about this doctor mentioned, in this pages on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_well-being
I understand, that Emotional well-being, is a modern medical disclipline, and there is only a little infomration about it, ins spite of been scientifically proven. This another the reason why I decidec to write, this draft about her, because Dr. Marisa Navarro, is one of the most representative person on this medical speciality.
Thanks anyway, I wish you a happy day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanessa Brizu (talk • contribs) 09:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
AptarGroup Article
Hi,
You were kind enough to give my article a review. Per your template, I gave it another shot. Please give it a look when you can.
Out of an overabundance of caution: I again declare my COI as an employee of AptarGroup.
Cheers,
Submission at Articles for creation: Siltanen & Partners (August 3)
First off, thank you for taking the time to review my submission, I hope to able to sufficiently address your concerns for eventual publication. In your comment, you mentioned that notability cannot be inherited. However, given the nature of the organization as an advertising agency, Siltanen & Partners notable work is always going to be attached to other business. The significance of an advertising agency is inextricably tied to its current and past client roster. That's not to say that the work isn't significant in it's own right. In the industry, the work of it's founder, Rob Siltanen is well known; his "Think Different" manifesto he wrote for Apple was used in lectures by multiple professors of mine as I pursued a degree in advertising.
Additionally when you critiqued the article's "information and sources [as] being tied to announcements or notices", it doesn't seem like a fair characterization. Many of the cited sources are news stories which feature Siltanen & Partners as the main focus, with any client mentions serving as anecdotal. And when the reverse is true (i.e. articles' headlines being about a brand's advertising campaign), the write ups are sourced from well-known industry publications and confirm Siltanen's work on the client's behalf. The few "announcements" included (press releases from businesses represented by Siltanen and Partners) seemingly would be a legitimate means to verify client relationships, campaign statistics, and dates.
I would appreciate that you revisit the submission. Not to say that its perfect in its current form (as I am new to wikipedia and can make more specific adjustments if you were to provide them) but I do think the idea that a company can't "inherit notability" is a bit silly when the business's function is to build their client's notability and having notable clients connotes prestige in the industry.
Again, I appreciate your feedback, I'm just a little frustrated that you seemingly wrote off the entire submission when other advertising agencies have similar pages.
AdHound (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- AdHound First, about the other articles, our policies have dramatically changed recently so we'll inevitably and currently are re-examining past articles; but as for yours, what you'd need is to emphasize all the best amounts of major independent news and not simply any still tied to announcements or notices, which wouldn't count into notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
New at AfC
I've recently signed on as a participant at AfC. I see that you do a lot of work there. My expectation is that for the near future, I will mostly see articles that I can only comment on, the case for accept or decline sufficiently unclear for my inexperienced eyes. I hope that my adding comments strikes you as consistent with the goals of the project. If you think I'm off base in my comments or confusing the submitters, I can back off. Just let me know. Thanks. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Jmcgnh Yes, and you're welcome to ask for any help on anything. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Draft:Global Cryosphere Watch
I understand your comments on the draft Global Cryosphere Watch (GCW) entry regarding notability and promotion, but I'd like to point out that they are inconsistent with many other Wikipedia entries. See, for example, the entries for the Global Atmosphere Watch, the International Association for Cryospheric Sciences, and the Global Climate Observing System. I'm sure I could find hundreds more that are promotional in nature and have few, if any, links to "major independent news". They are, nevertheless, very important and having Wikipedia entries is completely appropriate (in my opinion). The Global Cryosphere Watch was approved by and is part of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), which is a United Nations organization with about 190 countries as members! That alone makes it worth having a Wikipedia entry for GCW. Having said all that, I added many links which I hope will satisfy the requirements. Jeffreyrkey 14:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. Just wanted to let you know you might want to be more careful about accepting AfC submissions in the future. I saw you accepted 2016–17 Swansea City A.F.C season a few days ago, but we already had an article by an albeit similar title at 2016–17 Swansea City A.F.C. season. Just thought you'd like to know. – PeeJay 18:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Draft:Purposeful Organisations
Thank you for helping me on my afs Purposeful Organisations swistertwister. I have added a whole heap of new content. I'm still learning the ropes here, but I look forward to any advice or feedback to get this one out to the wiki world!! colin Colin iles (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- hmmm, I seem to have picked up the links from the jupiter theatre by upsidelms. not sure how that happend and sincere apologies.
Request on 16:22:14, 7 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Lisa Hannam
- Lisa Hannam (talk · contribs)
Hi there,
I've changed the sources a few times to be more inline with the standards. But for some reason it's not saving my changes. What am I doing wrong?
SPI requests
Thank you for reported suspected sockpuppet accounts over at SPI. CUs will greatly appreciate and process these cases faster if in future you can add some diffs to allow for easy comparison, especially those where the evidence is the strongest when paired. In the meantime, keep up the great work at AfC. :) - Mailer Diablo 19:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Request on 21:57:40, 7 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Jakemadoff210
Hey, I see what you're saying and have made the necessary changes, including major independent news stories about the company.
Request on 00:24:26, 8 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Vanessalua
- Vanessalua (talk · contribs)
HI. I tried to create a page and I have failed several times. I was wondering if maybe the page I am trying to create is not relevant yet.
I am trying to create the page for director Xan Aranda. If you look for her on wikipedia you can see that there are 7 topics that mentioned her but she doesn't have her own page.
Any advise would be appreciate it.
Thanks Vanessalua (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be an unusual COI, there are two sock groups, one is trying to promote the company's former founder Dr. Paul Nguyen (left in 2009) and another group is trying to add the recent products of View, two groups with two different goals. The page has a history of edit war and needs the attention of a senior editor to create neutral content and fixing history. Can you look into this? Also opened a Sockpuppet investigation to block the farm. Sundartripathi (talk) 04:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- I agree and it's the usual signs of such activities. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- SwisterTwister, true, added a few more probable sock accounts right from the creation of the page. Sundartripathi (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- I agree and it's the usual signs of such activities. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Conflict of interest
Sundartripathi seems to be related to the accounts Jmplaton and 14kawadat who seem to be working for View. They have been trying to replace existing contents in a sweeping manner with inaccurate information under the guise of neutrality, while making legal threats and violating copyrights. Please review their history. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkrause038 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Hi SwisterTwister, thanks for your recent thanks, ive been looking at some cleanup lists in relation to Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge, and doing some easy fixes.
Review of Bram Bessoff Page 31 July 2017
Hi There,
I see that you reviewed my Bram Bessoff submission. He is a noted music industry professional, of which I took the time to demonstrate via the sources provided. Could you elaborate on why you do not believe the article meets the notability standards?
Thanks 375mon (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- I am still awaiting your reply. Please respond.375mon (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- 375mon It would still benefit from all other existing major independent significant news. SwisterTwister talk 16:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Comments on my AfC drafts
Hi SwisterTwister, I'm a bit confused by your comments on my AfC draft (Gelsey Bell). Would you mind explaining? Do you mean add more citations to both? There are many more reviews of their performances out there, but I didn't cite them because they didn't have any additional information that I thought would add to the article - usually just a synopsis of the show/their role, and some praise, both of which I'd already gotten from other references. Paracosmstalk 18:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, Paracosms add more and emphasize the best ones at least and this will give the page some extra weight. SwisterTwister talk 18:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Request on 16:50:37, 11 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by ReturnZero
- ReturnZero (talk · contribs)
I modeled the article off the already published article about Boosted (company). This article is much like an "advertised business profile" which you said is means for not publishing; however, the Boosted article has been accepted. Also, you said the sources were inadequate, but they are virtually no different from the sources on the Boosted article. There doesn't seem to be a reason the Boosted article should be accepted but not mine.
18:19:37, 14 August 2017 review of submission by Stephanie.sanz1932
I have added another review/reference from Time Out New York. How many references would you suggest? The articles of similar subjects only have a few references, so far fewer than the 19 I have now included on this subject. Examples of similar subjects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Smith_III https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Bergonzi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seamus_Blake Stephanie.sanz1932 (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
20:42:26, 14 August 2017 review of submission by Robertmooers
- Robertmooers (talk · contribs)
The reason given for the rejection of the post was, not enough noteworthy citations or references. One of the problems in the manufacturing industry is, there's quite a bit of tribal knowledge especially when it comes to the development and adoption of technology. The timeline submitted as reference is a best account of the development of MBD (Model-Based Definition) that I can come up with. Verisurf is the first company to develop the concept of MBD for use in a PC environment. Once this claim is approved and posted to Wikipedia we welcome anyone who would like to challenge the claim. There is a small circle of metrologists within the CMS (Coordinate Measuring Society) we have reached out to for possible additional references. Our attempts in writing the post have been as objective as possible, avoiding any adverting or promotional descriptions - just the facts. We will continue to research sources/citations about the subject and post additional references. In the meantime, we would appreciate you approving the post so we and the industry can continue to refine the page going forward.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Robert
- Robertmooers In this case, what the Draft needs is all other existing significant sources (any amount, since we have no limits), but they simply can't be announcements or notices or similar, since we won't consider those significance in establishing notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- As a minor note, we do have practical limits (see WP:CITEKILL). Primefac (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
21:37:49, 14 August 2017 review of submission by Nealpolitan
- Nealpolitan (talk · contribs)
I am requesting a re-review because I am a college student and we had an assignment to create a wikipedia page on a person you were interested in doing research on. I have edited and resubmitted my page multiple times but no further feedback has been given. My project is due at the end of August so I would love advice on how to get my page up as soon as possible! Thank you.
- Nealpolitan Guinness World Records is not an immediate factor of notability here, but please add all other existing significant independent news and not simply announcements or notices as (wherever published), they won't count. Also, as with all subjects, notability cannot be inherited. SwisterTwister talk 21:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Review of Draft:Horace Mann Educators Corporation
Hi SwisterTwister,
Thank you for your feedback on our page. I've gone back and added additional independent references and feel that it is ready for review again. If not, I'd love to get some more information on what else I can add to make the references ready to go. I appreciate it!
HM Aaron (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- HM Aaron Yes, and this helps on a start, but please still add all other existing ones to enhance the article; also, keep to mind that anything still tied to mainly announcements, notices or similar won't establish the needed weight in notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Request on 18:11:42, 15 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by RobRombouts
- RobRombouts (talk · contribs)
I put together a page on the Faculty of Social Science (University of Western Ontario), which was declined with a comment about not generally allowing pages on individual faculties.
I was not sure why this is the case for this article when there are other examples of faculty pages which contain less information:
University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Toronto_Faculty_of_Arts_and_Science
University of Waterloo Faculty of Arts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Waterloo_Faculty_of_Arts
What type of additional information might be necessary to make the page more notable?
Re-review of Cassantec AG
Hello SwisterTwister,
You recently reviewed my Cassantec AG page. I made the necessary additions and changes-- would you mind re-reviewing the page?
Best, Daninguyen0 (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- Daninguyen While I see the article has information and sources, we would still need all other existing major independent news in independent publications, and we also cannot accept anything influenced or tied to an announcement, notice, etc. since these wouldn't count into notability, even if we considered the publication's name. SwisterTwister talk 18:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Sumana Secondary School
Hi. Can I ask why you accepted Sumana Secondary School at AfC, when none of the references verify the material they are claimed to support? Surely that is a clear reason for declining a draft? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
FxPro Article
Hello SwisterTwister,
Thank you for the review of FxPro draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:FxPro
Please note that this article was created based on the structure of the articles of other brokers, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMC_Markets, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Group
Could you please advise what could be done with the article, so that it gets approved?
Mcmikhedoff (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- (Helping out here) Most of our articles on Fx brokers need to be deleted. Unfortunately, it will take a while until we get all of them done, tho we did delete an earlier article on this company. There's lots of junk still in WP, and copying it doesn't help. I will look at the two articles you mention..
- I can tell you an excellent way to get an article on your company in WP. Wait until the company is important enough that someone unconnected with the company writes one. Take care of your business, and advertise somewhere else. DGG ( talk ) 13:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hello DGG( talk ). Thank you for the comments. Do you think those two articles that I indicated above should be nominated for deletion? Or should they remain? What is the line between the forex articles that can remain, and the ones that do not? Regarding the unconnected editor - from my point of view it looks like a way to encourage undeclared paid editions, rather than the person manifesting their “conflict of interest“. Anyways, could you please advise what could be done with the article, so that it gets approved? Mcmikhedoff (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- As I said, the way to get an article approved is to wait until the company is important enough that someone unconnected with the company writes one.
- As for the present version, if it is moved to article space, I would advise nominating it for deletion. If it remains in draft space, it will probably be automatically deleted in 6 months. If you want it removed sooner, place a line reading {{db-author}} at the top of the page. DGG ( talk ) 14:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I got your point. However, could you please answer the question regarding IG and CMC pages, and the line between the forex articles that can remain, and the ones that do not? Moreover, CMC article was created by CMC Markets PLC user, and IG article was edited by IGwikiedit user.
- Hello SwisterTwister, could you please give your opinion on this issue?
- Mcmikhedoff (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
"All sourcing"
You need to stop requesting "all sourcing" from editors. I've seen this a bunch lately, and I'm not quite sure why you're doing it. Including all sources is a great reason for declining an article, not for accepting it. Quality over quantity; we do not want a billion first-party sources or trivial mentions. We want only reliable sources that support encyclopedic information found in the article. Assuming this is just an issue of wording, I'd recommend asking for "more reliable sources which support notability and verify article contents". This better explains our inclusion criteria and other core content policies to new editors. ~ Rob13Talk 02:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Actually based on even the sources I've witnessed in recent AfC Drafts, they included literal press releases and republishers company notices; by saying "more relibale sources", it wouldn't actually be relevant since such forementioned sources wouldn't fit that. As for the sources, I actually mention how such press releases are unacceptable regardless of where it was hosted. Quality, not quantity is actually not relevant since the quality of sources was both far too few and empty on showing Notability. I've never at all claimed we need a billion sources, instead I've said "all other existing news that isn't tied to the company itself". As an ending note, I never at all said "all sourcing" but instead a serious focus on meaningful sources and this is exactly what WP:Notability cites as its text. SwisterTwister talk 02:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- You're replying as if I'm commenting on a specific article. I am not. I'm commenting based on a pattern I've observed for myself over the past month or so and which has been pointed out to me going back much farther than that. Search "Draft: add all sources" in your search bar. You will find nothing but your own comments asking editors to add all sources (with various different choices of phrasing, of course). For one example, see Draft:Gontães, where you acknowledge notability but ask for "all additional major sources". This is just incorrect advice, any way you slice it. Does it need more sources? Yes. More reliable sources that support the article content. Not "all additional major sources". While I'm trying to approach this in the spirit of critical feedback rather than something "formal", I do want to be clear that this is a warning to you that a particular pattern of incorrect advice must stop. Giving incorrect advice to new editors on a consistent basis and failing to adjust your advice to feedback may be disruptive and could be sanctioned as such. There's no reason for this to go in that direction; this is as simple as adjusting how you phrase things. ~ Rob13Talk 02:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- And I have rephrased things and yet I got another criticism within instant time; therefore how would it be disruptive if I'm getting the same message? In the linked Draft above, I meant major to signify major published sources. I can't see how this can be rephrased anything differently beyond maybe "significant" instead. SwisterTwister talk 02:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Also, your example is from January; the last message I got about this was a coup weeks ago. Therefore the above example is highly non-relevant. Can you find any examples of concerning comments in a recent context, especially since the last thread which can be found in the talk page history? SwisterTwister talk 02:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- I've seen things about recently, but I don't keep track of them in a notepad or anything like that; I'm commenting generally. I provided one example to show you what I mean. Focus on either (a) additional sourcing needed for notability, or (b) additional sourcing needed for verifiability when you're communicating to newcomers. The emphasis should be on policies/guidelines, not adding sources for the sake of adding sources, and it's the job of the reviewer to explain the policies. The word "all" should never be used. ~ Rob13Talk 04:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- As you can see from any review I've made in the last 2 months, I've explicitly stated "all existing" or "other existing" and I never have inserted anything else. In fact, I should note I actually rotate my statements ever other month or so (as I always have for years now), so something from January is especially outdated. As for (b), I actually currently use a variant of that and it's "additional sources overall" or "additional sources for enhancing"; I've used this because they not only comment the article is currently supposedly verified, but whether it still needs any changes for final acceptance; therefore, because some pages are in fact verified, but there's simply not enough accompanying sources. Vice versa, there are articles where they were notable, but indeed additional sources would've enhanced it. There's been criticism and even AfD nominations simply because the article wasn't enhanced enough. This is also because there have been AfC authors who state "I have other sources that I can add if you need them", and this happened so frequently, it became clear they would only understand it if they were told to add all of them; simply saying "additional" hasn't ever answered their question because they'll actually ask for a specific number. Because I can't know how many sources they actually have access to, I therefore use "all". After all, WP:Notability says multiple. A lot of the pages where I would've commented about this was where there was either 1 or 2 simple sources as either "sentences" or a "quick line" of a source. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. "All existing" is still wrong. If there is confusion, it is your job as a reviewer to explain to them what the actual requirements are (WP:GNG and WP:V). You obviously shouldn't be taking a shortcut by delivering incorrect advice just to avoid that more detailed explanation. You may wish to type up a detailed explanation, save it in a text file, and copy-paste if you dislike typing out the detail. ~ Rob13Talk 16:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Re. Ronnie D. Green
The source of the photo uploaded previously, http://www.unl.edu/chancellor/administration, includes the statement "All photos this page available via CC BY-SA license." If I re-upload, will the photo be deleted again? Bcrisler (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Bcrisler As long as there's licensed use as by the necessary requirements, it can be accepted. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Draft:John C. Pollock
I saw your note at Draft:John C. Pollock. I declined because there were almost no inline citations. Regardless of what WP:PROF says, WP:BLP supersedes it and inline citations are necessary. Now, if you really did mean "the comments themselves" then I rescind my statement, but my decline had nothing to do with PROF-related issues. Primefac (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- Primefac. WP:PROF is an independent criterion for inclusion. It is of course still subject to BLP--there needs to be documentation ofthe claims. There documentation must come from a reliable source, not necessarily a third party source. It has been consistently held in dozens of discussions at RSN and AFD that the official school website is a RS for the plain facts of a career, and that if this shows something that meets any of the specifics at WP:PROF, nothing more is needed. If it is necessary to show being an authority in one's field, this is based upon citations, and Google Scholar (or ISI Or Scopus) for the citation information necessary to show the importance. But, let us say that you disagree with these statements. The way to upset them is to do so in a discussion, usually done of the basis of some test AfDs to see the community feeling. It is not appropriate to not repeatedly hammer on individual instances, especially on individual instances created by a single editor--an editor whose articles on academic faculty have almsot always been approved by the community. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- DGG, I have genuinely no idea what your point is. This post is eight days old, was already archived, and your reply has almost nothing to do with my decline or ST's reply (via edit summary). I commented here because I misinterpreted that ST was commenting on my "lack of inline citations" decline, which he wasn't. This means that everything after
It is of course still subject to BLP
in your statement above is basically moot. I'm happy to discuss the merits and detractors to PROF as they relate to BLP, but hijacking an archived post from another user's page isn't really the best way to start that discussion. Primefac (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)- My point is that BLP is not a problem here: the official sources from the university adequately reference the material and are reliable enough both for WP:V and WP:RS. In 10 years working on this material I've found only 1 genuine and 1 possible misstatements in academic CVs. The only CVs that are really problematic are those of politicians. As for hijacking, I try to correct misunderstandings about WP:PROF whenever I see them. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- DGG, I have genuinely no idea what your point is. This post is eight days old, was already archived, and your reply has almost nothing to do with my decline or ST's reply (via edit summary). I commented here because I misinterpreted that ST was commenting on my "lack of inline citations" decline, which he wasn't. This means that everything after
Request on 21:33:21, 19 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Petroblivion
- Petroblivion (talk · contribs)
Petroblivion (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to review the Oblivion wiki submission. I was hoping you provide a little more insight on what needs to be updated. I used the other two bands using the name "Oblivion" as a guide. In my opinion, my submission has more secondary sources that are verifiable. If you review both of those pages, many of the sources Oblivion_(metal_band) sites are links that do not corroborate the wiki page. That page only has two unrelated sources of the band, with one being an article on Blabbermouth, written by a friend.
Our band is signed through tribunal records subsidiary label Divebomb records and our CD has more distribution than either of the other two Oblivions. If you Google "Oblivion: Cyclogenesis: songs for Armageddon" you will note the global distribution and availability through major retail outlets such as Best Buy, Target, Walmart, Amazon, etc. I can reduce the page if that helps or I can include more links to reviews. I appreciate your insight and direction. I am simply a novice with Wikipedia and I am using the other two submissions as my direction to have our page included. Our label has other bands that appear on Wikipedia as well.
Thank you,
Bob Username: Petroblivion
Nomination of Union Cane for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Union Cane is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Union Cane until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Whpq (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
20:33:53, 21 August 2017 review of submission by Jakemadoff210
Hi SwisterTwister,
I have made the edits you recommended and have added major news sources.
Let me know what you think.
Thank you.
Request on 09:27:56, 23 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Khachik Gevorgyan
Khachik Gevorgyan (talk) 09:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Can You please help me with this article about BetCOsntruct, I can't understand what sources will I use to show the notability of the subject. I found the articles about similar companies with similar sources on wikipedia and I tried to do the same. But You still decline my
Request on 09:28:09, 23 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Khachik Gevorgyan
Khachik Gevorgyan (talk) 09:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Can You please help me with this article about BetCOsntruct, I can't understand what sources will I use to show the notability of the subject. I found the articles about similar companies with similar sources on wikipedia and I tried to do the same. But You still decline my suggestion.
Spam account
Can you please look at the contributions of Akshaygn. You might find another sock farm. Sundartripathi (talk) 04:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
You are archiving ANI too fast
As I've mentioned to you before [1], ANI threads need to stay on ANI for at least 24 hours after closing, so that editors in all time zones and with all log-in schedules can view the close on the board. Note that the closing times and dates are in UTC time. So to ensure you do not archive too quickly, you'll need to Google utc time and subtract one day from that, and then make sure you do not archive any thread that was closed after that time and date. Going forward, please ensure that you wait at least 24 hours after the close before you archive. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 08:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Random Article
Hello, I am SahabAliwadia and if your are looking for random AfC submission, I have one. It is Draft:Irsa Ghazal. Not a very new submission, but one day old. Look it and give me comments about it. Thankyou. SahabAliwadia 09:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
We do have limits
Please, please, please, stop telling people that there are no limits when it comes to sourcing. It falls afoul of CITEKILL, BOMBARD, MASK, and a half-dozen other essays that specifically state that we only need a few references for any particular sentence/paragraph/section. Sure, a draft may need "more sourcing", but it never needs "everything you can find". This is the second time in a week that this has been discussed with you, yet it appears that you're choosing not to listen and instead simply changed your wording from "all available sourcing" to "we have no limits". That doesn't fix the issue. Bad advice is almost worse than no advice at all. Primefac (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- I was asked by ST to look at this: I interpret was said as "we have no fixed limits" not that we prefer to get everything we can. I do think my suggested wording here is a little clearer. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- DGG, certainly, your wording is clearer, but as mentioned by Rob above (and became clear very quickly in a recent case regarding a new AFC reviewer) we are dealing with new editors who often have no idea what we're talking about. 85% of the people coming into the IRC help room are asking how they can improve their drafts, and many of them ask us what the reviewer meant in their "decline" comments (and yes, I'm referring to all reviewers, not just ST); it's super-important for us to be very clear about what we say when we reply to those with questions so they don't need to come into IRC for further clarification.
- We (the AFC reviewers) interpret phrases like "all available sourcing" or "there are no limits" as "please add more reliable sources" because we've been doing this for years, but it's sometimes easy to forget how much we've learned simply by hanging around for a while. There's nothing wrong with breaking things down to a simple level; we're not getting style points for brevity or wit. Thus, I'm just requesting that SwisterTwister put some thought into how they respond. Maybe a userspace template? Primefac (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, Primefac, I have been trying to get consensus for some time now, to simplify & rewrite all the AFC templates. As far as you know , is there any place whee i can simply go ahead boldly and do it? DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Nice deflection...
- I assume you're talking about the decline notices, which are all here. I do suggest, though, if you're going to make major changes that they be discussed first (if only to get tacit approval). WT:AFC would be the place to do that. Primefac (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, Primefac, I have been trying to get consensus for some time now, to simplify & rewrite all the AFC templates. As far as you know , is there any place whee i can simply go ahead boldly and do it? DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Revised Aptar Stub for Review
Hi,
Per your instruction, I have revised the Aptar article. All sources are independent and journalistic in nature. Please take a look when you can.
Again, disclosing COI.
-- Delgadilld (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delgadilld Unfortunately, in this case, the sources are still too suggestive of simple announcements or notices and not major independent in-depth news coverage we need instead; also, note that even republished announcements or notices or ties to this can still be considered unacceptable for notability, given it wouldn't be significant in weight. SwisterTwister talk 21:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- User:SwisterTwister - Hi... A number of thoughts here. First, I would imagine that if this stub article were even more in-depth, Wikipedians would reject it on the basis of its authorship alone given COI. I'm just trying to give objective volunteers a starting place, since writing a more complete article might be a wasted effort from a COI perspective. Second, in terms of notability, I would hope that a publicly traded company of our size and scope easily meets that criteria relative to much of what is available here. In any event, I've taken another crack at the stub. Let me know what you think. -- Delgadilld (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delgadilld I weighed the sources there and it simply won't show significance in notability: 1 and 3 are a local business announcement, 2 is a simple listing and 4 is a republished announcement and 5 is a trade publication announcement; all of these essentially still have the basis of announcements or notices, by or for the company. What's considered significant is the relevant independent news that wasn't influenced or tied to the company, since although the company public relations is clearly what motivates attention, it's not what we consider independent in terms of an article. SwisterTwister talk 18:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- User:SwisterTwister - Hi... A number of thoughts here. First, I would imagine that if this stub article were even more in-depth, Wikipedians would reject it on the basis of its authorship alone given COI. I'm just trying to give objective volunteers a starting place, since writing a more complete article might be a wasted effort from a COI perspective. Second, in terms of notability, I would hope that a publicly traded company of our size and scope easily meets that criteria relative to much of what is available here. In any event, I've taken another crack at the stub. Let me know what you think. -- Delgadilld (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
September 2017 at Women in Red
 Welcome to Women in Red's September 2017 worldwide online editathons. | ||
 
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi thank you for reviewing my first ever wiki.
I spent several days reading before I created it and when I submitted it I was not really sure it was quite ready and now I see why it was not.
I have made many changes and added double the amount of references. I used other cryptocurrencys also listed in the top 100 which have existing wiki pages as my template and have now bought it upto a similar standard.
I think being listed in the top 100 on coinmarket cap is a very significant independent reference and I have now referenced that correctly. I think it is ready for submission is there anything else you could comment on before I submit?
THanks
JEsse
Jesse003 (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Jesse003 While I see you had some extras, we will still need any relevant ones you can offer, since not only we will not set any fixed limits, but any improvements in this are certainly welcome. SwisterTwister talk 23:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I have updated the article with proper references. Kindly review it.
Wikieditorksd (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
17:08:27, 30 August 2017 review of submission by Jakemadoff210
Thank you. Since this is good to go, should I now wait to see if it's accepted, or will you do this?
I'll continue to add sources, as well.
Thanks.
- Jakemadoff210 Unfortunately, weighing them both separately and together, there's not enough substance in notability as they still include sources based on announcements or notices, for example, the ordinary activities or actions by the company itself. Instead, we need major independent news that is completely univolved from a public relations tone (we have no fixed limits on sources that can be added); obviously a lot of existing news is going to be influenced or tied to this, but since companies are not given any exceptions, it still wouldn't count to assured notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
?
this was odd. What do you find not to be nonsense about that page? I actually re-tagged it the same way, and only then noticed someone else had come to the same conclusion before you removed the tag. In any case would you please consider self-reverting and allow an admin to consider? It is just gibberish.... Jytdog (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Jytdog In this case, I took the "nonsense" part literal in say, meaning incomprehensible vandalism, but this wasn't the case; FWIW, the subject at FrenchWiki offers sources which can at least mean something and Google Books and this showed some sources. SwisterTwister talk 03:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hm. Thanks for replying! .. i will try PRODing it. Jytdog (talk) 04:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
| Ploughing through the newly G13 eligible drafts I've noticed that many (most?) have been reviewed by you. That's an awesome amount of work! Cabayi (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC) |
Matthew Fellowes
Do you have any thoughts on User_talk:MBisanz#Matt_Fellowes_Redirect? MBisanz talk 18:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think notability is still doubtful especially since standards have highly changed since then (the offered information now is still no different than the past promotionalism), but I wouldn't object to a second AfD to re-evaluate of course. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Please check for copyvio
Hi SwisterTwister and thanks for your work reviewing drafts. Please don't forget to check for copyright violations. The particular one I saw was Maurha, which had extensive copying from http://www.census2011.co.in/data/village/197852-chak-mehar-ali-urf-maurha-uttar-pradesh.html and https://villageinfo.in/uttar-pradesh/ballia/belthara-road/chak-mehar-ali-urf-maurha.html. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's rare that I find copypaste in village articles especially when it's only a few sentences, but I see the user continued especially after the acceptance in this case. SwisterTwister talk 17:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Article declining reason clarification
Hi!
Just wanted to clarify some things regarding the declining reason for Luminar draft
On my talk page you said that "Currently all things considered, additionally available reviews would help here."
Did you mean that I need to:
- add reviews only as references to the already written text, or
- add new text and reviews that support it, or
- add more references to the "Reviews" section
?
With this information, I will be able to make the text closer to the required Wiki guidelines.
Thank you Jenyajc (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Update Aug 21
Hello, still waiting for your reply - it would be great to get a little bit more detailed explanation on the question I asked above. I'll be editing the article soon anyways, but your advice will be helpful. Thanks! Jenyajc (talk) 08:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Update Sep4
Hi,
Just wanted to let you know that I'm going to re-submit the article I've mentioned. I've added both references to the existing points and text reviews in "reviews" section as well. I added as many as I think is good for the article - more of them would be just too many or look promotional. Hope it meets the requirements now.Jenyajc (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Request on 13:36:01, 5 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Dugbrink
This talk is in response to the Bradford Company page. With all due respect, I do not understand your comments. I will address them below:
1. Content is outdated: 4 of the 8 references are either current or from 2016 and 2017. Not only but also, your comment implies no Page for an ancient historical event, place or person could be published = the references are not "current".
2. News uninvolved to the company's own publishings: None of the items are from company publishings. All are independent sources capable of making decisions without influence as to what to publish.
Please reconsider or provide more rationale for your exclusivity. Thank you in advance
Dugbrink (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- hi Dugbrink, i have had a look at the draft and concur with ST and MassiveYR that at the moment, this company does not look notable, there needs to be stronger sources than are presently cited, has the company won any notable awards, is the company discussed in any major newspapers/journals? i see that Holland, Michigan, where Bradford is headquartered, has an Industry section with a number of companies listed, may i suggest taking a look at those articles to get an idea of what is required? kitten stalker - meowr! Coolabahapple (talk) 04:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
10:40:06, 6 September 2017 review of submission by Justin Wabscott
Dear SwisterTwister, thank for your recommendations for how to improve the page. I have collated the additional citations requested, from sources I believe meet the requirements for authoritative and objective, including de.wikipedia, Microsoft, Stackoverflow, Compose (an IBM subsidiary) and Tech EU. I have also corrected the accessdate CS1 errors and added first1 and last1 where it was missing. I am though struggling with images. I have copied and pasted a logo and a screenshot but I am not sure why they do not appear in the draft. I would be very grateful if you have time to do a follow-up review and if you can suggest what I need to do to ensure the images appear correctly. Many thanks. Justin. Justin Wabscott (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
AfC expired pages
Turns out 2475 pages AfC older then 6 month unedited were not coming up for deletion. User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report/AfC break out twinkle and help me. Anything blank or effectively blank should be G2. Spam should be G11. Hoaxes G3. All so they are not refundable. The rest should go G13 unless you really think it should be postponed or promoted. Legacypac (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
FYI
FYI this is at AfD because I had a speedy declined so I'm not sure that putting another speedy on is wise. DrStrauss talk 17:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Itsenough (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's a farce. The same SPA also reported you to AIV and created the malformed LTA report Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/SwisterTwister. Meters (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, don't worry about it - it's just some troll who I doubt will be with us for long. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
| For tireless contributions to the Articles for Creation process and being a model Wikipedian. Alex ShihTalk 23:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC) |
18:11, 19 August 2017 review of submission by Rileysandel on Prosperity Indiana wikipage
The page was deleted and removed because it was considered to be an advertisement. The page in no way is an advertisement and I have no affiliation with the organization. As part of a class project, we made the Wikipedia page to be an informative platform for non-organization members to read up on the past actions of Prosperity Indiana. The group does several projects across the state of Indiana and therefore it seemed -- to the college students enrolled in the course -- that a more public reference would be admirable: we chose Wikipedia to make this platform.
The class needs the page to go live and in no way is it advertising the group. It is explaining the organizations history in order to inform concerned/interested community members about the group.
We used sources from several news sources and other websites. Let me know what I can do to change the result. If nothing else I need access to the information typed on the page, which I have no access to.
Thank you Rileysandel (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Rileysandel
- Rileysandel In this case, there was enough to delete as by our WP:Criteria for speedy deletion given it was too close of an advertisement (including something that would mirror their own "About"), than something that could be reworked or rephrased. The best alternative here is to weigh whether there's enough major independent news uninvolved to the organization's own press releases or notices, as these won't help. Republished announcements or notices won't be enough as they aren't considered any differently than notices. SwisterTwister talk 17:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
How do I access the material on the draft Wikipedia page? Can you give me access to it so I can have the text and create a different platform? The information was obtained through several months of a collegiate course and we need access to it for our work. 147.226.206.21 (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Rileysandel
- In this case, the deleting user is known to not restore deleted material and it's a common occurrence here; if you can, it would simply be best to start anew and, if some of the relevant content was from a specific website, you can use thay alternative. SwisterTwister talk 14:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I would greatly appreciate access to the text on the page. You do not have to make the page live, as much as I need the text information. I did not log the information because I was not expecting the page to be deleted and the information hidden. Simply pasting the text here is fine and I can comment 'done' and you can remove it -- if that works. The information and page were a part of a college course and we would all appreciate obtaining the text involved in the composition of the Wiki page. Let me know if there is ANYTHING you can do. I am also capable of getting you in contact with my professor at the university. Thank you 147.226.195.151 (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC) RileySandel
Is there a way for you to paste the text here and leave it until I reply "done". Then you can remove it. I need access to the written information for class. Thank you. Rileysandel (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC) Rileysandel
Deletion of QVL Pharmacy page
Why did you delete my page?! What are you talking about "promotional material"?! How am I going to promote a nonexistent company?! Timbocf (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Timbocf In regards to WP:Deletion policy, the key here is promotional or advertising and, that can still apply to anything as long as the words are promotional, which they were in this case. What would help is whether there's actually enough major independent news and significance that would counter the promotionalism concerns. SwisterTwister talk 16:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for creating Ranjay Gulati. I am not sure that he is an economist, however--maybe a management theorist?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Kindly review the article.
12:28:59, 20 September 2017 review of submission by Justin Wabscott
Hi David, I was just wondering if you'd had time to take another look at the "Draft: Studio 3T" page. You made some
recommendations which I've now addressed (I hope!) and I was wondering when it might come out of draft. Also, if you had
a tip on how to make a screenshot image of the free platform appear in the sidebar? May thanks, Justin
- Justin, the current sources are still not the independent significant coverage such as reviews and similar reception that would especially help here. Currently instead, the sources are too close as general or ordinary announcements and notices, wherever published. SwisterTwister talk 20:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Request on 00:59:47, 22 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Gavin R Putland
No, I did not violate my own copyright.
My draft "Plane of polarization" is allowed to use material from the blog post at http://www.grputland.com/2017/04/ambiguity-of-plane-of-polarization.html because:
- I wrote the blog post;
- The blog post, according to its "legal notices" (link in right-hand column), is released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 license — and the CC-BY-SA logo appears at the bottom of the article; and
- Using my real name on Wikipedia constitutes sufficient attribution.
I intend to update the blog post to indicate that an improved version has been contributed to Wikipedia — if I'm allowed to contribute it. But I do not intend to provide a link in the other direction, because that would surely constitute a c.o.i.
Now that I have your attention, there is one further issue: On the history page for the draft article, all versions prior to 18th September are actually versions of my sandbox, having nothing to do with the topic of the proposed article. This situation arose because I composed the draft in my sandbox, accepted the prominent invitation to request creation of the article, and then followed the prominent suggestion that the submission be moved to draft space. I do not need access to those earlier versions of the sandbox, because I have my own backups.
Regards and thanks.
10:17:45, 25 September 2017 review of submission by Justin Wabscott
As requested, I have added two more extensive independent reviews of the platform, from Bart Read at BartRead.com and Dharshan Rangegowda at ScaleGrid.com (formerly MongoDirector). There are now ten such reviews, from, amongst others, Microsoft, IBM (compose.io), Tech Republic and several independent bloggers. I hope this is sufficient citation to indicate that the Studio 3T platform is of genuinely encyclopedic interest and also verifiable.
RfA
Hi, I have nominated you for RfA seeing your versatility. Please navigate here. Best of luck! SahabAliговорити 14:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- SahabAliwadia Thanks for offering, however I'm not interested in an RfA. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 15:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- That's sad, but please now decline it writing reason in the "Please accept the nomination here". However, I will still emphasize you that such opportunities don't come again and so you should try. May be you are fearing that it may be unsuccessful like previous maybe it be successful.SahabAliговорити 16:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- SahabAliwadia Thanks for offering, however I'm not interested in an RfA. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 15:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- I've tagged the RfA as G6 [2]. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
New article draft
Would you please review this draft Rushdie Kikhia and give your decision? 1. History fanatic (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Editor CU blocked and draft deleted. Doug Weller talk 09:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Request on 13:21:43, 3 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Abhijit.b2819
I have written an article on DARSHANA BANIK. It is about an Indian Bengali Model & Actress. I have written the article following & in accordance to many wiki articles about many renowned model & actress in India. My article had a feedback as this from your end "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies."... Please guide me as how the article is to be written so that it is verified and posted..
Request on 06:57:09, 4 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Collins Mtika
Thank you for your review of my article for creation IAN COCKERILL. I came on line this morning to add a reference which I hope will establish Cockerill's notability as an important figure in South African mining. Last night (3 October 2017) at a function in Johannesburg South Africa, Cockerill was inducted into the South African Mining Hall Of Fame. So far there is only one reference to this matter in the local mining press - Please see the final paragraph of the referenced article covering the event as a whole - the last paragraph of the article lists Cockerill and two other notable South African mining figures who were inducted into the Mining Hall of Fame. I hope that this meets the Wikipedia notable requirements and that this article for creation IAN COCKERILL can be approved. Thank you for your assistance.
Best wishes Collins Mtika (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Request on 07:36:16, 4 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Deepak.mandal
Hi. Thanks for the review and suggestion, I will make sure to complete it from all the aspects. Thanks once again.
Text release for article "Plane of polarization"
As advised by email, a text release has been added to Draft talk:Plane of polarization. Apologies for my initial unfamiliarity with this procedure.
Just dropping you a note as you previously declined this draft and it was then moved to mainspace anyway (hidden via deletion). I've moved it back there as it is obviously not suitable. Unsurprisingly the author appears to be a marketing exec at his company. SmartSE (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Request on 20:13:53, 6 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Sykes83
Hi SwisterTwister. Thanks for reviewing my submission of Draft:Fastly. While I agree that many of the sources in the article is based on announcements and may not overcome the bar set by WP:ORGIND, I'd argue that the following sources are especially important in establishing notability because of the depth of coverage, or because they are not based on an announcement made by Fastly: Reference 1, Reference 2, Reference 3, and Reference 4. I just wanted to make sure that you had a chance to review them when you reviewed the article. (I'm just concerned that I may have included too many references which may have masked the most important ones.). Thanks! --Sykes83 (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Sykes83 (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Sykes83 Yes, however, by our standards and measuring its significance, it's easy to see these are essentially repeating to a large or similar level of what the company says; for example, the first one is about a partnership, which is obviously repeating whatever the company announced itself; the second is then about a general subject that isn't solely about the company itself and the third is highly similar, about a general subject; the next one is not any different, how it involved the company's role in something. Although it may seem significant to the company, what we need is a higher level of independent significant news that isn't simply from a trade publisher or somewhere where's targeted to a specific business industry, or else based on the company's press releases. For example, an announcement going into depth about the company's current business strategies or what its current business aspirations are, would still be considered unacceptable, even if it were republished, since we weigh and consider the contents as one. SwisterTwister talk 20:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Review of submission by Jon Bowen
Hi SwisterTwister, thanks for reviewing the draft article I submitted on Arthur "Waring" Bowen. I submitted the article after reading the page about his home village Pontyberem at the bottom of which is a list of notable people. I thought Arthur deserved a mention - when I visited the village to find out more about him he was certainly well known, loved and respected - and I felt that he was at least as 'notable' as Shoni Sguborfawr, so I added his name. This was deleted and I was told I had to create a wikipedia page about him before he could be added to the page. I told the editor about his life and he didn't seem to see notability as being a problem ... anyone who has had an entry in Who's Who directory of influential people during their lifetime, and is subsequently recorded in the Dictionary of National Biography, has a reasonable claim for notability. I added the other documents/references for the sake of fleshing out the story. He was often in the press during his lifetime but he was not one of those vain people who keeps an archive of press clippings about themselves, and since he died long before the internet it's not easy to search those newspaper archives. He was also on TV several times addressing disability rights issues, but was not known as a celebrity. I trust wikipedia are not going to be insisting on celebrity status before acknowledging notability. I think the only other reference I can get hold of without days trawling through news archives from the 1960s and 1970s is his obituary, which was published either in the Times or the Telegraph. Would that additional reference tip the balance in his favour? It would certainly give him more documented coverage than the celebrated thug Shoni Sguborfawr. Also, I'm not quite clear what your comment is referring to: "notability cannot be inherited from others either". Who, in my draft article, is presented as inheriting notability from whom? Thanks in advance for addressing my queries, Jonbowenelsfield (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
16:29:35, 8 October 2017 review of submission by Lionelane
All sources referenced in this article are independent third-party sources. And most of the references are whole articles on the subject, not just mentions. The ones that are just mentions are used because they note an award he won or a film project he scored or composed.Lionelane (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
CheFEM App
Dear SwisterTwister,
First of all, many thanks for your assessment of the Wiki for CheFEM App.
Further to your comments, I have now added more descriptive and independent sources (links) than the previous links.
Kind regards, Stuart Green — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuart.J.Green (talk • contribs) 12:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
14:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC) review of submission by djgilbert
Djgilbert (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Djgilbert Please see our WP:Deletion policy which explains what classifies as unacceptable material and the explanation behind your talk page message; to clarify, what the organization's significance or purposes are simply not what would make an article acceptable itself; instead, it's both a non-promotional tone and then also independent coverage about it. The award you mention seems to be a specific field one or with a similar meaning, therefore it still wouldn't be substantial for our criteria. I'll also mention our page overly emphasized what its own announcements or notices, and that would be covered as unacceptable by our WP:What Wikipedia is not. SwisterTwister talk 03:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Seems again to be taking a wrong interpretation of the WP rules.
Incorrect: The award you mention seems to be a specific field one or with a similar meaning, therefore it still wouldn't be substantial for our criteria.
So a national quality award program of the United States government available to any organization in the U.S. is not substantial for you? Please explain
Wrong again: I'll also mention our page overly emphasized what its own announcements or notices, and that would be covered as unacceptable by our WP:What Wikipedia is not.
Award winners over the past 16 years are by no means "announcements or notices". The text represented a historical record of recipients of an award, some of which have gone on to be conferred a quality award by the President of the United States.
SwisterTwister talk 03:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Djgilbert (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Djgilbert I'll clarify and say everything that I said above is taken from the 2 pages I linked, and these are our relevant policies on weighing any article. I also stated what we would need in terms of likelier chances it would be accepted. If your response is that the 2 policies I linked are somehow incorrect, then please don't message on here as it won't help any either one of us continuing an argument. SwisterTwister talk 03:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Request on 10:14:15, 10 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Roxana Gibescu
I am writing regarding this draft page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Paul_Crotto (which I have just edited a little since receiving your review, as in I have changed the order of references, put the most important ones first). I have received your message that I should prove the artist's notability through museum collections and art reviews, but I have done just that. I have over 15 cuttings of reviews in art magazines from the 60s in Paris, which I have included in the article, but it is true that I can't find this articles online. Please tell me how else to prove the existance of this art reviews articles (very complex articles dedicated to artist Paul Crotto) and museums or very important group gallery exhibition for which I can't find online proof, as probably they weren't archived (as much of the 60s in visual art isn't), though I do have press cuttings and gallery/museum cuttings and brochures.
Also, in this press cuttings and gallery brochures I still have a long list of notable art collection which have Paul Crotto's work, which I will add just now. Do let me know, please, what are the rules for references (important press cuttings and articles) which I couldn't find online, but I have them physically in press cuttings or exhibition brochures/catalogues. Just because they aren't archived online, doesn't mean they did not exist or that they were not important/relevant at their time or even now, if they were brought to the attention on today's public.
New Page Reviewer
In case you would like to do some patrolling, I have restored your access to the New Page Reviewer group. Please use only the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation tool, and limit your patrols to 50 per day. This user right can be removed without notice. Now that ACTRIAL has been rolled out, the accent is on identifying paid editing. If you need any help, don't hesitate to ask. There is also now a vibrant NPR talk page at WT:NPR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Review of submission by nitika.g4 (Oct 6, 2017)
Have removed all links to the VWO website and any content posted online by the company's CEO. Have also made sure I use many external references. Could you review again please?
If you could also explain why it is unacceptable to use an organization's publicly available material that clearly dates back years (and shows that it has a long history?), it'd be great. It's a 7 year old, leading startup in India and has some awards to its credit too. Quite noteworthy among Indian startups, but not covered by many conventional media because it caters to a niche industry. Please advise how an editor can work with that to improve this submission?
Link to article for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:VWO_(software)
Robert K. Dixon draft
Thank you for your comments on the Robert K. Dixon biography page. I appreciate your review and feedback. We are working on addressing your comments and plan to resubmit a new draft. Thank you. Ch2017 (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Ch2017
06:23:55, 14 October 2017 review of submission by Tk8kpgt
Hello I followed GrammerFacist's requirements for several weeks, and he/she modified the article according to notability standard and other standards. I'm confused why the article was rejected if he/she put most of the article together and placed attention on the sources, the notability requirement, etc. Tk8kpgt (talk) 07:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- Tk8kpgt Unfortunately the number of current sources is still not extensive enough and this would need improvement on. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Could you help with this? I spend weeks following GrammerFacist's many recommendations, and he/she spent a lot of time with the article also. I think he/she is an experienced editor. Anyway I would be grateful if you could help with the sources. One problem is that many are gone from the Internet now. For example, she (Heather of the article) was in a C-Span video interview that used to have an article also, but it's gone. From 2002 or so. GrammerFacist mentioned at the article's Talk page that one of the sources (Reference For Business) [3] has a list of 5+ sources at the bottom of the page. Maybe I could add those in the reference list? None are available on the Internet any more.
*Bianchi, Alessandra, "Anatomy of a Start-Up," Inc., September 1997, p. 67. *Cirillo, Joan, "Chai Becomes More People's Cup of Tea," Baltimore Sun, August 16, 1995, p. 1E. *Dondero, Tony, "Oregon Chai Brews Growth Plan," Portland Business Journal, March 28, 1997, p. 19. *Grund, John, "Chai Rhymes with Bull's-Eye," Oregon Business, April 1997, p. 19. *Hill, Jim, "Oregon Chai Hopes Rex Bird Can Work His Magic Again," Oregonian, September 24, 1996, p. B16. *Raths, David, "Oregon Chai Steeps in Profits, Recognition," Portland Business Journal, June 26, 1998, p. S17. *Sen, Colleen Taylor, "Chai: Tea That's Hot (or Cool) and Hip," Chicago-Sun Times, April 15, 1998, p. 1.
Review of Vitech Corporation Page
Hello,
You left this comment on our rejected submission:
"Books aside, what's been resubmitted is still promotional in the sense of appearing like an advertised business profile and the current information and sources from that is no different; notability cannot be inherited and there's nothing to suggest this company is showing any signs of significance or the significant coverage."
I just wanted to clarify that to fix these issues I would need to find additional sources solely focused on Vitech, published by a well known source. What else could I do to improve? Also, what exactly do you mean by "notability cannot be inherited"?
Thank you Rachirimim (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Rachirimim
Martha Holmberg draft
- Thanks SwisterTwister for your feedback! I appreciate your help. I would like to follow your advice and will continue to work on this. I'll check on the links page you have created as well. Should I just keep it in draft form while I do that?Torclausen (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Sol Kumin Resubmission
Hi SwisterTwister
Thanks for your guidance on the page originally reviewed around a couple of weeks ago.
Following your suggestions I have made the following changes: - rejigged the page in order that horse racing, which Kumin is particularly notable for, is more prominent on the page. - reworded in a number of areas to ensure that it doesn't come across as a business advert. - removed various bits of text. - add a large number of new sources including NBCSports, ESPN, PaulickReport, RacingUK.com - all of which specifically focus on Kumin rather than associated subjects.
Thanks again. chrispaston (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)chrispaston
Feedback on sandbox article
Hi, I started to write a sandbox article about a rather small company. I don't intend to make it an ad campaign (although the company itself *is* about advertising, which makes the whole thing kind of confusing), I was just glad that I've stumbled upon something that doesn't have an article yet. Of course as a newbie, I expected such things to happen, hence the sandbox. Can you give me some advice on how to generally avoid sounding like I'm promoting something and/or point out what you found ad-worthy in what I wrote so far? I also want the article to be factual. Anyway, thank you for checking my work.
GAFisher (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- GAFisher Yes, section #3 was especially why because it's essentially what a company commercial would say, to advertise the services; none of it can be accepted as it wouldn't be suitable and what we actually need is instead emphasis in major independent news that wasn't somehow tied to company announcements and notices either. This is one of the best improvements any page can have, to at least improve the chances. SwisterTwister talk 16:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
That's a good idea, I will search for such things, thank you! Is there a time limit for fixing it or as long as it's sandbox, I'm free to tinker with it whenever I've got the time and I won't have to log back in to find the article being deleted? That "speedy deletion" note sounds and looks scary. GAFisher (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- GAFisher Based on the current page, it would actually be best to start anew and show how the page could appear differently, especially since there's not enough to suggest currently salvaging. However, in the new version, it's very likely it will not be tagged for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 17:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
15:20:31, 20 October 2017 review of submission by Buchla200e
- Buchla200e (talk · contribs)
- Buchla200e Unfortunately, as of now, there's not enough emphasis on all of the best news available and the current ones are still either announcements and notices. SwisterTwister talk 15:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Happy Birthday!
 | Just a happy birthday message to you, SwisterTwister, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Slightlymad 03:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC) |
Magnus Penker draft
Hi SwisterTwister!
Thank you for your comments on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Magnus_Penker. You wrote: "What we would've needed is clear evidence he's considered a significant figure in his field, either by publications or citations as this is what's best to use."
Mr Penker has 1707 references in scientific papers to "business modeling":
https://scholar.google.se/scholar?cites=2371379373459258806&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=sv
885 references to scientific papers to UML Toolkit 2.0: https://scholar.google.se/scholar?cites=433047914094896286&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=sv
"Magnus Penker" is mentioned over 400 times in Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Magnus+Penker%22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strongline123 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Sparx System has built a tool with Eriksson-Penker extensions: http://www.sparxsystems.com/enterprise_architect_user_guide/10/domain_based_models/eriksson_penker_extensions.html
And they also a training program/eduction in this: http://enterprisemodelingsolutions.com/eriksson-penker/
“Though innovation is en vogue, few leaders or organizations really know what is possible or how to sustain innovation. Mr Penker and his team have now provided innovators a way forward in building the right kind of knowledge, capabilities and assessments for breakout innovation and long term success.”
-Anne Keough Keehn, Executive Director at Leading Academic Innovation Network, and former Senior Fellow at Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
“While many write books on innovation and creativity, innovation is somehow left out of the discussion. Creativity is much more fun, while innovation is a discipline that must be practiced like a professional musician or ballet dancer. Mr Penker has developed and describe an extensive approach with all the critical components of innovation. This is a must read for serious innovation practitioners.” - Dr. Brett Trusko, President and CEO of International Association of Innovation Professionals
International Association of Innovation Professionals is the world's foremost organization for profesional innovation , look at http://www.iaoip.org. Dr. Brett Trusko is Editor-in-Chief on Internatinal Journal of Innovation Scens (peer reviewed, http://www.iaoip.org/page/IJISHome). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strongline123 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Philippe Kruchten, Professor of Software Engineering at University of British Columbia and known as Director of Process Development (RUP) at Rational Software explained Penker and Erikssons work on Business modeling with UML such as: "UML may have been designed by and for software engineers, but Eriksson and Penker have defined a practical extension to UML for describing business processes. They put this extended UML immediately to use with a gallery of common business patterns that should jump start any BPR effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strongline123 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
(I have added all above to the draft now)
He is also mentioned in several Wikipedia articles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Modeling_Language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Erik_Eriksson#Eriksson-Penker_Business_Extensions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_engineering
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_process_modeling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_Architect_(software) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strongline123 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Is this enough?
Best Regards, Strongline123 (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
23:27:24, 24 October 2017 review of submission by Jmb900b
Hello. This is concerning the page I submitted, "Samara: Self-Propelled Learning for Teens." You mentioned that Wikipedia only allowed pages for schools of certain stature, but I found pages with schools such as these. I believe if pages such as these are accepted, Samara's should be as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellington_High_School
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_High_School_(Apache_County,_Arizona)
By the way, happy belated birthday. Hope it was a good one. Jmb900b (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- Jmv900b Yes, and the links above show they're secondary schools which are acceptable; we've nearly never deleted secondary schools unless they were found to be non-existent. In your Draft, there were no signs to suggest it was a secondary school unless you can clarify further. Thanks and cheers, SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
October 2017 review of submission by TelenorBankHasan
Hi, my article on Telenor Bank got a message regarding advertising/promotion. Have tried my best to make it as objective as possible with sources cited for all information. Please help me identify any such conflict so it can be rectified. HasanTelenorBank (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- HasanTelenorBank As by our policy WP:What Wikipedia is not, the article was highly promotional and could not be resolved without deleting first but, if you have independent sources (and not announcements and notices), that may be an initial step towards something. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- SwisterTwister Hi, absolutely agreed with the policy. Please if you could identify the promotional elements so it can be fixed? Also all the references were independent sources i.e. publications etc and not internal announcements etc. Accordingly, please advise how to restore/improve so we can get this up? The Bank is by numbers and facts the first and largest microfinance bank in the country serving millions every day. HasanTelenorBank (talk) 04:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- HasanTelenorBank Unfortunately, in this case it would not be allowed restoration without still being considered unacceptable overall; the best step here is to restart, but only emphasizing major independent news and not anything the company says such as press releases as these will be discounted. You're welcome to show any good amounts of independent news here for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- SwisterTwister Hi, absolutely agreed with the policy. Please if you could identify the promotional elements so it can be fixed? Also all the references were independent sources i.e. publications etc and not internal announcements etc. Accordingly, please advise how to restore/improve so we can get this up? The Bank is by numbers and facts the first and largest microfinance bank in the country serving millions every day. HasanTelenorBank (talk) 04:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks
Good day David,
Thank you for the welcome, thanks and suggestions. I have been reviewing the articles you have suggested, and more. As for the being "adopted" by a more experienced editor, I am very new here and don't seem to know anyone, especially those familiar with Philippine art and history.
Salamat at samuli (thanks and until then),
Request on 16:05:50, 26 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Emmagb91
Hello, thank you for reviewing the page! Myron Barnstone was notable as a master art teacher, not as an artist. Are museum collections or major art reviews still needed in that sense? The proof of his notability is the careers of his notable pupils. I have added more in the "Notable pupils" section for your review.
Thank you!
Emmagb91 (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- Emmagb91 Yes, museum collections or major art reviews would be the best factor in Notability at best and, we wouldn't weigh in notable students for his own article. SwisterTwister talk 16:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
October review of submission by Mmathewaldrich
Hi SwisterTwister, can you clarify which parts of the article I created for Aldrich CPAs and Advisors you felt were promotional? I've made a few edits and believe I have removed anything that could be perceived as some sort of advertisement, but would welcome any tips on how to make it even more objective. I modeled the page off of the Wikipedia pages of very similar companies (Moss Adams and KPMG) and am not sure what else I can do to meet Wikipedia's standards. Thanks so much for your assistance!
Draft:Aldrich CPAs and Advisors Mmathewaldrich (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Mmathewaldrich
- Mmathewaldrich In this case, the page is overly promotional in its entirety as by WP:Deletion policy including with some of the current changes. Also, to examine the sources, they're based in either announcements and notices which we cannot accept here, wherever published. SwisterTwister talk 17:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I can see that you send me an e-mail, but due to an oversight my e-mail is temporary cut off. What was the message about? The Banner talk 07:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- The Banner It's about a matter I'd rather keep offwiki so let me know when it works again. Thanks and cheers, SwisterTwister talk 15:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, I will give you a shout then. The Banner talk 18:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- The Banner It's about a matter I'd rather keep offwiki so let me know when it works again. Thanks and cheers, SwisterTwister talk 15:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Halloween cheer!
Hello SwisterTwister:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– LinguistunEinsuno 20:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
thank you
Thank you so much for reviewing The Interloper: Lee Harvey Oswald Inside the Soviet Union have a great day :) Moscowamerican (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
thanks, I am responding to comment on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Esther_Allen -- I added & directly quoted a review of Zama by Nobel laureate J. M. Coetzee http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/01/19/antonio-di-benedetto-great-writer/ I will look to add more --Nathwice (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Funding
Hi SwisterTwister, I have been following the AfD for Farmdrop (certainly don't want to reheat the discussion). I am a little on the fence whether or not details of a company's funding history are encyclopaedic or not. I lean towards the view that it's not necessarily something that should be included, but also constitutes a fact of a company, such as an IPO at a later stage. At any rate, I always strive for consistency across articles and was wondering if you have any views on the following articles and their funding sections: Star Citizen, Paytm, Slack Technologies, WeWork, OYO Rooms, ShopClues, Yik Yak, Pebble (watch), Airbnb. Cheers, pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 00:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Jake Brockman Yes, and as far as I know, AfD has always considered these sections extremely promotional and apparently only serving to peacock and puff what is instead actually minor accomplishments (any company with under 1million funding is definitely not significant and even above can still be generally minor). I've always used WP:ORGIND and WP:SPIP as support here since they excellently show why. In only rare cases, would funding possibly be significant but this would only be for a company certain to be notable outside the funding alone. Basically, if the best attention a company has likely obtained was for funding and basing it off their press releases about it, it's obviously too soon. Some of the articles you linked showed this well and actually consisted largely of that alone so it's a sign Notability is doubtful there. WP:Not a catalogue also explains this in that any funding would obviously serve only as an investor prospectus, especially if the article goes into specifics. To also mention an example, when an article's funding sections are restored, it must honestly show funding to support them is why they needed the publicity to begin with. I'm going deep into describing this because I know some people think it must be significant based on the publisher's name but this is exactly the world of public relations: Expanding the company's publicity. Churnalism is an existing fact to show how prominent it actually is in the news media. The best accomplishments we can make in at least not allowing this into articles is to at least show and tell the future users that this is in fact not accepted and won't help towards a notable article either. As far as WP is around and with open access paid editing will still exist because of the obvious financial motivation and, it's this in countering the clearest of public relations and promotion, that we can get there and succeed in controlling promotionalism. SwisterTwister talk 01:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- As I see it, details about funding are encyclopedic only if the company is famous and the funding truly important. Otherwise, its filler--promotional copy when there is nothing else to say. It's like much else--detials about primary school, relatives, and the like -- the clearest statement of this is WP:EINSTEIN. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- Jake Brockman Yes, and as far as I know, AfD has always considered these sections extremely promotional and apparently only serving to peacock and puff what is instead actually minor accomplishments (any company with under 1million funding is definitely not significant and even above can still be generally minor). I've always used WP:ORGIND and WP:SPIP as support here since they excellently show why. In only rare cases, would funding possibly be significant but this would only be for a company certain to be notable outside the funding alone. Basically, if the best attention a company has likely obtained was for funding and basing it off their press releases about it, it's obviously too soon. Some of the articles you linked showed this well and actually consisted largely of that alone so it's a sign Notability is doubtful there. WP:Not a catalogue also explains this in that any funding would obviously serve only as an investor prospectus, especially if the article goes into specifics. To also mention an example, when an article's funding sections are restored, it must honestly show funding to support them is why they needed the publicity to begin with. I'm going deep into describing this because I know some people think it must be significant based on the publisher's name but this is exactly the world of public relations: Expanding the company's publicity. Churnalism is an existing fact to show how prominent it actually is in the news media. The best accomplishments we can make in at least not allowing this into articles is to at least show and tell the future users that this is in fact not accepted and won't help towards a notable article either. As far as WP is around and with open access paid editing will still exist because of the obvious financial motivation and, it's this in countering the clearest of public relations and promotion, that we can get there and succeed in controlling promotionalism. SwisterTwister talk 01:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
"Speedy keep"
A word to the wise: Any time you say "speedy keep" and there isn't actually anything in a policy or guideline providing for the speedy keeping of that thing (e.g., attempts to delete policies at WP:MFD are subject to speedy keep, per deletion policy), all you do is signal to everyone else that the material at the XfD should almost certainly be deleted, and to ignore your rationale as bogus. Takes a while to learn that, but I would encourage that is be absorbed. Same goes for excessively emotional variations on this like "strongest possible keep". (Please don't perceive this as critical; I did exactly the same thing until a kind soul clued me in, too, back around 2010 or so.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 23:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- My basis for it was on the sole cause of there being no argument for deletion, and that is, because there's nothing suggesting this redirect is somehow against our principles of that policy. Why I started that redirect is outlined in what every contribution of mine for the last few days: Actual menu items being added and then restored and, not only this, but at least 1/4 of these have actually included "customizable orders for [$$] and with a side of ----". I understand why you may have thought such a redirect may seem unusap but it's clear this would go in line with what WP: Indiscriminate and WP: Not guidebook say. The last thing we as an encyclopedia need, is to defend the operations of promotionalism and where, whatever one's personal opinions are, the WP:NOT policy
takes priority. SwisterTwister talk 23:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- Except the nominator did provide a deletion rationale; you just didn't agree with it. Never confuse "you made no argument / gave no reason / have no evidence" with "I don't like or accept your argument/reason/evidence". A nomination with no actual rationale reads something like "Delete, because I don't think we need this", or "Delete, since this is silly", or "Delete, because I don't understand what this is for" (these are covered at WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTKNOWIT). Anyway, you can either take my advice or ignore it. I would suggest taking it, because it's based on long experience. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 13:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned refs
Please make sure when you're blanking sections and removing references that you're not removing any named references that are used more than once, as it can potentially cause references to be lost. Primefac (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
06:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC) review of submission by mineraltree
- DanRodgers (talk · contribs)
Hi, SwisterTwister, Thank you for viewing my article! Unfortunately, it was rejected because of the lack of visibility on this issue. Please help me to understand why our site hasn't passed the moderation, because we listed reliable sources, such as TechCrunch, Bloomberg, Boston Business Magazine, Forbes and some others.
- DanRodgers Although certainly significant publications, the contents themselves are only public relations-esque announcements and notices down cannot accept these for substantiating notability in our criteria. You're welcome to emphasize ones that aren't primarily based in this or with association to the company spokespeople. SwisterTwister talk 17:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
- SwisterTwister Could you please give us some examples of the significant publications? Also, I attach some links to our publications: americanexpress.com, techcrunch.com, fortune.com, bizjournals.com,
- DanRodgers Although certainly significant publications, the contents themselves are only public relations-esque announcements and notices down cannot accept these for substantiating notability in our criteria. You're welcome to emphasize ones that aren't primarily based in this or with association to the company spokespeople. SwisterTwister talk 17:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
businessnewsdaily.com, americanbanker.com. Please check the following publications and tell us are they relevant and can they be used in the article? DanRodgers (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- DanRodgers Unfortunately, these are still only announcements and notices in content weight, and they won't be significant enough in Notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- SwisterTwister Could you please give us some examples of the significant publications? DanRodgers (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- DanRodgers Ah, yes. They would have to be significant independent news without any connections or ties to the company press releases or notices as these cannot he considered. We aren't specifically looking at the publisher name, instead whether the contents are outside of the ordinary public relations realm. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- DanRodgers Unfortunately, these are still only announcements and notices in content weight, and they won't be significant enough in Notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I was going to create an article about this scholar and found this draft. Would you like to move it to mainspace please? I could try to add more RS, too. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Accepted. SwisterTwister talk 19:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
17:54:47, 14 November 2017 review of submission by 135.84.167.43
Hi, I was wondering if there are an adequate amount of reliable, secondary sources for our page. Thanks.135.84.167.43 (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately these are not nearly enough as they're still based on announcements and notices, which naturally is how businesses publicize, but it cannot support an article by our standards here. SwisterTwister talk 19:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Stephen C. Yeazell has been accepted
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Your submission at Articles for creation: James M. Skibo has been accepted
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)A Barnstar for you!
|
The New Page Patroller's Barnstar | |
| Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog. And thank you so much for all your years of patrolling new pages. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC) |
07:04:47, 22 November 2017 - Immervision draft submission
Thanks for the clarification. However might I ask you to printout those sections/paragraphs/passages or even specific word use that gives the impression of it being a sales pitch or not as neutral as it might otherwise be? The issue of tone & style were not at any time brought into question before your comment, so the sudden appearance of this as a comment left me puzzled. I've read the WP:Deletion policy through carefully the Wikipedia Spam[1] page and am not sure which words give it the appearance of being biased. Any insight as to specific content in my article that creates this impression would be greatly appreciated. ADDENDUM: I'd noticed this morning that the draft page had been deleted and this without any discussion and without a reply to my repeated requests for help in pointing out which sections/words were written in an NPOV style. I have written several posts in my talk page concerning this, and they too have gone unanswered. I acknowledge my greenhorn Wikipedia contributor's status, and so perhaps this was not the place to initiate a discussion of this matter. Looking forward to hearing you thoughts. Thanks! Jacquesdav (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Review of MLF1867
Pleaes clarify what promotional material you are refering to. You left us the following message: "Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. SwisterTwister talk 18:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLF1867 (talk • contribs)
- MLF1867 The concern was in the article appearing as a sales pitch or with those elements therefore we can't accept them. Overall, this was enough to apply for removal under WP:Deletion policy. SwisterTwister talk 18:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Can you please clarify which statements were a "sales pitch" so we can correct them and supply the correct verbiage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLF1867 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- MLF1867 The overdetail in what the company offered or its business, we're highly skeptical in including that in articles here. SwisterTwister talk 13:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
07:58:52, 16 November 2017 review of submission by Hpsharon
Hi SwisterTwister,
We proceeded with your recommendations to add reliable secondary sources. Before we resubmit the draft though, we want to see if there is now an adequate amount of sources. Would you kindly let us know if coverage of the subject is sufficient?
Sincerely, Hpsharon
- Yes Hpsharon I'm now looking at it but the sources are simply too thin as based on announcements and notices. We need substantial coverage outside anything influenced by this and Notability cannot be inherited. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
11:57:24, 13 November 2017 review of submission by Lidiaratoi
- Lidiaratoi (talk · contribs)
I am requestingare-review on the Matias del Campo age. He is one of the most prominent figures in computational design and the link would prove useful for students and young designers following computational design in architecture, in order to see it implemented and to gather a large data of possible galleries, schools, competitions etc. I have added 2 more references and citation blocks.
- Answered. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
08:27:08, 5 November 2017 review of submission by Jasonwen
- Jasonowen Finally looking back in, I must say there's simply not enough significant independent news yet and you'll need to emphasis others you can help enhancing it. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Review of my draft
Hey David! It's been a while since I've last talked to you. Could you see if you can review this draft that I created? Draft:Oliver Isaacs Thanks man! FiendYT ★
- FiendYT Hello! I can take a look but, I have some things to share with you and I'll discuss them offwiki, come by IRC #wikimedia-cloud, I'll meet you there anytime tonight and I'll share them with you. SwisterTwister talk 03:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- SwisterTwister Sure! I'm there right now. Would love to talk to you. FiendYT ★
- FiendYT I'm happy I could help and I actually noticed only now I missed answering one of your questions at the end, if you may remember, "What's the best backlog to use"). One easy answer is actually the articles I've visited in my contributions as that's a good example. Hope this helps! SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- SwisterTwister Sure! I'm there right now. Would love to talk to you. FiendYT ★
Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.
You are encouraged to change
[[User:SwisterTwister|<font color="green">'''S'''wister'''T'''wister</font>]] [[User talk:SwisterTwister|<font color="green">talk</font>]]→ SwisterTwister talk
to
[[User:SwisterTwister|<span style="color: green;">'''S'''wister'''T'''wister</span>]] [[User talk:SwisterTwister|<span style="color: green;">talk</span>]]→ SwisterTwister talk
Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
WiR December highlights
  
| ||
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
A page you started (Gunda Georg) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Gunda Georg, SwisterTwister!
Wikipedia editor Blythwood just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
I've just done a general tune-up as standard for academic pages: research group link, authority control and a Wikidata entry connected to a professional ID, Twitter page, "Living people" category and a tag on the talk page. Hope that's all OK.
To reply, leave a comment on Blythwood's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Rick Millane
Hi, thanks for all your recent scientist biographies. Just to check–do you have a source specifically saying that this person is an American citizen? His first degree is from a New Zealand university and he seems to have spent at least the majority of his career there, so I think it’s likely that’s where he’s from although I haven’t found a source saying it. Blythwood (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, it was a typing mistake given I had repeatedly typed "American". I've fixed it now. SwisterTwister talk 15:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Original research
Hello. When you write in the Robin J. Ely article that she is "a highly cited expert in her field" and your cited source is this Google Scholar search, is it not "new analysis or synthesis that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated in the published sources"? Note that I have the same concerns for Andrea Goldsmith, Ju Li and Kenneth Merz. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 08:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- WP:PROF explicitly cites any evidence to show expertise in a field and WP:Original research wouldn't be relevant here as those sources are not anything close to original research. GS is certainly not a primary source therefore not original research. SwisterTwister talk 15:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hello. I don't understand. Where is the "published source" that "clearly states" that Robin J. Ely is a "highly cited expert in her field"? Or more reasonably, where is the "published source" that supports that Robin J. Ely is a "highly cited expert in her field"? Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's the citations that show highly cited numbers and this show significance in the field. SwisterTwister talk 18:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hello. Yes, so to wrap it up, we agree that 1. the citation counts show significance in the field 2. the subject passes WP:NPROF 3. we are not aware of a "published source" that "clearly states" that Robin J. Ely is a "highly cited expert in her field". Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's the citations that show highly cited numbers and this show significance in the field. SwisterTwister talk 18:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hello. I don't understand. Where is the "published source" that "clearly states" that Robin J. Ely is a "highly cited expert in her field"? Or more reasonably, where is the "published source" that supports that Robin J. Ely is a "highly cited expert in her field"? Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- I had a similar concern on Michael A. Mallin; I don't agree with your edit summary [4] that it's not OR to describe someone as "highly cited" just based on a citation count -- but I don't disagree with your actual edit which simply states the citation count as a fact. So I think we're all on the same page. CapitalSasha ~ talk 10:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
A page you started (Robert E. Johnson (scientist)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Robert E. Johnson (scientist), SwisterTwister!
Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
I assume you'll be expanding on the other awards listed on his bio which also support his inclusion? The NASA Award for his Cassini work looks particularly impressive.
To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
academics
A statement that someone has very high citation as shown by Google Scholar, backed up by a reference to that source, is not OR. So far from that, having such citations is the prime practicla consideration in notability under WP:PROF, because it proves their being recognized as an authority. How else would one possibly show it except by showing the count? Anyone whose count is high enough to meet WP:PROF is highly cited, that's more of less whatthe term means. But it is not necessary to actually say it. DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Review my article
Assalam-o-Alaikum, I have heard that you review many pages in a day and that, you are an intelligent reviewer. Can you please review my page, Draft:Bilal Abbas Khan, if you are interested. 😞 Or else, your wish but you shall refuse me by replying. 😔 182.182.53.204 (talk) 10:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Review my article
Assalam-o-Alaikum, I have heard that you review many pages in a day and that, you are an intelligent reviewer. Can you please review my page, Draft:Bilal Abbas Khan, if you are interested. 😞 Or else, your wish but you shall refuse me by replying. This draft is approximately 5 days old but no-one has reviewed it. 182.182.53.204 (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, SwisterTwister. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Just because
|
some cuteness |
| I'm almost as fond of hedgehogs as I am dogs and cats. So here's one for your talkpage to cute things up around here - thought you might need it :) Shearonink (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC) |
Please note that https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/travel/a-culinary-pilgrimage-to-punjab.html?_r=0 A Culinary Pilgrimage to Punjab By SHIVANI VORA, New York Times, MARCH 18, 2014 is the source for for "It is cooked slowly in large steel caldron from 4 a.m. to 1 PM. Salt, red chile powder, masala containing onion, ghee, turmeric and asafetida is added just before serving. 220 pounds of daal is used a day feed 700 customers". Obviously a reference citation cannot be added after every single sentence. Malaiya (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)