Jump to content

User talk:Sulfurboy/Archives/2015/July

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sri Vaembu Aathi Muthumari Amman Temple[edit]

In case you hadn't noticed, I brought this page up for discussion at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Sri Vaembu Aathi Muthumari Amman Temple. The page creator has three times removed several maintenance templates I added, without first addressing the problems. I have also been trying to communicate with the page creator, without success. 220 of Borg 00:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the page on my watchlist. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but they have since done this, removing the prod, removing maintenance templates for the fourth time, and adding non-english text. I have manually reverted all, except the prod and English text added. 220 of Borg 09:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12:17:55, 11 July 2015 review of submission by Vivolasting[edit]


Vivolasting (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC) What is the problem with the articles?[reply]

Request on 02:53:16, 12 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Marcella.lazarus[edit]


Hi!

Thank you for your feedback on my article on Leslie Lazarus. I struggled to submit the first draft and at a loss on how to correct the footnotes and citations, even after reading the citations for beginners! Is there someone who can help me, by showing me how with my article, ie doing the first citation correctly for me? Help!!!

Cheers Marcella

Marcella.lazarus (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse

22:42:59, 11 July 2015 review of submission by Dave Truesdale[edit]


I'm not clear on why some of Bryant Villeponteau's references are overly promotional, as they are just patents he has. What is the difference between an author's wiki page listing all of his books (which someone could purchase) and a listing of patents? Patents cannot even be purchased, so they are hardly more promotional than a listing of an author's works. The listing of patents, on the other hand, reinforces the scientist's credibility, respectability, and stature.

I am also unclear on why some references are not kosher if they are linked to external sources. I don't get that. This is my first attempt at creating a wiki page, so I thank you in advance for your patience.

Dave Truesdale Dave Truesdale (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Truesdale (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the person who pointed it out, but I'm not sure how I can help if you don't see comparing a patient list to a book listing of an author is apples and oranges, not to mention to privacy concerns of listing patients. And there is no standard via WP or me personally that I see a patient list influencing credibility, not to mention the issue is notability, not credibility. And which links are you particularly concerned with in staying? Sulfurboy (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Association of Guernsey Charities[edit]

Hi. Thank you again for your comments and help with my first article. I have followed your advice and rewritten some sections and added additional independent citations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Association_of_Guernsey_Charities MalcolmWoodhams (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)MalcolmwoodhamsMalcolmWoodhams (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MalcolmWoodhams (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC) I will look at this later tonight, if I forget, ping me again tomorrow. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC) Submission declined: Too much close paraphrasing[edit]

Hello Graham,

you declined my Article about the voxeljet AG. Draft:Voxeljet AG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Voxeljet_AG The reason was too much paraphrasing. So it would be nice if you could be more specific, which phrases or parts of the article should be changed. Then I will do it immediately.

Thank you for your help and have nice day,

David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwikipedia94 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13 July 2015 for assistance with rejected page submission[edit]

Hi, first a bit of background on the page which was rejected (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Genesis_Foundation) I created the article and went to move it into the main space but the name was not allowed due to another page with a similar name - my page is 'Genesis Foundation' but there is already a 'Genesis Foundation (Colombia). Consequently I submitted the article for review with the hope that the page could go to the main space with that name - perhaps with a disambiguation page and a short description in brackets? - but the article was rejected due to context and the name was not mentioned, when the reason I submitted it was for the name. Could you tell me if I am going down the correct process and if once I make the changes you've suggested it could be put up with the correct name? Thanks for your time Watfordfan23 (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF[edit]

Draft:Arijit_Das was resubmitted with minimal changes except for shortening the list of refs.. I declined it, but I gave an explanation--there is no way from your decline that he could have figured out why he wasn't notable, especially because the relevant guideline is WP:PROF not WP:GNG, tho meeting either would do. If he had been notable, the refs would have been adequate: they're perfectly clear numbered footnotes, tho run together in a paragraph. First he listed scientific refs that he used for background of his work, then he listed all his papers , then comments about him, and then in a separate section he listed the relevant links for the data on his career. (of course, I am used to this sort of academic writing), With an adequate explanation the first time, he might not have resubmitted and cause extra work . I know it's a balance between how much is worth saying and the need to get them done, but beyond a point going too fast makes it harder. And I limit myself to reviewing drafts in fields of which I have some fat least minimal knowledge, unless their total impossibility is obvious. I would not review a draft in a field using field-specific terminology that I did not understand. no one person is responsible for doing them all. DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about what must have been a slip of the mouse. DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I am not competent in the area of assessing academics, probably through my own choice. Thus I have taken, where there is the slightest doubt, to asking DGG to take a look. They have chosen to adopt a skill set and knowledge I do not have. At risk of overloading them, may I suggest you become aware of their work and skills and and them for help from time to time? Fiddle Faddle 16:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I'll look at any such page. Several other people ask me also. Just a notification (eg {{U|DGG}} )is enough--I always see them DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:30:59, 13 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Peboer[edit]


I'm curious about some specifics of the Livid Instruments page denial. It "reads like a catalog" is pretty vague. While it does provide a lot of information about all the products, the language is dispassionate and doesn't make any claims that aren't referenced by outside sources. There are no benefits or advantages that a catalog might engage in. In short, the page is simply a comprehensive history of all the activity of the company, which seems like a good point of reference for study by people who need information. Peboer (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Peboer (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Peboer, Sulfurboy was absolutely correct in their assessment. The draft is a catalog, plain and simple. Even if some of the content were well-verified with references to reliable sources, the thing as a whole, with its plethora of pictures and technical descriptions, is a catalog and as such not really acceptable here. ("Comprehensive history of the activity of the company"--well, only in as much as that history is written up in secondary sources, preferably in print.) I'm sorry, but that's the way things are. For an accepted example of a similar company, but with fewer pictures and details and more reliable sourcing, see Keeley Electronics. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:15:29, 13 July 2015 review of submission by David.x.wang[edit]


Dear Surfurboy,

Thanks for your review and comment for my submission. I have questions regarding the reference you pointed out. Did you mean more references are needed to cross-reference some claims in the article, or simply more independent references that's related to "Nanonex Corporation" are needed?

It also seems that entries for similar kind of companies are not supported with many references; for example, the entry for company called EV Group: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EV_Group

Thank you a lot for your help and clarification.

Dave

David.x.wang (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page you mentioned is actually being considered for deletion. All the sources you have listed on your page are either primary or just basically press releases. We need independent, reliable coverage of the company not just press releases or things that would be considered WP:ROUTINE Sulfurboy (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:59, 13 July 2015‎ Sulfurboy (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (3,551 bytes) (+27)‎ . . (clean up, added orphan tag using AWB)[edit]

You added an orphan tag to the article EgyCon. From my understanding it's a tag added to an article that has no other articles linking to it, which is not the case since Comic Con does so. Please correct me if I am wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheShamy (talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you linked it to there after I added the tag. At the time of review, nothing linked to it. I've removed the tag. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:01:24, 13 July 2015 review of submission by Sivaks2001[edit]


Hi I am bit lost in declining the article and want an understanding from your end. The first decline was because of the wrong citations w.r.t wiki the second decline was because of the content were not neutral enough the third decline was by you stating that the article is a duplicate and you will consider the other draft

Sir, after declining the first time because of lack of proper citations, I changed and included all the citations properly. Second time the draft was modified and changed the tone and also tried to put proper referencing in according to the wiki standards

Now you have rejected stating that there exist other draft with similar name and you will consider the other draft. the other draft was already rejected because of tone being not neutral. Hence I have modified and changed to this tone. So why we are going in circles.

Further, I saw one comment to say that the article is not notable. I am really surprised when one just blatently says such points without understanding a contribution significance.

The person has created histroy by having 2740 episode show aired over 100 countries. The person has first TV artist anchor atleast in India which is Astrology focused The person has acted as main lead in first astrology themed movie in India These are few of contributions of the person (Sundeep Kochar) in the field of acting/astrology.

Wiki uploads about a person when a person has contributed in one area of expertise. In this case, Sundeep has contributed the growth of astrology through acting or vice versa. His shows were aired in more than 100 countries and that is significant as nearly half the world sees his program.

The content is neutral, grammer is decent and references are valid. So not sure why it is rejected thrice and giving three different reasons. Sivaks2001 (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I may: first of all, two submissions for one person, that's not helpful. Second, they're more or less the same. Third, the most recent one (with (actor)) is marginally better than the others, but still not well written, not neutrally written, not well verified. For instance, that "Predictive Ability" is...well, not encyclopedic. Predicting a second term for Obama, most everyone did that--and in this case it's verified to the guy's own Facebook page, and that UPA government thing is sourced to his own blog. If you want this draft to be taken seriously, all that will have to go, as will puffery such as honorary doctorates and other not apparently notable awards. And really, if you cite properly, to where facts are clearly linked to bits in the text (see WP:CITE), you will make it a lot easier for us to assess the importance of your topic. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the other article?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sundeep_Kochar

Confused feedback[edit]

Hi,

You recently reviewed (and declined) my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Association_of_Guernsey_Charities - however you provided some useful feedback (and said that it was a well written article). I made some more corrections as you suggested. However another reviewer has declined it, saying that they consider the article too long and detailed. I'm a bit confused as I had looked at several other articles about similar organisations to gauge the appropriate level of detail - and thought that I had it about right. I'd be grateful for any further comment / feedback (it's my first Wikipedia article - so still learning!!). Thanks in advance.

MalcolmWoodhams (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask DGG, the most recent person to decline it, for their particular issues with the page. I can tell you that one section that would seem a bit over the top is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Association_of_Guernsey_Charities#Membership_of_the_AGC. Keep in mind wikipedia has a global audience. Make sure everything mentioned in the article is tailored to a wider audience. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I sent message to DGG and have amended the paragraph and removed some of the info which may not have been of interest to a wider audience. I had originally tried to include an appropriate level of detail for anyone searching Wikipedia trying to find info about the organization. I have re-submitted. Thanks again for your advice. MalcolmWoodhams (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SOSORRYCARTOON[edit]

Hi Graham, I have removed all the PEACOCK TERMS from the article, request you review it and allow submission of the article. thanks so much

Sosorrycartoon (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:42:49, 14 July 2015 review of submission by EBFree[edit]


Hi -- As I am new to Wikipedia submissions, I would love clarity on one thing: Are the citations for the article not good enough because they aren't varied enough? They are all third party sources that have written about MealEnders, not articles that we wrote. I tried to be varied and pull from a variety of sources.

Any intel would be really helpful as I am trying to do my best to comply with wiki policy.

Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MealEnders

Thanks!

EBFree (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC) EBFree (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:18:13, 14 July 2015 review of submission by Rwbest[edit]


Submission declined, well, that's disappointing. It is a translation of Wereldelektriciteitsgebruik at the Dutch Wikipedia and contains the newest available data from the International Energy Agency. I don't want to merge it at Electric energy consumption, which in my opinion is too long and outdated, but to add content and submit it under a different title. In particular I'd like to describe scenario's for electricity consumption in coming decades published by IEA and World Energy Council. But how can that be done without violating Wikipedia neutrality? Please advise me. Rwbest (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rwbest (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any scenarios like you suggest would need to be sourced. You can't formulate your own opinions. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:19:03, 14 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by 173.250.185.177[edit]


Hi – This article was reviewed and the reviewer said "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability".

The subject has won a major international award, the FSF Award for the Advancement of Free Software, as noted and referenced in the submission. Furthermore, the subject of the article is the only recipient in the history of this award who does not already have a Wikipedia page. He is also the creator of the IPython project, which is notable enough to already have its own wikipedia page. I think these two facts together meet Wikipedia's notability criteria.

If there's anything more I can do to make this clear in the article (aside from the text and references I've already included) I would appreciate some specific pointers! Thanks for reviewing and responding!

173.250.185.177 (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other people who have won this award have wikipedia pages, does not automatically entitle someone else. Also the creation of something doesn't necessarily make its creator notable either. I would recommend reading the notability guidelines that were posted in your rejection. Particularly you need independent, reliable sources that aren't WP:ROUTINE and aren't primary. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:38:29, 15 July 2015 review of submission by 122.162.86.92[edit]


Hello. The article was declined. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ashok_Chopra It would really help me a lot if you could please help fix this. I am very new at this, so not quite sure how to add the references/footnotes in the correct manner. Thank you.

122.162.86.92 (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Bhushan Mate[edit]

Hello Sulfurboy, Thank you for your review and rejection of my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bhushan_Mate. I am wondering if you read article and all my references, there is no advertise in the article. I have given enough referecnes supporting the article. Bhushan is a wellknown photographer in India, I wonder, why his article was not created in the past.... There are many strong referecnes in the Marathi language which you might have not understood. All my comments are neutral and loyally true from the references. Could you help me undertstand which sentences you think are not neutral and not true?

I am also getting a feeling that since Bhushan is from India and the article creator is also from India, are you having any bias against both of them? (this is not a allegation but thought) I can share humdreds of so called celebraties including porn actor and porn accresses having articles on Wikipedia. The official websites of those mentioned on their Wikipedia pages directs the people to the sites which are mostly provibited in most of the countries. Why can't we have the article of a honest person who is doing something for the society on Wikipedia? Coolgama (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reason the article was rejected was because of lack of inline citations needed for a BLP. It had nothing to do with the sources. And the accusation that I am some how biased towards Indian people is absolutely absurd and unfounded. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coolgama, while the article does have inline citations, they are not from acceptable reliable sources. I mean, this is reliable to some extent, I suppose, but it's also a very positive (read, promotional) write-up of a very small exhibition, in a local newspaper. Consensus across the project is that such local news, which inevitably is very positive, is not sufficient to establish notability per our standards, such as WP:ARTIST, in this case. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am really surprised to the see the comments - "write-up of a very small exhibition, in a local newspaper". I guess, you are not aware of the sales figures of the 'so called' local newspapers. First of all, these are not just local newspapers including Sakal times, Maharashtra Times, Times of India, DNA are the trusted newspapers who are having a daily volume in Millions. All these newspapers are highly responsible and trust worthy. There are thousands of articles which are sourced against these newspapers in Wikipedia itself. I am afraid, I can not agree with you on this comment/point and request you to add/approve the article as Wikipedia article.Coolgama (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, you might not be aware that at least few thousand people visited that exhibition and appreciated the efforts. I have personally seen the crowd and have recorded the positive comments from the people over there. First of all, the judgment should not be made on the news coming in which newspaper and how many people attended the same. It is the quality of the work which is been done by the artist. Hope you would agree with me. I again request you add/approve the article as Wikipedia article.Coolgama (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, let it not be a little local newspaper then, but a big one. It doesn't change the basic premise, that we have very little coverage. And of course the source of the news, rather than the quality of the artist, does matter: this is an encyclopedia, not a journal that assesses the value of this or that artist. That the Sakal Times article is far from neutral is pretty evident at first glance. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, I think, you are mixing neutrality of newspaper and neutrality of Wikipedia. Newspaper and especially other media like Television will give non neutral information. The news many times are glorified as the newspaper want to improve their TRP and want to increase their sale. We as wikipedions has responsibility to convert that content that into a neutral language in the Wikipedia article. That is what I have done. Secondly, even if the news is at the small corner, it does not mean that it is not important. As per Wikipedia guidelines, the content to be added should have references and should not be have information on our own or non true. I hope, you agree to me. When I have followed all the pre requisites of any Wikipedia article, why it is taking so much time and discussion whether it should be added or not? If we do not add this article in Wikipedia, it would be loss to Wikipedia. I am making once again request you to add the same in Wikipedia.... Coolgama (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me put it this way, then: the article you cited from that newspaper was not neutral. And things in a small corner are by definition less important than things in a big corner. And I can go on, if you like, and if Sulfurboy does not mind, about the individual notes: ""Friendly Shots" (PUNE MIRROR) 12 September 2013" is an incomplete citation and there is no way to verify what this is, whether it's reliable, etc. 3. this is just a catalog of photos on a website. 4. this is his own website. 5. ""ART" (MID DAY) 13 September 2013" is a woefully incomplete citation, see item 1. 6. " "Bhushan Mate" (PUDHARI) 21 February 2015": ditto. 7. this is an invitation on some website to an event the importance of which cannot be established without reliable secondary sources. 8. ""Bhushan Mate" (DNA) 16 Sepetember 2013": see item 1. 9. ""Bolnar Nisarg" (Maharashtra Times - Pune Times) 24 February 2015": ditto. 10. this may be something. Maybe. 11. " "Bhushan Mate" (PUNE MIRRIOR) 21 February 2015": see item 1. 12, 13, and 14 may be something, but do they verify anything of importance? That he was in a play is not a reason for notability, certainly not for someone who is supposed to be a famous photographer. 15. is the same as 2. 16. " "BHUSHAN MATE" (THE TIMES OF INDI) 28 February 2015": see item 1. And then there's [www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV1Mp6r7qSY this YouTube video] which shows a man, allegedly our subject, playing a guitar and singing.

    This draft process provided you an opportunity to improve and resubmit. Rather than arguing with reviewers, consider improving it. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#11:35:44, 15 July 2015 review of submission by Simon.wbush[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#11:35:44, 15 July 2015 review of submission by Simon.wbush. Thanks. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:14:17, 15 July 2015 review of submission by Wikicohen[edit]


Wikicohen (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are these independent sources OK though? Wikicohen (talk)

What sourcs are you talking about?

00:16:58, 16 July 2015 review of submission by 99.167.82.190[edit]


Greetings and thank you for reviewing our submission. We are very interested in addressing the issues that you noted previously and believe that we have stripped out "peacock" terms and written this in a more encyclopedic format. In fact, we have tried to be in-line with the writing on an organization, Peace One Day, that also performs peace work. Is it possible for you to note a few specific examples on our draft that you think need to be changed so that we understand what you're talking about? 99.167.82.190 (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I rewrote the first paragraph to try and make that sound encyclopedic. The rest is going to need a lot more work. I'll be glad to help rewrite that--but you may not like what is left. What you have right now is in between a brochure and a press release. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and see you soon![edit]

Hi Sulfurboy,

I'm glad to read that you were ready to approve my article, I've been working on it for three months and I hope it will be soon approved. I'm going to follow your piece of advice and resubmit it again.

Thanks a lot!

CyrilG4 (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:29:00, 17 July 2015 review of submission by Daltonsocial6[edit]


Daltonsocial6 (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I need some help and I'm hoping you can help me. Is there any way you can point out "peacock terms" within my submission because everything outlined in the piece has sources. I've read many other entries on wiki for business men such as Mark Cuban and Donald Trump and tried to mirror the tone...Straight forward, just the facts. If you could please point out the areas that you feel are non-neutral, that would be helpful. Then I can address those areas specifically. I've been researching a curating sources for months and I just don't know where else to go from here. Your insight would be greatly appreciated!

Jukka Kalevi Salonen page[edit]

Sulfurboy,

Thanks for your comments on the page submission for Jukka_Kalevi_Salonen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jukka_Kalevi_Salonen Followed your advice and removed secondary and corporate references, added some new third-party media references, and took out "promotional" language. Hope this meets the issues you raised. Thanks again.

Wrtr63 (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Wrtr63Wrtr63 (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sulfurboy, I have extensively checked my article for two areas of contention, namely "contain excessive or improper use of non-free material" and "references do not adequately show the subject's notability". The article has no use of non-free material so that is not an issue. Note all diagrams are also free source. The article has references for each part in its construct showing the build from CMM and C2M2 though to the current model, thus showing its notability. I cannot determine what changes need to be made before a resubmit. Can you please assist me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean p connors (talk • contribs) 16:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advise changes needed before re-submission as 2 areas of contention are not substantiated[edit]

Dear Sulfurboy, I have extensively checked my article for two areas of contention, namely "contain excessive or improper use of non-free material" and "references do not adequately show the subject's notability". The article has no use of non-free material so that is not an issue. Note all diagrams are also free source. The article has references for each part in its construct showing the build from CMM and C2M2 though to the current model, thus showing its notability. I cannot determine what changes need to be made before a resubmit. Can you please assist me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean p connors (talk • contribs) 16:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) At first glance, the sources seem to show the notability of other things, such as CERT-RMM. The sources I can find don't seem to mention CS5L (Cybersecurity Strategy 5 Layout Capability Maturity Model). (Some of the sources are hard to find, and you really need to post page numbers and brief quotations to help those of us who can't find the sources.) Really, I don't think you can change the article to make it suitable. You just have to wait until CS5L itself gets significant coverage: for some topics it takes many years, but it could be much sooner than that. Until then, look for ways outside of Wikipedia to share your creation. Since you don't make money from CS5L, I suggest you post your research that cites how you developed CS5L on a low cost or free hosting provider, or one of these: Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexiulian25 (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Hello, sorry for disturbing, but i want to report to you something. This page Superleague Greece has been violated. Can you undo the list of champions also correctly and to check if something else was deleted. Thank you.[reply]

Open Contracting[edit]

Where the talk page and answer??? Deleting without answer is very aggressive, please put it back and put an answer and please talk. --Krauss (talk) 09:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't hyperlink to anything, so I have no idea what you're talking about. It probably got moved to archives automatically. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:40:36, 15 July 2015 review of submission by Ahmedahmed777[edit]


Hello. I do not understand the reason for the draft being declined. Your comments were adhered to and most materials in the article has been sourced using footnotes; and any duplicate copies were deleted.

Thanks,

Ahmed

Ahmedahmed777 (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically are you concerned about? Pretty sure the issues were addressed. Not to mention, you creating multiple articles of the same thing makes it very confusing on us to keep up. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:25:50, 15 July 2015 review of submission by Mobilitie LLC[edit]


Thank you for providing feedback on Gary Jabara’s article. We have gone through the golden rule and notability guidelines, and strongly believe that our reference links meet Wikipedia’s guidelines and requirements. For additional reassurance, we took a look at other notable Newport Beach residents and noticed that Gary Primm for instance had much fewer reference links, but still managed to have his Wikipedia page published. Gary Jabara’s page has a total of 14 reference links, all of which are from reliable and independent publications such as Forbes, LA Times, Sports Business Journal, Ernst and Young, and the Orange County Business Journal. We urge you to please reconsider your decision or to possibly provide additional direction on what edits need to be made specifically. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.” Mobilitie LLC (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that the acceptance of another article has no bearing on later articles, comparing it to another article is useless in trying to get it approved. The issue with the sources, like I already said, is that they focus on the companies not the individual. We need articles that actually profile or discuss the person individually for him to pass the golden rule as you mentioned. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

07:18:54, 16 July 2015 review of submission by Azradon[edit]


Hello,

thanks for taking the time and reviewing the draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fair_Stone. The article still seems to be missing the formal tone. I reviewed the text for any claim or marketing blah blah. I removed 3-4 sentences but could not find anything else. Is there anything in particular you critize? The article is meant to describe the formal requirements of the standard as well as the procedure. The previous reviews were very helpful and I have adjusted (i.e. reduced) the text accordingly. Segments such as the motivation or the need for a standard have been omitted. The reception segment contains an endorsement ("particulary recomendable" label), this however is a justified third party evaluation.

Kind regards Azradon (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Azradon (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I won't have the time to re-review it for a few days as I am on vacation. But I would recommend that if you feel confident about it to go ahead and re-submit it. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12:04:33, 16 July 2015 review of submission by Erinhistoric[edit]


Erinhistoric (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sulfurboy,

Thank you for reviewing the Historic Hotels of America draft page. Is it possible to move the Historic Hotels of America content on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Trust_for_Historic_Preservation to make its own page? I'm wondering that because Historic Hotels of America is licensed out of the National Trust for Historic Preservation and is not operated by this group.

Also, one of their other programs has their own Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Trust_Community_Investment_Corporation.

Why would Historic Hotels of America follow a different rule than the National Trust Community Investment Corporation?

Would you take a look at that again and let me know what you think? It doesn't seem fair that the Investment group would be able to create their own page but Historic would need to be part of the National Trust page.

Many thanks Erinhistoric (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)Erinhistoric[reply]

The existence of other pages is not a means of proving why another page should exist via WP. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article "Nicolas M. Chaillan" modified according to your request[edit]

Hello Graham,

First of all, thank you for taking the time to review my article.

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nicolas_M._Chaillan

I'm focused on a few hand picked notable serial entrepreneurs in the Valley, NY and DC, working on their profile, that's my expertise.

I wanted to give you some feedback regarding the page of Nicolas M. Chaillan.

First of all, I added several links: - Reuters! - DC Sun Times! - Bloomberg! - IAM (very big in IP) - Yahoo finance (!) - 01net (!) - OOH TV (French TV) - OnWindows.com - Tribune.fr (top 3 French newspaper)

There are dozen or more links but that would be a lot...

Also, please note that the existing references are from verifiable, reliable sources from famous newspaper such as: - Washington Post (!!) - Washington Business Journal (!!) - A dedicated article on him on Bisnow which is also very famous on the East Coast - Totalfood, well known for Hospitality articles - Bloomberg (!!) - Microsoft Blog did one too - Technical.ly !

I have now more than two references for each section of my article.

I have a total of 22 references now! This is way more than what I usually provide so at this point I hope it is more than enough to prove his notability...

He has hundreds of results on Google US and Google FR (since he is French but moved here).

As you understood, he is a very successful entrepreneur and entrepreneurs, like football or basketball players, deserve to be recognized for creating jobs and value in the United States.

I submitted the article again and hopefully you will be able to approve it since I hope to have addressed your concern.

Let me know if you have any further concerns.

Thanks a lot, Tom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.62.70 (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you fix the formatting of your references, I'd be happy to review it. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind showing me the right syntax in ONE example and then I can replicate it? I'm not so sure what's wrong but I will fix it. Thanks Tom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.172.96.244 (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Graham, I actually just fixed the references, I used the same syntax than Elon Musk's page. Let me know if it works, I believe you can review it ! Thanks Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.172.96.244 (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Graham, just wondering if you had the chance to review the reference tags of that article. I used the same syntax than Elon Musk's page. It should be good to go. Please let me know if you have any questions. I hope you're enjoying your time away (vacation?) Thanks, Tom.

Just saw that you moved the article! Thanks a lot, I will now try to find out how to create a banner for your User page :-). Thanks, Tom!

Request on 09:49:30, 20 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Ahmedahmed777[edit]


Hello. Kindly delete the draft and all other previous drafts; because they are still showing on the net once someone googles the name Al-Sabah. Many thanks.

Ahmedahmed777 (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard A. Kimball, Jr. page[edit]

Hello Sulfurboy. Thank you very much for approving the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Kimball,_Jr. I've been working on it since January and it's a relief to see it's been moved out of the draft!

I would just like to know if I can still add a new section after Business Career or Health Conferences? I'm thinking of adding Telehealth Advocacy or Patient-Centered Advocacy as a new section.

The references include:

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/5-ways-your-hospital-can-benefit-from-patient-centered-care.html

http://electronichealthreporter.com/telehealth-a-promising-future-for-healthcare/

http://www.corporatewellnessmagazine.com/column/telemedicine-an-ally-in-the-fight-to-get-your-life-back/

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/population-health/chronic-disease-management-improving-outcomes-for-low-income-patients.html

http://www.thestreet.com/story/13165484/2/heres-whats-standing-in-the-way-of-a-technological-revolution-in-health-care.html

I also read Wikipedia's rules on attribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution). I thought it'll be best to course through you the above-mentioned references just to be sure it's within Wikipedia's guidelines.

Thank you very much! Itscamilla (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:18:07, 16 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by LeahVanRooy[edit]


Hello,

I am have only submitted one other article in the past, so this is still new to me. Sulfurboy, thank you for reviewing my submission. I see that you had rejected the submission for the following reasons: Submission declined on 10 July 2015 by Sulfurboy (talk). This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule.

I am failing to see the issue with my sources and the was wondering if you could point out to me what specific areas concerned you. I am happy to make adjustments, I am just unsure where to start as I feel the sources selected follow the requirements. Any guidance would be appreciated.

Here is a link to the article you reviewed. It was covering a company called 4imprint. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LeahVanRooy/sandbox

Thanks so much!

LeahVanRooy (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LeahVanRooy (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing my article.

I have been working on this article for a long time now. Many delays in publishing have even resulted in some aspects of the article becoming dated in the fast moving world of cybersecurity.

Firstly I would like to point out that the statement of 'excessive or improper use of non-free material, is grossly unfounded. All material is historical in nature and references are cited for all aspects. All diagrams are posted as free material, and any and all parts of the article are not plagiarized.

Secondly the 'subject notability' and reliable sources has been extensively debated and approved, please see the extract below:

My article was approved allready as qualifying as being widely spoken about and so forth by Winner42. Winner42 allready approved this regarding reliable sources. Strange you refer me to an article very much the same, CMM, for formatting, then say there are no references. The last stage was to format it into an acceptable publication. Now you have reverted to previous debates. See below:

NOTE from previous discussion with Wikipedia publication process, in a letter to the editor: I would like to provide you with some background what would not necessary be in the article. I have been working on this model, CS5L CMM for a few years now, and although it has been adopted by some state governments and companies it has not made its way to Wikipedia. As you may see in my references that there was an attempt to develop a capability maturity model in the energy sector which did not get past C2M2. Although the CMM model exists, and there are Wikipedia pages allready with this content, it is not applied to Cybersecurity, only the C2M2 in the energy sector. This measurement model CMM in cybersecurity, is quickly becoming a standard in the industry to fill a void. There is great need for a measurement much like credit scoring in the cyber security world, to enable vendors to measure agents that they do business with. We have developed a web based SAAS UI that allows companies to independently have access to an easy to use interface to collect data and measure their security. This is an open system, (free) and is developed in the spirit of maturing capability nationwide.

  • I'm honestly not even sure what you're talking about. I assume it was once a different article in your sandbox page? You should create draft pages in the future to avoid confusion. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

00:09:33, 17 July 2015 review of submission by Annlyons[edit]


Annlyons (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC) Hi, Would reallly appreciate feedback and advice to get this right. Each edit, it gets better - have been reviewing other Wiki posts and see that others are using IMDB references, film reviews, and similiar info- any specifics on when it's ok and usable? Any other avenues to support? Will it help to create one of the boxes with history of works? ie music videos, tv show.. Airplane repo-[reply]

Tough part is most info is on Imdb- Please help.. Thanks so much.

Looks fine now. I approved it.Sulfurboy (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

09:29:57, 17 July 2015 review of submission by Cloudy001[edit]


Cloudy001 (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC) I am not clear why the artcle has again been rejected. You have asked me to 'cite your sources using footnotes' and I think I have done that. Please could you provide further explanation.[reply]

There is entire points and lines that lack citations. Please keep in mind the inline citation standard is much higher for living people. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

06:39:23, 20 July 2015 review of submission by Nickfowler67[edit]


The Beach Recovery Foundation is the only organization I can find that is trying to cure coastal erosion, not just dump sand that quickly washes away. I was able to find an article on them in a paper out in American Samoa which shows them getting interviewed on TV there (two independent sources). In Googling them at the Outer Banks, I found talk about them in the Island Free Press, but no actual story. There is a video of a rally they organized at the Bonner Bridge, but the news talked about the rally itself and not them (two more independent sources). I also found a picture of one of their representatives in Jamaica but I see Wikipedia has The Examiner on their ban list. There was also a picture of their celebrity spokesmodel from California, but that's not something I felt appropriate for the page. Actually, I didn't think it necessary to add all the above either, but I did add what made sense to do at your request. They also said they will be speaking to the United Nations in October but don't want to announce that yet. That's a lot of independent sources right there, thousands of miles apart.

In sum, the Beach Recovery Foundation is actually doing something to repair our damaged planet, not just talking about the problem. They have done so for years very quietly, paying for everything themselves. It would indeed be sad to know this honorable non-exploitive non headline-grabbing approach is being used against them. The more people that know about them the better. Please approve the page so others can have a chance to add their news items as well. Thanks.

Nickfowler67 (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't approve a page just because it involves someone doing something noble or good for the world. That is not apart of our guidelines. We need significant coverage in reliable sources. Sorry. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:07:37, 20 July 2015 review of submission by Nigelyoung51[edit]


Nigelyoung51 (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed this submission with several colleagues and we are having difficulty in understanding the reasons given for the rejection, primarily lack of outside coverage.

While I would acknowledge that the earlier references relate to coverage of the creation of the organization and its people, this objection cannot be leveled at the later references. In particular I would point out that The Academy of Experts is referred to (reference 12) in the Supreme Court judgment in Jones v Kaney, the second most important judgment relating to expert witnesses in the last half century; the Supreme Court judges assuming that the legal world would know about The Academy.

Likewise references 5, 6, 7 and 8 are from UK or Irish Governmental or Judicial bodies. We are having difficulty in seeing why these are not considered "outside" The Academy.

Perhaps you can advise and assist us. With thanks, Nigel Young Nigelyoung51 (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator observation: Dr Young is a Fellow of The Academy of Experts and the Former Chairman of the The Academy of Experts. As such he will be familiar with the term Conflict of Interest. I have placed the required notice on his talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The supreme court reference only mentions them once and would be considered a routine mention. All it says is "This Protocol was drafted by the Civil Justice Council with the assistance of work done by the Expert Witness Institute and the Academy of Experts." A simple passing mention of an academy does not make them inherently notable. Source five and six I can't check. Source seven does not even mention the academy. Eight is again just routine mention. I would encourage you to re-read the link posted in the rejection as what are considered appropriate sources to show notability as these are lacking the ability to come anywhere near would be SIGNIFICANT coverage. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marianne Hirsch - Draft[edit]

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

Hi Sulfurboy! Thanks for looking over my article on Marianne Hirsch. The article has been marked as up for immediate deletion due to copyright violations from a single source, and I wanted to check in. Four sentences appear to directly match the source: one simply states her position, and therefore cannot be put into new language (“Marianne Hirsch is the xxx Professor of xxx”); the second names a center she founded (“She is one of the founders of xxx”); and the third and fourth respectively contain a list of grants and a list of service positions (“recipient of fellowships from” and “has served on”). If these are to remain accurate they can at most be changed by 2-3 words, and I’d be happy to make those corrections to the three violating sentences.

All other sentences in the profile contain new information, new citations, a new order, and new language, and much of what’s been marked as plagiarism is not found on the page you’ve cited (immigration date, time teaching at Dartmouth / professional development at Dartmouth, focus of scholarship, etc.). Half of the article has not been marked as containing any plagiarism. The article does follow the conventions of an academic profile –– job, education, past jobs, awards, service, scholarship, publications –– but I do not believe it violates copyright in overlapping with the cited academic page. I’d appreciate the opportunity to fix the three violating sentences and have the rest of the article published.

Please let me know if anything else would be necessary, and apologies if I’ve contacted you in the wrong venue (not very experienced here, eep). Thanks! –– knifegames — Preceding undated comment added 06:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an update: RHaworth sent me the text, and I've made some changes to the wording, added additional citations, etc. I'm hopeful that the new version is up to par. Thanks again! Knifegames (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Approved. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the references for authentic sources about the article[edit]

I have edited the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Giresh_Naik_K&redirect=no , added new references and also provided authentic links about the article. kindly verify & approve to article release I have added link of official Facebook page my of Movie" Four pillars of basement". It provides the information about Director(about the article: Giresh Naik) as well.

Kindly guide me if any further details required for accepting my article

Facebook is not an appropriate source. Please read the linked articles in your rejections. Also, please do not remove previous rejection notices from the page. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:05:55, 20 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Michellerounds[edit]


Thank you for your review of my article.  I'm actually not Michelle Rounds, I'm writing the article about her (I'm her manager).  Can you please guide me as to what I need to do to correct the article.  Do I need to add references to press articles or something else?  I don't know what else I should be adding to show she is 'notable'. Any guidance you can give would be greatly appreciated.  Thank you.


Michellerounds (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC) Per the link already posted in the rejection, you need to show substantial coverage in reliable sources. The peacock terms also need to be removed and also make sure to use inline citations for the sources since it's an article about a living person. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Bacteria further reading[edit]

I do not quite understand your comment on Talk:Bacteria. There is in fact an extensive further reading section to this page, containing a number of standard textbooks. It would seem to me highly appropriate to add a current one--in fact, a few more recent ones should be added--the section is somewhat out of date. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC) Yeah I have no idea why I completely didn't see the further reading section. I'm going back and fixing it now. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Hello Sulfurboy. Your account has been granted the "rollbacker" and "reviewer" user rights. These user rights allow you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes and quickly revert the edits of other users.

Rollback user right
Please keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
Pending changes reviewer user right
The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection enabled is located at Special:StablePages. You may find the following pages useful to review:

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of reviewer or rollback. If you no longer want either of these user rights, contact me and I'll remove it, alternatively you can leave a request on the administrators' noticeboard. Happy editing! Swarm we ♥ our hive 23:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

00:11:15, 21 July 2015 review of submission by Senpei[edit]


Senpei (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Hi! I am writing the Wikipedia Page on Enid Farber, and I was wondering why it was denied? I'm wondering because I have gone through her list of credentials and know her as an accomplished Jazz photojournalist and there is enough press on her as well as notability in the industry and outside of it that it didn't make any sense to me.[reply]

Please let me know what I can do with the references or the page so that I can resubmit it. Thanks!

00:12:45, 21 July 2015 review of submission by Senpei[edit]


Senpei (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Hi! I am writing the Wikipedia Page on Enid Farber, and I was wondering why it was denied? I'm wondering because I have gone through her list of credentials and know her as an accomplished Jazz photojournalist and there is enough press on her as well as notability in the industry and outside of it that it didn't make any sense to me.[reply]

Please let me know what I can do with the references or the page so that I can resubmit it. Thanks!

re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Enid_Joyce_Farber.

04:51:51, 21 July 2015 review of submission by Qropsspecialists[edit]


Hi, I added updates after the 1st July update by HMRC on the new ROPS list and also added secondary sources from journalists as requested. Many thanks for reviewing and pointing out the lack of secondary sources. Best regards,

Richard

Qropsspecialists (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on the draft page. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

05:56:47, 21 July 2015 review of submission by Vivek.bekhabar[edit]


Hi, Thanks for reviewing the page. The article I feel is notable, since it has around 4 references which discusses it (in addition to the 3 for Gallery Soulflower), and other passing by sources which have not been mentioned here. Check this and this. I have done extensive research on aroma industry. I found Soulflower is one of the early company in this sector in India. Please go through all the articles I have shared. I still feel Soulflower could have a small article. The other brands in this category are Nyassa, Om Ved, khadi, Forest Essentials. Their is a no information about all these on wikipedia. And I don't feel that you mean this whole sector is not notable. The most coverage I could get for was Soulflower. So, I started making a page. What do you say ? Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I and about five other editors who have reviewed the page disagree. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Sulfurboy, Where are those other 5 editors ? I can't see comment of any of them. Even one of the editor tokyogirl79 made a lot of changes in the Draft and felt that it could satisfy minimum criteria. Why are you running away instead of being logical and giving replies. Why are you feeling sorry about this. I should feel sorry. I wasted my whole time. Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 06:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The comments are below your rejection notices on the draft page. And if I wanted to run away I would have just not responded to you. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK Sulfurboy, You see the first comment was put by FocusAndLearn regarding the notability criteria. After that the article has been revised many times & references citing has been done. Its my mistake that I didn't ask that editor to review again to tell me the difference.
  • After that all the comments are from tokyogirl79 (who also declined it), I had a conversation with that editor after making every edit. And even the editor did a major restructuring of the Draft and was somewhat convinced about it. I don't know...you tell the go ahead. Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 06:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advise changes needed before re-submission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ray_Zinn[edit]

Hofland (talk) 06:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC) A friend asked me to help out. I've noticed that you suggest more context in the draft page for Ray Zinn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ray_Zinn).[reply]

Can you help out and let me know what your missing (pointing to the how to write a better article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles does not really help).

Another reviewer, user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elee_(renamed) seem to suggest that this article is well written and complete. Also, my friend has corrected the issues related to copyright (there are no longer copied items from other sources). She is stuck and needs some suggestions/direction to move forward and published the article.

Thank you for your help.Hofland (talk) 06:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources are cited do not actually state the info which is claimed in the article. Especially some of the direct biography bits which would be considered most controversial. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hofland, the article is also an excessively personal biography for a quite minor figure. If it is added to mainspace, I will certainly nominate it for afd. DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hofland (talk) 06:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Thank you for the update.[reply]

July 21 2015 review of All Power Labs[edit]

Hi Sulfurboy, I read the links you gave in your review and went back and made some edits to improve the neutrality of the article and remove some of the peacock usage. Thanks for taking the time to help improve the quality of our much beloved wikipedia.

I am an employee of this company who believes in their work, but am also committed to the principals of wikipedia. Forgive me if my bias comes through, I have been trying hard to minimize it. If you could point out any particular instances where you feel the language continues to be non-neutral, informal or peacocky, I would be glad to address them.

Thanks again for you work here. Nesdon (talk) 06:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Sulfurboy. I have resubmitted the AfC in keeping with feedback from Cullen in the teahouse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Improving_draft:All_power_labs. I would appreciate it if you could revisit the draft:All power labs where hopefully I have solved the problems you noted in your previous review allowing your to approve it.Nesdon (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:57:15, 21 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Paulhus15[edit]



Paulhus15 (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your time and review. Tamara Champlin's life is strong and relevant globally, and she is deserving to be here. There are many 3rd party links and cross links where she is mentioned in other wiki articles that I have cited adding a few more this morning. Any suggestions for specific changes from you: additions I should make or deletions I should consider, please advise. I have trimmed what might be viewed as peacock terms, added 2 book links and added family links that I know. I am also asking advice of other editors and stopped by the tea room for their advice. thanks again so much for your time and consideration Paulhus15 (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)@Paulhus15: I dropped by here to look at something else and your post intrigued me, so I looked at your draft. I have left you a large comment there which I hope will help you. It really adds a little more flesh to Sulfurboy's review. I think you have mistaken quantity for quality. There is much work to do and I hope very much that you enjoy doing it. It is up to you to prove that her life is "strong and relevant globally" rather than simply saying so. Fiddle Faddle 09:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thank you both again for your suggestions and all your help. I know what I need to do more specifically now with this draft and will work on it over the next couple weeks to perfect it. much gratitude and respect Paulhus15 (talk) 10:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:41:38, 21 July 2015 review of submission by Bchd2[edit]


Hi Sulfurboy, The draft that was submitted initially was lacking some citations (apologies! Many of the descriptions of programs came from the same Health Department website so we did not include all citations initially). We've gone back and inserted citations/references according to Wikipedia policies. Please re-review this latest version! Thank you very much.Bchd2 (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bchd2 (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:41:29, 21 July 2015 review of submission by Pamendez01[edit]

Hi Sulfurboy! Thank you for reviewing my article for creation. I noticed you marked "resembled advertising" and I wanted seek you out to better understand what you mean. I have over 1,000 well-cited, supported, notable, unbiased words from my perspective. In defense of your challenge to article notability, the U.S. President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities designated Lovewell (the subject of my article) as one of the nation's most effective arts education programs. I'm not sure what else needs to be done differently? I used countless other wikipedia articles as templates and read all creation guidelines and rules... What resembles an advertisement? I have scholarly references not related to the founder or the organization. Thank you for taking a second look. Pamendez01 (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the article is it reads more like a brochure for the program than an encyclopedic article. Someone who comes to the article isn't going to want or need every detail about every program. The article should focus primarily on the history, why it is notable and it's impact. For example that it seems to be cited as a teaching method by different research studies. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsalting[edit]

FYI, Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_reduction_in_protection_level is the "correct" venue for requesting unsalting an article per the third bullet point, I've encountered this at AfC before too. Pinging @Jaryon32: who said to take it to AN. Keep up the fantastic AfC work! Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks! Yeah it seemed pretty unclear as to where to post to. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Siva Power[edit]

Thanks for the speedy review and for the submission of Siva Power. Slainte12 (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tags[edit]

Please don't forget to add the "Unreferenced" tag where appropriate - as for Imaginary Friend (2012 film) (I've added it). It's probably far more important than the "Orphan" tag. Thanks. PamD 23:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey PamD, I was just doing a little AWB cleanup to get warmed up which doesn't really catch the unreferenced parts. The pages I tagged though should still be unreviewed so they should get caught in NPP. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 01:32:39, 22 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by ChiefSweetums[edit]


I'm a little confused. I only used one reference to the business itself. All other references were totally independent?? I also used another precious metals company's Wikipedia as a guide, so I am thoroughly confused.

ChiefSweetums (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the attached links to the rejection it wouldn't be confusing at all. We can't use wikipedia as a source, also, the other links are either press releases or just business profiles not actually substantial independent coverage. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

01:34:44, 22 July 2015 review of submission by ExGerman[edit]

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

I'm a little bit confused.

Under my user account "Virelin" I wrote the article "World of Digitals" but then my user account was blocked as it is equal to my companies name.

I then created another account "ExGerman" and created the same article "World of Digitals".

Now on both accounts I'm told that the article is duplicate and that the version of the other account will be proceeded.

How can I delete my account "Virelin" and the article "World of Digitals" in there to proceed with my new account?

ExGerman (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any draft can be edited by any user. You can edit the original article freely under a different account. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

02:09:32, 22 July 2015 review of submission by Venus tan[edit]


May I know which are the references that are problematic? Is it ok to link to our actual website from which we obtain factual information? Something like a primary source. Because the venue portal is existing and functioning. I am using it. However, it has yet to be covered by prominent media. Therefore, I was just stating facts obtained from the website and linked to the Eventnook website directly.

Thank you for your reviews!

Warmest Regards, Venus

Venus tan (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it hasn't been covered by prominent media then it likely won't pass WP:GNG. Wikipedia requires substantial independent and notable media coverage to show notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

07:41:45, 22 July 2015 review of submission by 77.86.86.38[edit]


Thanks for reviewing my article.

I can't figure out which parts read like an advertisement? All sources are external articles written by independent publications and none have been produced by the company.

Happy to reword/rewrite or remove parts that are deemed inappropriate.

Thanks

77.86.86.38 (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The productions section in particular won't ever pass muster. Keep in mind a companies page is not meant to be a brochure or a press release, it should only provide information relevant to a encyclopedic article, not a potential consumer. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Thanks for the help Sulfurboy, I have made some amendments to the Products section, hopefully making it more relevant to an encyclopedic entry.

Regards

07:50:42, 22 July 2015 review of submission by Soulman1125[edit]


Regarding article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Braeden_Wright

Hey there Sulfurboy :)

it has been years since I last wrote an article on Wikipedia, and have never used the talk page. Really hope I am doing this right! I just wanted to say thank you for your review on my article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Braeden_Wright ) After your comments, I realized that there was much work needed to be done to add references with much heavier weight and more clearly demonstrate the subject's notoriety. I did notice that you said "please fix your references"... I am unsure of if you meant to add better ones/prove what is being said more thoroughly, or if there was something technical I was doing wrong with my citations that I was unaware of. Hopefully I didn't misunderstand you, and have everything right and in order :) I will be resubmitting the page, hopefully the house is much better built this time :) Anyways, I love Wikipedia and you volunteers never get the thanks you deserve, so whether my article is good enough yet or not, I just wanted to say thank you. Very cool to feel a part of the community. Cheers xx

Soulman1125 (talk) 07:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Soulman1125 Soulman1125 (talk) 07:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine if you scrolled to the bottom of the page, you'd very much see a problem. There is a reference section pasted in the personal life section. Below that is a subset reference section and below that is another subset with broken references. This would make it impossible to confirm or dispel any statements on the page by a reviewer. I'm glad to see you working on this page, but I can almost fully assure you this person will not pass WP:GNG. As I have seen a few of your improved references. They included a photographer and mentioning Calvin Klein. Posing for a famous photographer or wearing a certain brand does not a notable model make. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

07:53:24, 22 July 2015 review of submission by Manmaths[edit]


Manmaths (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Hi Sulfurboy, I'd deeply appreciate if you can point me specific reasons.[reply]

I'd deeply appreciate a specific question. Sulfurboy (talk) 08:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:13:02, 22 July 2015 review of submission by Snagle77[edit]


Sulfurboy, could you go into a little more detail regarding why The RW3 Technologies submission was rejected. The theme of the article is the growth of a a technology service provider in the CPG industry and how the CPG industry has evolved since the 1990's regarding retail execution. Regarding the overview of the products I followed a similar review that Gartner produced trying to state only the facts. Upon writing I thought the history portion might be a little to long but wanted to hear your take before making any edits.

If you can let me know what exactly makes it sound like a press release/about page then that will give me some guidance with the edits regarding re submission.

Thanks for your help

Snagle77 (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFC and perhaps some pointers[edit]

I come to review AFC articles from time to time, as it takes my fancy. Over the last dozen or more months I've been fairly active and have been told that I have been quite useful. It heartens me that you are doing the same.

I wonder if you would like a few pointers of some of the things I have learned. Indeed, I learned something new today.

I'll offer them anyway, and let you decide to consider them or not

  • I have learned always to check for copyright violations, but some are not obvious. One such is Draft:Face Recognition where someone, presumably the contributing editor, has copied a student paper verbatim. This is a copyvio because we have no idea if the edit has the actual copyright to the paper (ignoring whether the item has a place here). I have learned that copyvios are the things to check for at once. WP:DUCK often applies
  • I have learned to give as full a review as I can. This avoids a lot of talk page questions. I have a standard list at User:Timtrent/Reviewing which I've developed over time, and edit from time to time, and I pull paragraphs as required and modify them as needed
  • I have learned where I am not competent. I am useless at music and academics! I cannot know everything and so I avoid certain areas like the plague!

I feel we should pass our skills on in case they are useful to others, and so I pass these three things to you in case they are useful to you. If they are, great; please pass them with your own learnings to someone else who is enjoying their reviewing career and may be newish to it. If they are not useful, then know that no slight is intended. Smile and nod and move on Fiddle Faddle 18:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah I was a little confused as to what to do in the Face Recognition bit as nothing popped up on copyvios. Also, if you'll see it was originally a sandbox, so for all I knew the guy was using wikipedia like a word processor haha. And that Timtrent archive is really nice! I've been trying to get better about giving full reviews, but usually skip it still on pages I think the reviewers won't even come back to. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also skip the full reviews when I feel they are pointless. We all have to make choices. I do try to remember to use Twinkle to welcome each editor, though. As soon as I started giving full reviews I found the talk page questions lessened and my time was better used
Feel totally free to use my review archive. I have the source open in a window all the time I am reviewing.
The sandbox is not web space, that's the thing. And,the moment they submit it, it becomes public property. The Face Rec thing I just used as an example of somewhere we have both been, not in any way as a criticism. We need to zap copyvios as soon as we suspect them WP:DUCK is a useful guide! Fiddle Faddle 19:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, since I got you here, Timtrent, can you tell me what GFOO means? I tried looking it up in the archived AfC questions, and the best I can understand is that it's articles that can be easily reviewed? Just curious what criterion goes into deciding what they are and how they're nominated and such. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great Firehose of Ordure. Bizarrely it is a phrase I created, but I never expected it would become 'famous'. Fiddle Faddle 07:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you didn't answer the more important part of the question. Haha. Draft reply is sent back and awaiting review. Sulfurboy (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, true. It means they are the newest, unreviewed and often unmitigated ordure. They are the ones that need stripping away quickly to avoid backlog buildup. I see two places to work at AFC. The oldest and the newest. I work on the oldest when I am enthusiastic and fresh because they tend to be the hardest, and the newest when I need a break because I can rip away rubbish fast. Are GFOO articles easy to review? Depends on their content. Fiddle Faddle 08:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bug you one last time? But what's the criterion or algorithm process for determining what is GFOO or is it a manual tag? Sulfurboy (talk) 08:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have genuinely no idea. I suspect newness. As a side issue, have a look here and be unnamed that the editor managed to find things to accuse himself of, none of which have been levelled at him. Ego goes a long way. And that was definite GFOO material Fiddle Faddle 13:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Ramsey[edit]

Hi there. Thanks so much for accepting my submission for the Russ Ramsey article last week. I'm hoping that you might be able to help me with a few outstanding issues with the article. Most importantly, I'd like to address the orphan tag on the entry. I found two articles that already mention Ramsey that would be very simple to add a link to. Would you be able to do that? Since I have a COI and follow the "bright line", I'd prefer not to do it myself. Here's where they are:

Secondly, I uploaded a headshot of Ramsey that can be added to the article's infobox. That file is here. Could you add it in? Let me know if you're unable to make these edits and I can reach out to other editors. I wanted to ask you first, since you created the article, but I see in your FAQ that you frequently are busy with new articles. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on vacation right now and really don't have the time for editing, just focusing on responding to issues. I see no COI issues in doing the above things mentioned. But if you want to reach out to other editors in an abundance of caution I understand. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I completely understand—enjoy your vacation! Heatherer (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:32:06, 22 July 2015 review of submission by WikiAlexandra[edit]


Hey Sulfurboy,

Thanks for the review on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:TopSpeed.com . I'm curious to know if there are any examples of references that you are looking for in order for the draft to get approved next time. Also, can you tell me if the existing references are OK, but I just need to find more? Or are they not adequate?

I'm asking since websites similar to this one, such as Jalopnik, have articles up despite featuring far fewer secondary source references. Do they simply have a better type of references, or is it just that they were created in a time when reviewers were less demanding?

Thank you!

WikiAlexandra (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that no precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy. The existing sources are fine and don't need to be removed. But keep in mind we need to see substantial, independent and reliable coverage of the subject. Not just press releases (which are basically primary) or articles that barely even mention them. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:41:16, 22 July 2015 review of submission by Tracyragan[edit]


Tracyragan (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-review. I have done everything I was asked to do with several cite references. There is no "advertising" information on this page. I even took out a list of features of what our products do. Other sites have this such as Puppet Labs for example. Please give me a clear reason why this is being rejected. Content only covers our history, awards and partners. What in that content is considered 'advertising.'

I will respond on the page. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Edits to Draft:Harris CapRock Communications[edit]

Hello Sulfurboy,

A little while ago you edited my draft of Draft:Harris CapRock Communications.

I researched into the rules and guidelines of notability and "The Golden Rule" that you posted on the page and am a little confused.

All sources cited on the page are from notable sources such as NASDAQ, MarketWatch, and 3rd party industry publications. If you could clarify your edits on the notability of the cited sources, I will gladly make the necessary changes.

Thanks for your time and helping edits all of these documents!

It's not that those sources aren't credible. The issues is we need to see substantial coverage. Those articles are either basically press releases or are WP:ROUTINE coverage. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

rejection of my submission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Brett_A._Jones[edit]

This is my first creation for wikipedia so admittedly I am new to this. You stated that my article was declined because it was primarily about one event (the publishing of a book). I added links to several articles written by Brett Jones for numerous publications.He has been published many times besides his book. What do I need to do to correct any citing issues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Brett_A._Jones

Thanks J

If you could please fix the formatting of the referencing, it's pretty hard to look at right now. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks- I will reach out for some help as this is my first article and the referencing was a challenge for me. J

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Noticed the impressive amount of work your putting into the Articles for creation backlog 👍 Like.

Not only a serious amount of work just doing it, but it must generate a huge workload on kickbacks for the declined, so even more impressive.

All the best KylieTastic (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. All the work and kickback is worth it when I get to add articles to the mainspace. I'm going to move this award to my user page :) Sulfurboy (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22:38:28, 22 July 2015 review of submission by 162.245.145.16[edit]


Hi Sulfurboy, I followed the guideline to approach the reviewer. The entry in discussion is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Type_Mail

We have included 17 external links written by media, press and professional forums as well as authoritative sites on apps (Google Play, Amazon, and Apple Store) - all of which are standards in the industry for apps. People like Guy Kawasaki (a known and respectful technology guy who uses Type) has written about us (without our knowledge). There are more references on us - is it necessary to add those?

See for instance a peer app Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CloudMagic We kept a very similar style.

We have tried to keep neutral tone and remove any "marketing" lingo - can you please advise if we have failed to adhere to this?

Any concrete help would be appreciated as we are newbies...

Thanks for your time.

162.245.145.16 (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need to see independent, reliable coverage. Sites like itunes and app sorting sites are routine and not considered reliable sources for showing notability. Also many of the sources refer to the product by it's previous name and come from blog like routine reviews. The article looks like a user manual or brochure about the mail service. Highlights, design etc are not things that should be part of a neutral, formal encyclopedic article. If you believe that Wikipedia will enhance your products reputation please think again. Wikipedia adds no value to you. You must add value to Wikipedia. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:57:20, 22 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by KylieRice[edit]


Thanks - that is helpful. We will follow above guidance. Appreciated your time.

KylieRice (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

03:21:51, 23 July 2015 review of submission by Amargmossop[edit]


Hi Thank you for the feedback. Just a clarification question. I was told the article does not meet the minimum Wikipedia standard for inline referencing and mentioned that I should footnote (which I thought I did). Just confirming that this is about corroborating content with more references (rather than a problem of style, ie how I displayed/formatted the references).

Thank you Amargm

Amargmossop (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the formatting of the sources is fine. The problem is that there is no citations in the background section. For liability reasons we have to be really particular about having inline citations for biographies. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12:21:26, 23 July 2015 review of submission by Friersow[edit]


Friersow (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Hello! I'm asking how I can improve this page. The page has three of the requirements needed for a notable musician: 1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.[reply] 

- See references.

2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. - "You're Speaking My Language", which Morse co-wrote and performed. It made it #35 on the UK Top Singles chart.

3. Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. 

- He's in Offspring, who have sold millions of albums.
- He's played in bands with two notable actors.
- He's played with a member of Sum 41, who have sold millions of albums.

What else can I do? Thank you for your help.

15:10:25, 23 July 2015 review of submission by Contributions to gbr[edit]


contributions to gbr 15:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

15:21:03, 23 July 2015 review of submission by 175.101.11.11[edit]


175.101.11.11 (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate drafts[edit]

I have reverted your review of Draft:Osteomyoplastic Amputation Reconstruction (2), which you declined as a duplicate of Draft:Osteomyoplastic Amputation Reconstruction. The other exists, but is older, in worse shape, and was not submitted for a review. Yours, Huon (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

08:04:02, 23 July 2015 review of submission by Abe21476[edit]


Hi, Thank you for your inputs. I have edited the article accordingly and resubmitted it. I request for your assistance if the page requires any further edits.

Thanks

Abe21476 (talk) 08:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on the page.Sulfurboy (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:15:28, 23 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Soltesh[edit]


Hi!

Thanks for the help in reviewing my first article sire, please i still don't understand what you meant when you said "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability" should i take out the other references? and leave only the one linking to the print media "The Nation Newspaper"? Please i would be very much happy if you could assist in this article, and am looking forward in seeing my first article go live.

Many Thanks Sire.

Soltesh (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need to see substantial coverage from independent and reliable sources. This should be fully explained in the links posted in the rejection. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12:25:04, 23 July 2015 review of submission by Friersow[edit]


Friersow (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Hello. What else can I do to support this page? There are several online news articles about her. Would this added source help? http://stcroixsource.com/content/news/local-news/2015/02/02/island-profile-what-heart-can-endure[reply]

The problem is most of the sources aren't directly about her or are press releases. Yes that source may help. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:11:19, 23 July 2015 review of submission by Nealmcb[edit]


Thank you for the encouragement. I've tried to make the lede quite a bit better in terms of a non-technical intro and more context, links etc. and resubmitted. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted, thanks for improving it. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability standards[edit]

Hello! Thanks for reviewing my submissions at Draft:David J. Cannon and Draft:Hugh R. O'Connell. I understand your rationale for rejecting each, but I respectfully disagree. According to the notability guidelines for politicians, locally-notable individuals "can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." This would be the case for each, Cannon in particular due to his time as a federal officeholder. Additionally, I would argue that O'Connell at least meets the lesser standard of a "major local political figure[] who [has] received significant press coverage". Thanks for your time and enjoy your day! 74.127.175.164 (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind on these. Approved. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KHOI-FM orphan template[edit]

I linked the KHOI article to the List of radio stations in Iowa by fixing the redlink on this page and did the same with the Khoi disambig page. The article was already linked to two categories: Community radio in the United States and Radio stations in Iowa. Since this is a stub, these few references should be sufficient for the time being so I'm removing the orphan template you applied. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

06:47:12, 24 July 2015 review of submission by Worldreporter2000[edit]


Hello, my apologies but I fail to understand why you keep rejecting this article? I have made amendments in order to comply with neutrality guidelines. Furthermore, I have made sure it includes published sources and necessary citations. I have also contacted the Wikipedia live chat to make sure that any wrong language is removed. Also, it has been written in the same pattern and style as similar organizations' Wikipedia articles. Would you be so kind as to advise what needs to be done differently according to you? With many thanks, Marc --Worldreporter2000 (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Worldreporter2000 (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Nomination of Avery Rigg for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Avery Rigg 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/Avery Rigg (2nd nomination) 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. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23 July 2015 review of submission by Smustieles[edit]

Hi Sulfurboy,

Thank you for reviewing my submission.

If possible would you be able to elaborate on your reason for rejection of submission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Make_It_Cheaper.

I believe I have given notable references which are all independent and the links to those references are all independent, possibly with exception of the About Us page. If this is the reason then I will remove it, its just I have seen this on other similar type pages.

If you can give me a bit more direction I will be happy to take your steer on this.

Thanks again

Smustieles

Yes, you have given independent and notable references, unfortunately the sourcing isn't in-depth. By that I mean, none of the sources are profiling or discussing the company directly. Instead the company is mentioned in passing or is mentioned in association with the CEO. We need to see substantial coverage of the company itself. Hope that makes sense. Good luck. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:53:17, 24 July 2015 review of submission by Antonio Frangioni[edit]


I respectfully disagree with the rejection of the draft. Let me try to argument it.

The wiki article is not "taken" from the survey: I have written both, and they both deal with the same subject. So, of course they say largely the same things: it would be strange if it were otherwise. Most of the text in the wiki page has been written from scratch without no reference to the article. For some material I have taken inspiration from the article, but there is no single full sentence that is copied verbatim.

As the author of the original article, making abstracts and excerpts of it in other works lies entirely within my remit. I am author of more than 50 scientific publications and editor in 3 journals (among which 4OR), and I am absolutely positive that the kind of work done here would be perfectly acceptable as, say, part of the introductory paragraph in another scientific article on UC submitted to any prestigious scientific journal. To be on the safe side, however, I have contacted the Editors of the journal in question (4OR) and asked their opinion. Their answer is:

> As an Editor-in-Chief of 4OR, I believe you have the right to paraphrase your excellent survey, > and provide any abstract and summary you may like, according to the permission "in spirit" > that Springer normally grants their authors to disseminate parts of their published works in > public venues.

You can check with Leo Liberti ([email protected]) about this.


Let me mention that the Editors can only be happy about the wiki page because it makes the article more relevant, but this is not my point for making it. There is no wiki reference to many important problems in energy optimization. This is something we are currently trying to solve in the COST project that I'm helping to steer (link in the page), and the current article is, hopefully, only the first of several others that should do the same thing for other energy problems.

I see the page (and the others hopefully to follow) as being both perfectly legally and morally acceptable, and beneficial for all the parties: Wikipedia (which gains high-quality content curated by top-level scientific experts), the users (who get the new content), the authors and also the journals on which the corresponding articles (comprised, but not limited to, my survey) are published. Besides, the page is not meant to be about my article but about the problem: I hope that it will be improved, by me and others, and hopefully it will evolve over time to be even less related to the article than it is today.

I therefore suggest that you reconsider the rejection. Of course I'm available to make further modifications if more specific issues have to be solved, but I'm at a loss to deal with the refusal in these terms. Any wiki page about UC would have to say more or less the things the page says, and the names that are used are the ones that are current in the literature and therefore cannot be changed (except these that already had, such as "electrical grid", to better match these current on Wikipedia). If absolutely necessary I can try to re-arrange the contents so that they *look even less like* these of the article, but I frankly don't see the point. The content would be the same, as this is the content that is required.

Thank you for your attention. And I appreciate feedback. As I already told you, I'm working to have several more articles on these subjects (energy optimization problems) written. We know how to write scientific articles, but for many in our community publishing on Wikipedia is not as common. Any lesson I learn I can transmit to the others.

Antonio Frangioni (talk) 11:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can't just take your word for it that you wrote the article yourself, you need to go through the proper channels provided via the deletion comment to show this and permission to use it. Further if you are having issues finding sources, then this means the topic is simply not notable for wikipedia at this time. We require substantial, independent and reliable coverage to show notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sulfurboy. Thank you for your kind offer of help with the page 'Elizabeth Newson' which I placed up on WK recently. I had permission to freely use copyrighted material by the author but in spite of that I am going back to the article and rewriting it and adding extra references so as to make sure it does not offend any copyright guidelines whatsoever. In the meantime I am going to do a couple more additions and corrections to WK articles and submit a further draft of a new article, hopefully doing better at the first attempt than with my last article. Thanks, I will take up your offer of help. Jonathonhargreaves (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Draft Relativistic Global Non-Inertial Reference Frames by Sulfurboy Here was your comment on my resubmission "still too close, but not so close that it needs to be speedy deleted. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)"

Dear Sulfurboy, I rewrote several pages so that they would not include too many verbatim sentences from an outside source. Since the paragraphs that were rewritten were part of an extensive scientific and mathematical definition it is not surprising that even the rewritten version appears to be a paraphrase. Given the chance that there are other portions of the paper than the piece that I rewrote that you still find are too close to the outside source then please send to me or indicate to be in some way what that portion is which you find too close of a paraphrase. Thank you for your help Hcrater (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:41:59, 24 July 2015 review of submission by Cary.tanaka[edit]


I am confused as to how the references are considered press releases. None of the references are published by anyone associated with the company, and are all credible by other parties. Please clarify. Cary.tanaka (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stated that the previous issues weren't addressed. This includes the notability concern. All the sources I see either are primary (company videos or interviews) or only mention the company in passing, but aren't substantial in-depth coverage. As it stands this article does not pass WP:CORP. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment - Bob the Vid Tech character and production[edit]

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Bob_the_Vid_Tech&action=edit

Hello Sulfurboy, Thank you very much for your attention to my Bob the Vid tech submission, I really appreciate it. In answer to your comment which was "Comment: I could see the show maybe being notable enough for an article. But I don't see the purpose of a standalone article for the character, especially when a page hasn't seemingly been made for the show yet. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)"

I understand your concern. The catch here is that there was no show, the character of "Bob the Vid Tech" was the production and only constant during this 17 year period on Maryland Public Television. There is a Wiki link on the MPT page here, which is what I'm hoping to expand upon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_Public_Television

He was without his own regular long form program or series, but was presented in hundreds of short interstitials and a dozen 30 minute Emmy winning specials that were packaged within either as "The Children's Channel" on MPT or "MPT Kids and Family", which was merely TV day part branding of the station. I also added the "MPT Kids and Family" link for reference in the wiki. Since production was cancelled in 2010, references to Bob are no longer on MPT's web site, which of course would've helped.

Thank you for any additional thoughts. I did find more online references and added them. This was a beloved television personality and production in the mid-atlantic region, and I like there to be some preserved history for people to see. (I'm not Bob, in case you're worried about self promotion!)

Best and thanks for your professional eye again.

- RicDeckard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RicDeckard

Point out the problem please[edit]

Hello Sulfurboy, do you mind showing me exactly where my problem is with the inline citations. I'm trying to not be a rookie at this anymore. It would be a great help. Lakefist (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing my article. Can I quote sources if I cite them properly?[edit]

My article is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Interpersonal_Gap

You wrote: This submission appears to be taken from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED149229.pdf.

I have never seen the article you referenced before. I am glad to be adding it to my collection of John L. Wallen materials. However, the document you found is not an original. It is a compilation of materials by the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (NREL). If you look at my list of references you will see that I have several materials from the NREL. Perhaps something is missing but this NREL document because it gives no references for the sources of its material.

Nonetheless, I am not using anything from the article you cited. I am quoting some things from the source material of that article. Is quoting and citing sources not ok?

I also include an entire unpublished article by John L. Wallen at the end of my proposed wiki page. Is that a cause of rejection?

I also quote on several occasions from this article: Chinmaya, A. & Vargo, J.W. (1979). Improving Communication: The Ideas of John Wallen. John Abbott College and the University of Alberta.

Is that acceptable? I chose to do so partially because of feedback during a prior rejection that I was relying too much on my own opinion and on John Wallen, the creator of the communication model I am attempting to document. I thought OI needed to quote other sources, so I am a bit confused if you are trying to say that quotes are bad.

Thank you for your time.

64.134.242.119 (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC) dadquixote[reply]

If you're quoting something from a piece, you need to put it in quotes. There was a substantial amount of paraphrasing from that source. Please also implement inline citations as that will be a problem for acceptance as well. Also the page needs to be formatted like a wikipedia page, please see basically any wikipedia page for reference, and if you have issues with syntax and formatting, please visit the teahouse which is linked on your user page. You should also do the same since you seem to be having issues with your references. Please understand you a far way away from this article being accepted. Also, I'm working all weekend so I won't be able to view this again till at least Monday. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LogicMonitor, Inc - Draft page[edit]

draft:LogicMonitor, Inc.

Hi Sulfurboy - Thanks for looking at the article draft on LogicMonitor, Inc. I made some edits according to why the submission was denied and based on your feedback of "Article doesn't stay neutral and gives too much technical info that isn't needed for an encyclopedic article. Awards are also repeated in prose and list form". I deleted the awards section in prose form and just kept in list form. I also am deleting the technical info that you state is not needed for an encyclopedic article.

I suppose the main thing is after all of the edits is the fact the article does not stay neutral - is there anything else I can edit or delete in order for this submission to be approved? I actually tried to follow the same format as the competitors of the company on Wiki (Nagios, SolarWinds) and assumed if I followed those articles that were already approved that this would fall in line with the same neutral article guidelines. Perhaps I was wrong in copying their format. I've looked over the guidelines of Wiki via the links in the denied review, but am still unsure of where I went wrong. If you could point me in the right direction, that would be helpful! For the most part, I deleted anything that may sound like advertising and tried to remain neutral in terms while speaking about the company. I also just listed the companies history, so not really much about the product itself. Does that help in getting it approved? I believe I have also given notable references which are all independent and the links to those references are all independent, possibly with exception of the Certification Program reference. If this is the reason then I will remove it, its just I have seen this on other similar type pages. Please advise. (SarahMorrison9 (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC));[reply]

Thanks in advance.

Can you check the hyperlink you gave above for the draft? Thanks.Sulfurboy (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated link & made LogicMonitor above linked to the draft version- let me know if you still are unable to click through. Thanks Sulfurboy!

Please see my comment on the draft page. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated per your comment on the draft page. (SarahMorrison9 (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sulfurboy/Archives/2015/July&oldid=1045669995"