User talk:Onel5969/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

Archive 17: April 2015

April 2015

Review of submission : Yasmina

Hello . Thanks for your review of my submission of article : Yasmina My username is Yasmina Fan I don't know how to make the citation in English if the source website is completely in Arabic , can you explain a way to do that ? Also I tried to write in a neutral tone and avoid all peacock terms. Almost every sentence I wrote is referenced , so the opinion is not mine, its from the reference website. So I don't really understand where is the error in my writing tone. Please explain and I will fix. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yasmina Fan (talk • contribs) 21:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Yasmina Fan - First, simply translate the Arabic into English. Second, you need to not use her first name in the article, instead use her surname as per MOS. But frankly, she doesn't seem to meet the notability requirements. She's never had a national tour, never won a major award, and never won a major contest (sorry, but Arabs got talent is not a major music contest). Onel5969 (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Help Understanding the changes that need to be made

NeoLife1958 (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC) My page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Arthur_Furst. I don't understand what changes have to be made. I cited sources. I am making this wiki page on behalf of my company, GNLD International and most of the info is from a site we made for Arthur Furst: http://www.gnldcontent.com/ArthurFurst/index.htmlNeoLife1958 (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)NeoLife1958

Hi NeoLife1958 - There are several major issues with your article. First, the one I declined it for, is that the article is drastically under-referenced. Time and again, you make assertions or statement without reference. For example, Early life is totally unreferenced. As is the Passions section (which should probably be completely deleted since it most likely falls under WP:TRIVIA). 1952 - unreferenced, 1954 - same. The list goes on and on. Second, you have a large WP:NPOV issue. Get rid of all the WP:PEACOCK terms like: tragically, genius for the sciences, revolutionary, beloved; report on facts don't paint a flowery picture. Third, you have a formatting issue. Please see the Manual of Style and the Layout guide to show you how to structure your article, and how to format the layout. Fifth, the publications section needs to be virtually deleted. You should have a brief mention (like you do in the lead) that he's been published frequently, and list perhaps 4-5 of his most notable articles, then reference the section with a citation which shows a list of his publications. Finally, you need to format, and more completely fill out your citations. All the articles need their authors and page numbers, for example. You can find templates at WP:CIT.
One last thing, I've added a potential conflict of interest tag to the article. You have a close association with the subject, and editors should know that. Doesn't mean you can't write the article, but does mean that you have to be careful about presenting a neutral point of view. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Tricot

Hi, just wondering what more I should do with Draft:Tricot (band). As far as I can tell the article satisfies criteria 1, 2 and 4 of the notability guidelines. Could you explain why it doesn't satisfy any of these? Pwrong (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pwrong - regarding #2, while you state they charted there are no links to those chart positions, therefore it is an uncited claim, which doesn't meet the criteria. There is no evidence that they toured in any country (appearing at 4 festivals is not a "tour"). Regarding #1, - in my opinion, they don't meet this criteria either, with the current citations. The first is a brief promo piece; the second is a blog (which doesn't count as reliable in terms of notability; the third is a nice article, but from a fringe source; the fourth is a pr piece, not reliable; the fifth is a brief mention of the band; the sixth is another unreliable source; and the seventh is equivalent to YouTube, which is another unreliable source. Hardly qualifies under #1. However, since I declined it, I see you have added a link to the Oricon charts, you've resubmitted it, and I'll let another editor take a look. Onel5969 (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Chrisnb

Hi Onel5969. I reviewed this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Disinfect_(band). Should show the validity of the sources.

Hi Chrisnb - I responded on the draft page. Hope it makes sense. Onel5969 (talk) 11:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969. It helped me out, thanks for that. I still have problems with the validity of the sources. In this case I listed renown sources in several languages, still the referencing seems to be an issue. I thought Magazines do count as 3rd party sources.

Hi Chrisnb - you're almost there. Those 3 articles help. If they were from major sources you would probably meet the criteria, but since they are from lesser-known, fringe sources, you'll need at least another 2-3 to show notability. But those are definitely the type we're looking for. Onel5969 (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Onel5969. Thanks a ton for helping out. I added some more sources, even found one no MTV. There are more but mostly from the same languages, so I added some more international ones (Austria and Switzerland, eg). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.87.140.225 (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Good work. Moved it to the mainspace. Would ask that you correctly format the citations. You can take a look at templates at WP:CIT. Congrats! Onel5969 (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Onel5969. Thanks for the help and the patience! I will revisit the citations ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisnb (talk • contribs) 14:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

14:56:16, 1 April 2015 review of submission by Bichetteln


Bichetteln (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


Hello,


i added new documents on the page : one on ( Reference ) , one "offical website" on (External links) and sources from Wikipedia on (See also )

am i on the good way ??????

Bichetteln (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bichetteln - Yes and no. The letelegramme and le-petitbleu are decent articles. I would think you would need another 1-2 articles like that to show notability. Wikipedia can't be a reference to itself. Also, get rid of the LinkedIn link, doesn't belong Wikipedia. The official website should be included, but doesn't help with notability. The references, however, need to be in-line citations. See referencing for beginners, to help you with that. Good luck. Onel5969 (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Reverted in Good Faith

Hi there,

Just noticed you reverted an edit of mine on a list of learning management systems. What are the parameters for adding new LMS's? The one I added seemed to fit in well and I was going to add more before I noticed your edit.

Warm regards, Jimmy

JMelons (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi JMelons - Only because it was, by Wikipedia definitions, non-notable. Usually I'll go through a list and get rid of the other non-notables, but I was lazy yesterday. I'll do that now. Happy editing. Onel5969 (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

JAM Paper & Envelope's Notability

Hello Onel5969,

A couple months ago you declined my article for "JAM Paper & Envelope". I'm wondering, was it close to being accepted? I thought I referenced a good amount of legitimate sources. Is there a certain type of source I would need that would push my article to be accepted? Do I need a company profile from a big news source?

Thanks, Vargarnar (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Vargarnar

Hi Vargarnar - I think you were very close. The first two references are very good for showing notability. If you came up with another solid 1-2 like that, I think you'd be good to go. Onel5969 (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Tamponatura

Dear onel5969, we got your message and we edited the page so it can meet the requirements of wikipedia. We are actually trying to translate the Italian page http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamponatura already available in wikipedia, since there's no wiki page for this masonry type. Moreover I would like to underline that the Italian page has no reference, whereas we referred to european standards and a european approved project. Please, let us know if it is still not worth to be accepted.

Best regards.

Dept. of civil engineering of the university of Padova — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicea.unipd (talk • contribs) 16:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dicea.unipd - First, thanks for taking the time to translate articles. That's a pretty important undertaking. I can't speak to the standards of other wikis, but on the English Wikipedia we do have some standards as in regard to both notability and verifiability (which, in my opinion, is as it should be, since Wikipedia is attempting to become a credible encyclopedia). That said, your two sources may be enough to show both the notability and to provide the necessary verification for the underlying facts of the article. I'm going to let other editors weigh in on the piece, since construction is not really my forte. I usually like to see at least 3 sources, which is why a declined the article in the first place. But it is very well written. If no other editor gets to it by next Monday, let me know, and I'll spend some time on it. Happy editing. Onel5969 (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

16:52:44, 1 April 2015 review of submission by Davidwrubin

I'd like to ask for advice on how to formalize the tone of the article.

Hi Onel5969, would you please let me know how to formalize the tone of the article so that it is in line with Wikipedia's standards? I'm also having a little trouble figuring out which details are worthy of the article (such as the show that he produces and which comedy publications have written about him). I think he's definitely notable enough for inclusion based on other comedians who have Wikipedia entries. Thank you.

Davidwrubin (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Davidwrubin - It's a very short article, so don't use flowery descriptions, like unique and off-beat (you're not pitching him to an agent). Simply state facts. And don't draw conclusions. When you say insiders and audiences, that's a conclusion. In addition, I don't think you've met the notability requirement. While your articles are good, since they are mostly interviews, they are primary sources. Notability comes from secondary sources. You'll need about 3 of those types to show notability. And be aware of over-citing. Usually a single citation will suffice, at most two, and if something is very contentious, 3. But NEVER more than 3. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Bjorn Gunnar Lefnaer - Resubmission Question

Hi, I am AnkaIva

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

I understand that more reliable sources are needed. We found two articles about Mr.Lefnaer. Both in foreign magazines. One in French and another in German. One talks about his hobby as an avid luxury cars collector. Another is talking about him running his multimilloan euro company.

but We only have hard copies, no electronic links to it. If I make a reference to both magazines, names and dates of publication but without an electronic links, would they be accepted by Wiki editors?

Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankaiva (talk • contribs) 17:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Ankaiva - first thing, when you leave a message, don't forget to "sign it" by using the four ~ . That helps editors know who they're talking to. Now to your question, yes, citations do not have to be available online, that only makes it easier to verify. But if you do use hard copies, make the citation as complete as possible (magazine, volume/edition, pages, author, title, date, etc). You can find out about citation formatting at WP:CIT. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Question about article submission

Onel5969,

First, thank you for reviewing my submission: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mark_Anthony_%28Author/Psychic%29

I was hoping you could point out any examples where the Article (NPOV) could be improved so that I could make the edits required for approval. Thank you, ewaretroy — Preceding unsigned comment added by EwareTroy (talk • contribs) 21:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi EwareTroy - Don't be descriptive, just state facts. No need to say a "published author.[1], licensed attorney[2], certified mediator", simply say, "author, attorney and mediator". Don't use trademark, copyright, etc. symbols. Only use his surname to refer to him after the initial mention of him in the lead. Don't use peacock terms like "distinguished" "prestigious", etc. Get rid of all the YouTube references. It's not a reliable source. You can create a section called "External links", and put a very small selection (no more than 3-4) there. Likewise, delete 90% of the tv mentions in that one paragraph. Simply say he's appeared on numerous television shows, and mention the top 3 or 4. You might also take a look at the Manual of Style and Layout manual to help you with figuring out the sections and layout of your article. Above all, be neutral. Tell us about the subject, don't sell him to us. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Onel5969,

Thank you again for the clarification. I will try to clear up the article and resubmit. Your feedback and assistance is appreciated. EwareTroy — Preceding unsigned comment added by EwareTroy (talk • contribs) 20:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

22:06:04, 1 April 2015 review of submission by Harold Sloan

Hi One15969 Thanks for reviewing the Chris King article. you say he is not a notable person. Is this because he doesn't have a college education? He's a serial entrepreneur with quite a large social media following. He's also involved in charitable work. Can you give me a steer to improve the chances of approval. Kind regards


Harold Sloan (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Harold Sloan - Actually I didn't say he wasn't notable. The template response states that the citations currently in the article don't show his notability. The first Forbes article is a really nice article, but it's mostly an interview, which is a primary source, the second is a bad link, and I can't find the correct article, and the third is a mere mention of him. Their are two general types of citations: those for notability and those for verifiability. Notability cites need to be from secondary sources which are reliable. They also cannot be mere mentions of him. If that first Forbes piece had simply been an article about him, it would be perfect. For notability purposes, you should have about 3 articles of that type referenced. I did a quick search, but unfortunately, there must be hundreds of folks with the same name. Three other things. First, according to the charity source, it's Christopher R. King, so I'll move the draft to that namespace. Second, since it's a blp (biography of a living person), all the assertions in the article will need verification. You can use citations like the Forbes article for that. For example, you talk about him losing his money in the real estate crash, since that's mentioned in the Forbes article, you could move the citation to the end of that sentence. But you'll need a citation for the film. Third, please take a look at WP:CIT, which gives you a format to correctly format your citations. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia (7th nomination)... Hafspajen (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey Hafspajen - long time no speak... but am I missing something? Onel5969 (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Onel. No, just the usual 1 April jokes ... like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet ... or such. Check this out. Rather funny... Hafspajen (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Or this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirror ...Hafspajen (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Damn. Wish I had known, looks like fun. Onel5969 (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

05:26:37, 2 April 2015 review of submission by Thothbubble


Hi, thank you for taking the time to review my page.

I'd appreciate some clarity on one aspect of the feedback: 'should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources'

My sources include CNBC, Economic Times and Forbes India, in addition to sites like Afaqs.com and campaignindia.in which are well-known advertising sites in India. Could you explain why these sites are considered less-than-suitable? And what sort of sites should I include instead?

I'm rather new at this, so I really would appreciate your help.

Thothbubble (talk) 05:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Rejection of article

If I had the flair for writing, then there would not have been the need for editors. Your explanation on what needs to be done in order for the draft to be approved is quite unclear for me. Could you please be able to provide a much simpler outline of what exactly are you looking for to approve of the draft. The person is an author of 4 books, that is not just a directory listing, that is considered a reference as per APA and other methodologies. Like the Apple process of app approval, the acceptance or rejections are based on your feelings and perceptions. The links that you have outlined do not explain your perspective and perceptions. So could you please outline what it would require for this article to be approved? There are more links and resources in that article than in many of the approved articles on other similar personalities. I am sure that you are a fair editor that wants to help create history not be selective about who is worthy enough based on your choices. There are so many other individuals that are NON American and do more amazing things but since they are not covered in the media or have links cannot be included. That is totally unfair to the achievements of those individuals. The article in question is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jayant_Varma — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.153.60 (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

16:56:12, 2 April 2015 review of submission by Ivamanu


I think this time the draft has merit and deserves your acceptance. What do you think about it ? Thanks, Iulian Vamanu

Ivamanu (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ivamanu - the vast majority of the citations are by the subject himself, and therefore don't go to notability, but they do go to verifying the facts in the article. This guy is clearly notable, but the only citations which go to his notability are the last 3. The last one is a brief listing of him, so that doesn't count. The botosani citation is exactly the type of citation that you need. The jurnalul is a nice citation, but only mentions him briefly. If you can come up with two more articles like the botosani, I think you'd be good to go. Onel5969 (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Sacrament0

Hi Onel5969,

I was responsible for the addition to the Sacramento Magazines Section of the Sacramento, Ca Wikipedia page. My I inquire as to why you removed this information? It is neither offensive nor inaccurate.

Your feedback is welcome however your edit is unwarrented.

A Big Sacramento Fan!

Dmanis2kool — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmanis2kool (talk • contribs) 18:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dmanis2kool - Absolutely warranted. It's a non-notable magazine as per wiki guidelines. Which is what I noted in the edit summary. Take it easy. Onel5969 (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

19:11:12, 2 April 2015 review of submission by MoJo3161981


I am not actually asking for a re-review, please read. I have added several references to the bottom of the article. I am not sure where to put them inline as they basically all have the same info. I was wondering if there is a way I could invite others to help finish it?

Other than that I'm really not sure why it would have been declined. She does fit the following criteria: Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart & Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. Her other tours are already posted on their own pages. This one was just announced 3/31/2015, so there won't be a whole lot of articles. However, I have found several. I believe Entertainment Weekly & onlyciara.com would constitute as reputable.

MoJo3161981 (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi MoJo3161981 - She fits the criteria, which is why she has an article. This tour does not. All of the announcements are promotional in nature. Take a look at the WP:NMUSIC, all the criteria to make a tour notable are after the fact (grosses, attendance, etc). There usually can't be coverage of something that hasn't happened yet. Promotional material cannot be used to show notability. Sorry, but keep the article until the tour happens, and then fill in with some media coverage. Onel5969 (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Areed06 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Detention_of_Kam_Brock

Hello, i would like to know how i would make my article more notable, i believe that it is an important article showing notability. she is a person who shows how the justice system is flawed, but i would like your opinion on how i could improve my article. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Detention_of_Kam_Brock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Areed06 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Areed06 - While a fascinating incident, you'd have to provide many more national citations showing that this is more than a flash-in -the-pan, trivial incident. Take a look at WP:SINGLEEVENT, which is clearly the guideline which should be followed here. I don't see where it passes the criteria threshold, but I'm going to invite some other experienced editors to take a look at it. Onel5969 (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Don Doe

Hey there. Sorry for the late response, I have been very busy and it easy for me to lose track of things. I greatly appreciate you going through and adding places where I require citation. It was very helpful.

I do have a question though. While I can see some places where the citations need to be found, there are many points you labeled where all I have done is paraphrased the article which is linked within that paragraph, or is linked in a previous/later citation, but not within that exact paragraph. Should I link everything even if it is to the same source? How do I go about doing that without cluttering up my sources?

I know some cases this isn't the issue and I need to go back through my personal list of sites and whatnot, but in other cases it is listed explicitly in one of the two books I am citing, both published by universities, so cited it within the paragraph, not each individual thought that way I would avoid quoting too much.

Thank you again for the time and effort you have put into this. -Sage

[[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SageheartBK (talk • contribs) 23:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi SageheartBK - I went in and gave you an example of how to use the same citation more than once. And a citation is only needed for the information which proceeds it, so if the same citation can be used in two or three consecutive places, simply put it where the third citation needed is, and remove all 3 citations. Hope this makes sense. Onel5969 (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

03:31:23, 3 April 2015 review of submission by 76.21.41.198


I took a look at the articles you suggested, and drastically cut the content of the article back to indisputably essential and encylopedic facts. Since venture capital firms are mostly notable for the companies that they have funded - removing the portfolio section is rather like removing the "artists produced" section from a music producers entry or "author's edited" from a publisher entry, but that's just my opinion I guess :) 76.21.41.198 (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello ,

Thanks for your advice ,

so today in "See Also" i added 3 new articles .and i take off ""Linked in "

Waiting for your answer .

Regards

Bichetteln (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

14:56:16, 1 April 2015 review of submission by Bichetteln


Hello ,

Thanks for your advice ,


today in "See Also" i took off "Linked in " and i added 3 articles as you ask ....

Regards

Bichetteln (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bichetteln - Nice Job! I see your point regarding the portfolio issue, and like how you've handled it by including the most important ones in the business section. Moved it to the mainspace. Happy editing. Onel5969 (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for taking the time to review my article and leave notes on what I could do to make it better. This was my first wikipage to create and the advice will help me get this page published. Once again thank you so much and if you have any more advice I would love to recieve some. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrohde13 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mrohde13 - The best advice is to read the pages written to help new editors. Take a look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Referencing for Beginners. Also, WP:CIT gives some nice templates to use for citations, depending on the type of citations you are using. I corrected the first reference, to give you an example. Right now, your article needs reliable independent sources which go in-depth about your subject. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Hi. I have now completely re-jigged the entire article as you suggested. Am I getting there? Even found a ref for the brain abscess story. What's next? Eagerly, Sean M Jones (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sean M Jones - Getting there. I added some tags where you'll need citations. Remember, this is a blp, so if you say something about the person, it really should be cited. You also need to remove the raw links (I removed one as an example of what I mean by a raw link), they are a definite no-no. Keep on working it! Onel5969 (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I contancted the person for more details of his early and personal life as you said it was needed and he sent me more info which I included but some of these details are minor and dating from the 1960s or earlier, and therefore they are not independently verifiable with external citations. Nevertheless, since they fit with the rest of the picture I have included them in good faith without attaching any independent citations, adding phrases like "he recounts", "he recalls" and "he remembers". So how to deal with that? The High School has no archives about the tennis team or the philosophy club from the 2000s never mind the 1960s. Should I delete it all again? Thanks for your help with this, I did spend a lot of time looking for citations which don't exist but you said we need details of his early life. Sean M Jones (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on Your Judgment

No Hostility,

Can you clarify the standards then? Because the 'Government Technology Magazine' has neither the circulation, Presence, nor the history of Inside Publications nor Sacramento News & Review. What facts do you have to support that either of the magazines do not meet the Wiki Standards?

Any Clarification would be greatly appreciated.

Many Thanks,

Dmanis2kool — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmanis2kool (talk • contribs) 19:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dmanis2kool- a general rule of thumb is that if something doesn't have it's own Wikipedia article, it's not notable. This is because to have your own article, you go through a notability vetting. If you feel this strongly about the magazine, might I suggest you create an article for it? You can use the Articles for Creation process. Take care. Onel5969 (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Ray Brown Entry

I had an online chat with the help desk. We discussed the validity of the citations for the entry. I was told they were just lists. They are indeed "lists" of the times, places and events participated in by a notable track athlete. The entry is a factual narrative of the information. These sources are the same sources an author of a NYTimes article on the subject would use to verify one's accomplishments. These are the most credible sources to confirm a track athlete's success. All other information comes from information not on the web which the web help person said was fine to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trb127 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Gemini

Hi, can you please copyedit Gemini (2002 Tamil film)? It is about to be TFA on 13 April, although nominator Sriram Vikram did not place a TFA request, and he was unhappy with the FAC outcome - passing despite unsatisfactory prose. and he is currently absent from Wiki. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kailash29792 - Won't be able to start it for a few days, but I'll get to it in the coming week. Onel5969 (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Please help add page on Thiru Narayana Iyengar

User: Ramanhome Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Thiru_Narayana_Iyengar


Hi Onel5969

Thanks a lot for your detailed help and guidance. Based on your suggestions, i have changed all the things that you had requested in your previous post as below. Please check the draft and let me know if i can resubmit.

Thanks Raman Ramanhome (talk)Ramanhome

First, even though the underlying links might be in Tamil, the reference notes themselves need to be in English.

Reply>>> He is Tamil scholar in the pre-internet times. One of the references is in English, rest are in Tamil because articles about him were written in the Tamil vernacular since he is a Tamil scholar.

You misunderstand, Ramanhome, I'm speaking about the citation footnote in the article, not the underlying citation. The underlying citation may be in Tamil, but when you create the footnote, that needs to be in English. To me, it looks like only 3 or 4 sources are referenced.

Reply>>> How many references do you need to accept the article? This cannot be a reason to reject the article.

You need at least 3 solid references to show notability. Then, since this is a biography, you need a fair amount of references to validate the underlying assertions in the article. Most of the Tamil language in the article also needs to go away.

Reply>>> yes i have removed most of the tamil language in the article. Pls check and let me know.

Much better. I think the quotes in the original are okay, but you could (if you wanted to), simply leave the English translations. All the raw links in the article have to go away.

Reply>>> what do you mean by the raw links? pls give an example of a raw link.

A raw link is simply inserting a link to an external source by using a weblink. An example would be in the Literary Work section, Madurai Tamil Sangam is a raw link. Simply put the name of the item, since the link does not have anything to do with the subject of the article, you shouldn't even use it as a reference. If the link showed the subject's relationship to the item, than you should use it as a reference. Your first two references are also raw links. You can find out how to format citations at WP:CIT. And finally, the article has an WP:NPOV issue

Reply>>>Please be specific in places where you do not find no neutrality. Identify those places in the article.

Avoid using peacock or overly positive terms. "detailed work" should simply be work. "well discussed" should simply be discussed. "fully dedicated" should simply be dedicated. Get rid of words like that (other examples: "elaborate", "novel" (as in novel way), "important". Ramanhome (talk)Ramanhome

Hope all this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ramanhome - You still have to remove the raw links. I removed one to give you an example. Also, that paragraph should have a citation which verifies the facts it includes.
The citations themselves are still in Tamil, not English. Again, I'm not talking about the underlying articles, but the footnotes in this article have to be in English.
The Literary work section needs a lot more citations (same reason I just cited above).
But on the whole, MUCH better! Nice job so far. Let me know when you've made the above changes and I'll take another look. Onel5969 (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
thanks for your help....

Best regards Bichetteln (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Rabarbarum3000

Hi, I am writing about this:

A Saucerful of Secrets (song): Difference between revisions From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Revision as of 10:42, 4 April 2015 (edit) 87.7.43.20 (talk) ← Previous edit

Latest revision as of 13:55, 4 April 2015 (edit) (undo) Onel5969 (talk | contribs) (Reverted 1 good faith edit by 87.7.43.20 using STiki)

Probably good faith is yours, have you ever listened to ASOS?

In the studio version the low rumbling sound is made by vari speeded timpanies, playing A♯ and C♯, the infamous cymbals* are in the high spectrum they are sounding like pieces of glass§.

"We did the first part starting from the high pitches of the cymbals. We placed a mike right next to the cymbals and we hit them very lightly with wooden hammers. Actually, this creates a sound that is very different from that of the cymbals§." (D. Gilmour talking with D. Frikte in Musician, n. 50, Dec. 1982)

In the live version the bass is playing A♯ and C♯, so is the bass instead of the timpanies. :-)

Hope it could help, take care! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabarbarum3000 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rabarbarum3000 - It was that the edit made the language seem too technical for an average reader. I think if you simply said, "The timpani sound..." that would read better. Onel5969 (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Having re-read it, the existing version makes more sense, showing the that the original sound was symbols, replaced by the lower sound. Now, whether or not the lower sound is by a bass or a timpani, I'm not sure. Since the section is uncited, I can't check. If you believe it's the latter, by all means change bass to timpani. Onel5969 (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Buck Owens

I won't dispute your judgment there, but perhaps you could have saved both of us a little time by using a more descriptive editsum than "rev incorrect edit". I think that much was self-evident; it was obviously a revert, and reverts are generally used to remove "incorrect edits" of one kind or another. Cheers,―Mandruss ☎ 00:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss - You're absolutely right. When I reverted the change, I was writing the edit summary, and hit the enter key, rather than the spacebar, so the truncated summary was all you saw. I meant to say, rev incorrect edit and NPOV addition. I didn't want to simply say either, since either by itself did not adequately describe why I was reverting. Sorry. Onel5969 (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Onward and upward. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

"copyvio" reversion of Paradise Valley additions

Hello Onel5969: Puzzled about your reversion of my addition to <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise_Valley,_Arizona> earlier today -- not clear how this was a copyright violation since I rephrased the source in my own words. ?? How can I add this historical information without being reverted again? thanks for any help... wcwkS15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WcwkS15 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi WcwkS15 - I probably should have used the term "close paraphrasing" rather than "copyvio", and provided the link, which I will here: WP:PARAPHRASING. I used the same term as the first time I had reverted it, simply as a matter of expedience. My apologies for that. Hopefully, you'll understand that you need to completely re-write information, not simply change a word or two, or slightly rearrange the order. Onel5969 (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! -- WcwkS15 (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to ask you to review a revision for this addition? If so, how's this? (I didn't format the refs yet because I don't know how these would go up on your Talk page). Thanks! WcwkS15 (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The land that became Paradise Valley was first used by European settlers as a grazing ground for cattle. The name was given in the 1880s by Frank Conkey, Manager of the Rio Verde Canal Company, which surveyed the land to develop it for agricultural purposes.[Will Barnes, Arizona Place Names (University of Arizona Press, 1997), p. 318] Legend has it that he named the area "Paradise Valley" because of the abundance of spring wildflowers and Palo Verde trees.[“About Paradise Valley”, http://www.paradisevalleyliving.com/about/, accessed 4/7/15] Modest homes and small resorts began to be built in the area, which was notable for large lot sizes (1-5 acres).[”Town of Paradise Valley History”, http://www.ci.paradise-valley.az.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/223, accessed 4/7/15] As development accelerated after World War II, residents began to fear annexation by nearby and expanding Phoenix and Scottsdale, threatening the low density, non-commercial character of the area. To prevent this, a “Citizens Committee for the Incorporation of The Town of Paradise Valley, Arizona” was formed and gathered enough signatures to present a petition for incorporation to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. On May 24, 1961, the Board incorporated the Town of Paradise Valley.[”Town of Paradise Valley History”, http://www.ci.paradise-valley.az.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/223, accessed 4/7/15]

WcwkS15 - Take a look at how I've written it:
After European settlement, Paradise Valley was mainly used for cattle grazing. In the 1880s, when the land was being surveyed so it could be developed into agricultural lots, the name "Paradise Valley" first came into use, being given by Frank Conkey, Manager of the Rio Verde Canal Company. According to the official town website, this name may have been chosen due to the abundance of spring wildflowers and Palo Verde trees. Mainly an agricultural area, during the 1800s and the first half of the 1900s, after World War II the area began to be settled, on large one to five acre lots, for which the area became known. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the town developed slowly with homes on large one to five acre lots, for which the town became known.
As the neighboring settlements of Phoenix and Scottsdale began to grow and annex adjoining areas, the residents of what would become Paradise Valley were concerned that the qualities they most valued would be lost if they were consumed by their larger neighbors. These residents formed "Citizens Committee for the Incorporation of The Town of Paradise Valley, Arizona", which collected enough signatures to take to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. The petition was granted by the Supervisors, allowing the town of Paradise Valley to be incorporated on May 24, 1961.
Insert the references in the appropriate places. The references don't seem to mention Frank Conkey, so you will either need another reference, or delete that. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I will go ahead and post this. Frank Conkey is specifically cited in the reference given (I have updated it to the newer expanded edition). WcwkS15 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

10:30:24, 5 April 2015 review of submission by Leashoffreedom


Hello. Thank you for the review of the article. I think I have now added enough references from notable sources (news agencies and international conferences) to show the importance of the company. I have also gone to the "live chat" and asked the helpers there. They have told me that the article is now good enough for re-submission. Thanks.

Leashoffreedom (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Leashoffreedom - Excellent. Good luck! Onel5969 (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Robert Honablue

Am very confused as to what Wikipedia wants as proof that Robert Honablue was employed as a recording engineer for CBS Records (NYC) -as well as what proof Wikipedia needs to show that he engineered albums for them -especially in light of the fact that Wikipedia has these albums posted elsewhere that cleary states him as the Recording Engineer, Mastering Engineer, or both. Robert was employed by CBS Records, Motown Studios, and did in fact run a recording studio with George Benson in the 70's. Tape-Op did a featured story on Robert which ran last year -and is still running. Getting on Wikipedia is really a very, very hard thing for credited people to get on because of the red tape that makes no sense. Please check out your listing of Edgar Winter's White Trash LP and Laura Nyro's Christmas and the Beads of Sweat -and explain to me how Robert is noted on them -yet can't be recognized for such on his own page. And likewise, on his previous school's site (www.THIaudio.org) he has endorsements from the late Dave Brubeck, Dave's oldest son, Darius, and the legendary George Benson. Yet that seems to have no merit with Wikipedia. Just trying to help a retired person who has been in the industry for 48 years to get his props. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Recording1948 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I am really having a difficult time with getting Robert Honablue on your pages. I have researched a lot of your pages of recording artists that are on Wikipedia and found Robert Honablue's name attached to several of their recordings -which is indicated on the pages of Wikipedia. Is this an error by Wikipedia??? And did CBS Records err by noting Robert Honablue on many of their released albums that cite Robert Honablue's name??? Can someone talk to me man-on-man about submissions that are accepted on other Wikipedia pages -but not good enough for Robert to have his own page about such??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Recording1948 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Recording1948 - Just because someone has done work on some albums does not make them notable. Please take a look at Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and the guidelines specifically tailored for music associated articles. You need in-depth references from independent, reliable sources to show the subject's notability. LinkedIn, Tapedop, Yelp, YouTube, WordPress are all non-reliable sources. Allmusic is a good source, but for verifying facts, not for notability. Perhaps in this instance, it is simply a function of Honablue's job function. Engineer's don't get a lot of ink, and therefore, many of them are not notable by wiki criteria. Onel5969 (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

17:31:32, 5 April 2015 review of submission by Rich23


Sir, I believe that I have included the references that support this book as being noteworthy and am resubmitting my article for your reveiew, suggestions and more helpful comments. I have contacted the book's author seeking permission to add the book cover image to the commons list so that it can be used for this article. Thanks for helping me with my first book article. Rich23 (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC) Rich23 (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Gheorghe Morosanu

Dear Editor,

thanks a lot for your feedback. I have added some new references, as recommended. Please let me know if anything else is needed to complete the article.

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gheorghe_Morosanu

Username: ivamanu

89.135.34.187 (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Nice job. Moved it to the mainspace. Congrats. Onel5969 (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

11:59:41, 6 April 2015 review of submission by Hrosato


I have edited this article and am requesting a re-review in hopes it now meets Wikipedia's guidelines. When you review it again, please let me know if there is any specific part of the article that needs amending and I will change it according to your direction. Hrosato (talk) 11:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Hrosato (talk) 11:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Nice job Hrosato, moved it to the mainspace. Onel5969 (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!!! Hrosato (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Yuri (genre)

Hello Onel5969!
Please let me know why my addition (11:21, 6 April 2015)‎ was reverted.
What was wrong?
85.197.21.89 (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. You inserted a reference template into the template of another reference. Onel5969 (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Is using of multiple links (Cite web templates) between <ref></ref> tags not allowed?
It was, what i did, as i see in "Difference between revisions".
If i make it separate (two reference templates) - it will be OK? 85.197.21.89 (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Of interest

Because you've been reverted, this SPI might interest you. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 14:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Please explain

You said that there "is a definite argument to be made that the sources (at least some of them which were affected by the content removal) are not unreliable". Can you please elaborate on which sources you are referring to, and why you say they are reliable - be it here or at the article talk page? If that's the case, I clearly have been operating at a standard which is too high, and there are plenty of articles which will warrant changes to include the lower standard sourcing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ncmvocalist - For instance, The Hindu, Asian Tribune, International Business Times. And it's not a lower standard. It's the standard, as per WP:RS. Take care. Onel5969 (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
In the main competition article, I cited the IBT source (on the same day the IBT article was published) and the Hindu articles shortly after they were too. That is, I first introduced those sources to Wikipedia, and I don't believe I've ever considered those sources to be unreliable (with the possible exception of Asian Tribune for the reason already outlined at the AfD). It might be that your comment read as if the content removed was merely due to the sourcing alone when that wasn't the case though, so I'll leave it down to that. All water under the bridge now anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse

I have asked a question at teahouse. But I would like to know third person's view--Cosmic Emperor (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi CosmicEmperor - I'll respond on the Teahouse page. Onel5969 (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

13:10:16, 7 April 2015 review of submission by ValeriyaMechkova


I am unsure as to why the V-Dem Institute is not worthy of a wikipedia article. I have included references and attached a link to the webpage.


ValeriyaMechkova (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi ValeriyaMechkova - Right now the sources for your article do not show the notability. 2 of the citations are from the organizations own website, a third is from a blog. None of those are valid references for notability purposes. The fourth citation, is merely a listing at a university website. The three general references appear to be more about the concept of data variables, rather than about the organization itself. The article has very few inline citations, so that makes it difficult to ascertain the veracity of the underlying sources. Onel5969 (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

New Submission

Hello. I am a total newbie to writing WP articles, though of course I have used the service countless times. Thank you for reviewing my recent submission Charles Ernst Scharlau. When I submitted it, just yesterday, I was under the impression that I would have days, even weeks, before it was reviewed. So unwisely I planned to research how to make certain improvements to it in the interim, rather than waiting to submit. One planned improvement was to change the name of the article from "Charles Ernst Scharlau" to "Charles E. Scharlau". Although the individual's German middle name was indeed Ernst, the anglicised name he actually used is obscure, and all references to him that I've discovered indicate he went by "Charles E. Scharlau". This name change will also fix at least one "red link" on another page without having to edit the other topic.

Can the name of the article still be changed without too much effort? If so, can you point me in the right direction for accomplishing the change?

Again, thank you for your help.

KE5JK (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

First of all KE5JK, congrats on your first published article. It does still need work, but I felt it could be published in its current condition and worked on. Was impressed with your first effort. You can change the title of the article by clicking on the "more" tab at the top of the page. The drop down menu will have a "move" selection, click on that and it will take you to the "move" screen. On that screen, simply delete the current "Charles Ernst Scharlau", and type "Charles Scharlau". You can type the E. if you want, but either is fine. If you have trouble, just let me know. Onel5969 (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I expect you are next on the list

You may find the conversations here and also here relevant. I see you declined it for lack of notability as well. Fiddle Faddle 14:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent - Thanks for the heads up. Doesn't seem to have moved on to me, however. Maybe he simply hasn't gotten around to it yet. Onel5969 (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 19:29:47, 7 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Mgshirts


Hello Onel5969 - thank you for editing my article "BaFa' BaFa' - Cross Cultural/Diversity Simulation" and for the suggestions about releasing the copyright from this article: http://www.simulationtrainingsystems.com/history-bafa-bafa/. I have followed the instructions about releasing the copyright to Wikipedia and posted the suggested note at the bottom of the article "The text of this webpage “History of BaFa’ BaFa’ – A Cross Cultural / Diversity /Inclusion Simulation” is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."

As per your suggestion I will resubmit the article. Please let me know if I need to do anything else. Again I appreciate your help. Sincerely MgshirtsMgshirts (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Mgshirts (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mgshirts - I think you misunderstood what I said, but I can't find the original discussion to see. You can't simply put some text at the bottom of the article. Hopefully, I guided you to the link which explained how to donate copyrighted material, which can be found HERE. Onel5969 (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

23:30:28, 7 April 2015 review of submission by Juniperusco


Greetings! I am new to submitting to WikiPedia, and have been trying to get a living person bio published for a man named Jayme Illien, who is the founder of the International Day of Happiness. I am not sure if I have taken the right approach in my previous submissions. For instance, it may be more appropriate as a 'stub' rather than an 'article.' I'm really not sure what method to take in submitting this bio and would really appreciate some help!

As a reference, please visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Williamson. This is about the length (perhaps even shorter) of the article I would like to submit. It does not have any references at all, only one external link (which appears to be broken). If I wanted to publish something like this, simply to give credit where it is due in acknowledging Mr. Illien as the UN adviser who conceived of the IDoH, how should I go about that? Again, any help would be greatly appreciated! Thank you.

EDIT: Sorry, here is the link to the article in question - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jayme_Illien - thanks!

Juniperusco (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Juniperusco - Wikipedia is monitored by volunteers, so it's not unusual for an inappropriate article to slip through the cracks. That example you gave was created 5 or more years ago, when standards for inclusion were different. In fact, based on research, I've nominated it for deletion. Take a look at the links for the golden rule and general notability requirements. To show notability, you'll usually have to provide 2-3 good in-depth articles about the subject of the article, which are from independent, reliable sources. Onel5969 (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

07:37:33, 8 April 2015 review of submission by ValeriyaMechkova


Hi again and thanks for the very fast reply. Can you advise me on how to improve the article so that it achieves the necessary standards? Provide more references that show the importance of the subject? ValeriyaMechkova (talk) 07:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi ValeriyaMechkova - To show the notability of the subject you should have 2-3 in-depth articles from independent reliable sources (usually well known magazines or newspapers, not niche journals) - hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Please help add the page on Thiru Narayana Iyengar

User: Ramanhome Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Thiru_Narayana_Iyengar


Hi Ramanhome - You still have to remove the raw links. I removed one to give you an example. Also, that paragraph should have a citation which verifies the facts it includes. The citations themselves are still in Tamil, not English. Again, I'm not talking about the underlying articles, but the footnotes in this article have to be in English. The Literary work section needs a lot more citations (same reason I just cited above). But on the whole, MUCH better! Nice job so far. Let me know when you've made the above changes and I'll take another look. Onel5969

Hi Onel5969

Thanks a lot for your detailed help and guidance. Based on your suggestions, i have changed all the things that you had requested in your previous post as stated above. Please check the draft and let me know if i can resubmit.

Thanks Raman Ramanhome (talk)Ramanhome — Preceding undated comment added 09:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ramanhome - yup, looks good. Resubmit and let me know. Onel5969 (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Resubmission of article

Hi Onel5969 -

Thanks for your feedback on the article draft - you noted it was a paraphrasing issue, and I have tried to make changes in line with your suggestions, focusing on the sections for the header and consultancy, which you pointed out were too similar (in a paraphrase sense) to a source article. Would you be able to take a look at the article again? I have redrafted it and was hoping you could take a look so I can resubmit it? Many thanks for your advice and help!

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

Ilovetomatoes321 Ilovetomatoes321 (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ilovetomatoes321 - Yes, it looks like you've taken care of that issue. Onel5969 (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Fantastic, thank you for your advice. I have resubmitted it now.
Ilovetomatoes321
Ilovetomatoes321 (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ilovetomatoes321 - You know what the article needs? Even though it is very well referenced, those are the types of references needed for verifiability. You need 2-3 in-depth articles from independent, reliable sources, showing the notability of Harding. Can you find some of those? Onel5969 (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Onel5969, I will have a look, integrate these into the article, and then let you know! May I just check, does 'independent, reliable sources' refer to things like national newspapers? Would published academic books suffice? Many thanks, again, for the advice! Ilovetomatoes
Ilovetomatoes321 (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Ilovetomatoes321 - national and major newspapers and magazines are the best way to prove notability. Academic books are tricky, since there are so many of them which have a very limited reading circulation. Especially since this subject is not an academic herself. Onel5969 (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

15:57:28, 8 April 2015 review of submission by Khalisanni khalid


I am requesting a re-review by the esteem reviewer(s) because the articles had been improvised based on the reviewers' comments hence it is cited accordingly. Moreover, the nominee had achieve many recognition(citation listed), award(citation listed), publication(references listed), experience in diverse discipline of research(citation listed) and had many pages cited his name in Google search (kindly search "khalisanni") regardless to his young ages. Thus, I would like to thanks the reviewer for his suggestion and hopefully, the article can be accepted as a part of Wikipedia sources. I believe it would helps the users to retrieve the nominee concise information (early life, achievements, etc) with references through esteem Wikipedia page without Googling many website. Thank you Khalisanni khalid (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Khalisanni khalid - you've definitely done some work on the article. However, it still has a way to go before resubmission. First, the sources still do not show the subject's notability. They have to be from independent, reliable sources (usually major newspapers or magazines). The sources you have are fine to verify the facts of the article (which is important), but not for notability. Second, the article actually suffers from WP:OVERCITE. Rarely use more than 1 citation, 2 sometimes if the citations aren't clear. Also, you've now created an WP:OVERLINK issue. Don't wikilink to common words primary school, etc. Wikilinking to people, places and organizations which have their own wikipages is okay. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

On Gheorghe Morosanu' page

Thanks for your kind assistance.

Some time ago I uploaded Morosanu's picture from his personal webpage http://mathematics.ceu.edu/people/gheorghe-morosanu and put it in the right place. Unfortunately, it was removed after a while for copyright reasons.

The picture is available to the public without any restriction. His institution wanted to have a picture there. There is no copyright issue !!!

Could you please upload it from http://mathematics.ceu.edu/people/gheorghe-morosanu and insert it into his wiki page ?

Thank you, ivamanu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivamanu (talk • contribs) 17:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ivamanu - Unfortunately that site clearly has a copyright statement at the bottom of the page. It can't be uploaded from there. You can contact the website and get them to load it onto Wikipedia, giving up their copyright, but that would be the only way. Onel5969 (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

changing the title of R. T. Wallen

Hi Who would have thought that one space could cause such problems? People are having trouble find the page because it is R. T. instead of R.T. Also most people know him as Skip. So I want to change the title to the following: R.T. "Skip" Wallen

I have never changed the title of an existing article so hopefully you can help me with this. cheers, from Down Undah, Reefswaggie (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Reefswaggie - it's really bad form to have "nicknames" in the title of an article. You can include them in the lead, but shouldn't be in the title, except in very rare circumstances. I've created a redirect to the page if folks don't put the space in, so hopefully that will help. Onel5969 (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
ok no worries, thanks for that. Reefswaggie (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

how about this? put in a redirect if someone looks for Skip Wallen ? is that possible? Reefswaggie (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, did that.Onel5969 (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Jayantilal Gada

user name: Yatin Rewale article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jayantilal_Gada Hello - My Article Draft:Jayantilal Gada has been rejected after review, with the Expert's feedback that This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. The feedback seems very general and I would like to amend and resubmit, but would like more specifics in order to do so.Please tell me what changes i have to do to get this article accepted.Now I added more references about person from news papers and others web cites .I Also improved my Article .Please help me thank youYatin Rewale (talk) 10:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

12:22:00, 9 April 2015 review of submission by Abhyud


I have added best reliable resources to justify my article. Please review my article again and do let me know. AB (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Abhyud - The Economic Times article is the type of source which is good to show notability. You need two more like that. Onel5969 (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

14:38:15, 9 April 2015 review of submission by 24.13.237.93


Hi Onel5969 - I sent you the following message on March 16. I see that you have replied to messages before and after my message, but you have not replied to my message. I have copied it below and would greatly appreciate a response since I think that we have established the required notability to publish the article for the reasons explained below. Thank you !

16:53:03, 16 March 2015 review of submission by 24.13.237.93[edit] 24.13.237.93 (talk · contribs) Draft:Kol Hadash Humanistic Congregation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


I don't understand why the submission for Kol Hadash Humanistic Congregation was declined. The congregation is "notable" both as the "oldest and largest Humanistic Jewish congregation in Illinois" and for its rabbi emeritus being "the first Humanistic rabbi in Illinois." There are citations to articles ABOUT the congregation (not just a passing reference) in two different editions of the Chicago Tribune (Jan 13, 2008 and Sept 15, 2014), the Daily Herald (Dec 23, 2009), and WBEZ radio (July 16 2014).

Wikipedia has published articles about other Jewish congregations that have almost no citations or special distinction. See the links below:

1. Congregation Solel in Highland Park, Illinois - This article has almost no references, and none of the three references cited are independent, third-party references like a newspaper. The article was printed asking for additional submissions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_Solel

2. North Shore Congregation Israel in Glencoe, Illinois – This article has only two references, one of which is just a “dictionary and sourcebook,” and the other is a reference to the synagogue’s building. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Shore_Congregation_Israel

3. Temple Beth El in Madison, Wisconsin – This article has NO citations at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Beth_El_(Madison,_Wisconsin)

4. Temple Beth El in San Antonio, Texas – This article has only one citation, and not for anything that makes them “notable” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Beth-El_(San_Antonio)

5. Temple Beth El in Great Neck, New York – No citation for anything other than its location. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Beth-El_(Great_Neck,_New_York)

6. Beth Shalom in Frederick, Maryland – Nothing notable about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beth_Sholom_Congregation_(Frederick,_Maryland)

I would appreciate any explanation or specific instruction that would enable me to edit the article and have it approved for publication.

Thank you!


24.13.237.93 (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi - Sorry about that, I thought I had responded. Wikipedia is monitored by volunteers, so it's not unusual for an inappropriate article to slip through the cracks. Most of those examples you gave were created 5 or more years ago, when standards for inclusion may have been different. However, even with that, when pressed, all of them could come up with references which showed the notability of those subjects. You need 2-3 references which show the notability of the congregation. Onel5969 (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Mitchel Kriegman update

I appreciate you taking the time to go over the proposed changes to the Mitchell Kriegman. In my draft article, you should know that all of the references are in the References section (Reflist|ref=), I use shortcuts in the body of the article to reduce the clutter and it helps me avoid duplicate references. Kriegman is a nice guy and he has refrained from editing his article for many years, now as a novelist, he'd like to have his film career documented and have an article without banners in the header. Thanks Again! 009o9 (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, a lot of activity on this page. Just wanted to thank you again for agreeing to go over the updates for Mitchell Kriegman. I'll see if I can spend a couple of hours this evening in AfC, maybe find a worthy article that can be helped along. Thanks again! 009o9 (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi 009o9 - on the whole, not a lot of fluff, and the article was well sourced. Updated his article. Hope it suits. Happy editing! Onel5969 (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Beautiful, I really appreciate your time and work on this and I will keep paying it forward in AfC009o9 (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Brooks Benedict Biography Page

Dear Editor Onel5969, I appreciate your time and effort in review and acceptance of “Brooks Benedict” biography page as an addition to Wikipedia. Similarly, I am grateful for your kind note, in reference to which, I thought that I had directly submitted the page. Also, I am not very familiar with the rating system. However the page that I submitted contains historical references important to him and the topic. They are not found in any other collective. Please note that all that was known about him as reported in public databases did not surpass 3-4 sentences. Thereby his page at Wikipedia is the most comprehensive, and importantly underlines his education, military service, and challenges in an acting career spanning silent movies to television. In this respect, I would be grateful if you could advise me as to how further improve this page so that it reaches a level higher stub. I understand that stub articles can be deleted. Also, I am curious to see if I am credited with the creation of the page. Respectfully, M. Neshat, Ph.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mneshat (talk • contribs) 23:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mneshat - if you take a look at my userpage, you'll see I've created probably over 100 articles about film people from the 1920s-50s, so I hear you on the slim pickings available to write about (many of the articles I could not get above stub class). The "class" of the article is not an indication of the quality, but of the depth. This article bordered on the stub/start class only due to its depth. You could get it into the start class by adding a complete filmography list (AFI database is an excellent source). I would expand the brief paragraph of his more notable films, giving more details about them (directors or other stars). Another excellent resource to research these older film people is the Media History Project. It's laborious, but fascinating. Once you get the filmography in, you can upgrade it to start. Then simply take a look at the grading system to see how to improve it. Hope this helps, and good luck with the article. Onel5969 (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Please help add the page on Thiru Narayana Iyengar

User: Ramanhome Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Thiru_Narayana_Iyengar


Hi Onel5969

Thanks a lot for all your help. As requested by you, have resubmitted for review.

Regards Raman

Hi Ramanhome - yup, looks good. Resubmit and let me know. Onel5969 (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramanhome (talk • contribs)

"copyvio" reversion of Paradise Valley additions, continued

Hey Onel5969: A few days back I posted a proposed revision as a question for you under "copyvio" reversion of Paradise Valley additions, above -- have not heard back though I see other action on your talk page -- so maybe you didn't see it? If it's appropriate, I'd appreciate your feedback on this proposed revision -- this process occasioned quite a bit more useful research and a much better submission --thanks for that! and hope you agree. WcwkS15 (talk) 02:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi WcwkS15 - no sorry, I missed it. Will look at it now. Onel5969 (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

MIME invalid revert

I have noticed that you reverted some valuable edits here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MIME&diff=637466320&oldid=637421367

Please undo your revert.

Piotr Jurkiewicz (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Piotr Jurkiewicz - They were reverted because they were unsourced. Onel5969 (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
? What was unsourced? Everything is self-explainable using mentioned RFCs. Piotr Jurkiewicz (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

About my rejected article

Hi

My submission was declined by you " Onel5969". I still got the same message I got earlier on after editing and resubmitting the article.

I want to learn please. What exactly do you want me to do so that the article will be accepted.

Here's the link:

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


Thanks

Hilary Umeoka — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilumeoka2000 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hilary - to show a subject's notability, there should be 2-3 in-depth articles from independent, reliable sources (usually newspapers or magazines). The Bloomberg cite merely shows who he is, not that he's notable. The Newfield sources are not independent, (it's also a bit of a coincidence, since I've done some work with Newfield). Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Alok Nanda

Thank you for taking the time to review my page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alok_Nanda_%26_Company_Communications_Pvt._Ltd.)

I was hoping you could shed some light on your feedback.

'refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources': My sources include CNBC, Forbes India and Economic Times. Since the subject is an Indian advertising firm, I've also included sources like CampaignIndia and Afaqs, that are known and respected by the Indian advertising community. Could you specify why these sources are unacceptable so that I may improve my article?

'This submission appears to read more like an advertisement...articles need to be written from a neutral point of view': I have avoided what might be considered as 'peacock terms'; there are, however a few instances where I've used words taken directly from sources. For instance: 'India is the fastest-growing luxury market' from CNBC.com. Do you object to words/phrases like these or is there something else you'd like me to change?

I'd appreciate your help. Thothbubble (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Thothbubble - the article appears to sell the subject, not simply tell us about it. When you say things like "ANC was created as a multidisciplinary agency to tap into this premium segment..." that's a promotional statement. The Awards section is promotional, but that's the nature of the beast, nothing you can do about that. But your client and affiliated sections are chock full of promotionalism. Don't tell us about "features" and "aims". Onel5969 (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

07:21:05, 10 April 2015 review of submission by Abhyud


As per your suggestion, i have added three more reliable resources to justify my article. Kindly, review my article again.

AB (talk) 07:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Abhyud - Nice job! Onel5969 (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Von Lombard

Good Morning:

Your long list of Wikipedia articles is most impressive. And although I am from the deep South, I do like New York. Having been there several times, I enjoyed each visit. Hanging on my wall is a chalk drawing of my daughter and me from a sidewalk artist in Manhattan.

Now, for my article on Von Lombard. My last two rejections were over notability. I truly respect Wikipedia's standing in this regard, yet it does seem there is a great deal of latitude on what an editor determines to be notable.

Please consider:

Von Lombard has written four books. VL has baptized over 1000 people in water. Only one percent of pastors in America have baptized that many people. VL has been published in one magazine and one journal. VL has been on Fox News and had his own TV and radio programs.

There are about a dozen third party references in the article at Von Lombard.

Can you plz reconsider your decision on notability? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Von_Lombard&redirect=no

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimsontidealabama (talk • contribs) 10:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

SIMUS MODEL FOR DECISION MAKING

Dear reviewer

Please read the clarifications that I sent regarding the article that you rejected

Thank your very much for your attention

Nolberto Munier

User name: reinumrub Password: Valencor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.90.148.96 (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi reinumrub - Please do not clutter my talk page with vast amounts of argument (not a negative term, just simply meaning that you presented data to back up your side). Your article is an essay. Plain and simple. It is full of what appears to be original research, where you make uncited assertions, and draw conclusions. Onel5969 (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: Ilan Rechtman article

Hello,

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

Thank you for your review of the article, I was google-ing information on artists who had played with Brazilian orchestras and decided to make this article. I used the article on Sonia Rubinsky (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Rubinsky) as a basis for comparison. I have added citations to Mr. Rechtman's recorded work and to the recent broadcast of his music on the US TV Show Dancing with the Stars.

Thank you,

user: AKonanur

Hi AKonanur - Just because an article exists on Wikipedia does not mean it is necessarily a good model to base a new article on. Wikipedia is monitored by volunteers, so it's not unusual for an inappropriate article to slip through the cracks. That example you gave was created almost 5 years ago, when standards for inclusion may have been different. I've tagged it, since it definitely needs references. Now about your article. I'll let another reviewer take a stab at it. To me, it does not appear to meet any of the criteria under WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

06:18:17, 11 April 2015 review of submission by Teriw


Hi, thank you so much for reviewing the Jo Loves draft page. Please could you clarify where you identify peacock terms, is this av example: "The reaction from the industry was instantaneous"? All other sentences are written factually without positive adjectives or superlatives. Is the use of Jo's quotes the reason for decline? Many thanks, would love to make this work.

Teriw (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Teriw - for peacock terms, take a look at the Fragrance table, just as an example. But that's a small part of the issue with this article. It reads like a promotional brochure, I had to tag it either for NPOV or for Advertising, either would have been correct. But it went beyond mere advertising, and is written in an informal style, as well as being highly promotional. Don't use the subject's first name, after the initial mention, only use the last name. Most of the "Jo says" comments are self-promotional. It's one thing to quote the subject about their motivations, it's another to quote the subject talking about how great they are. Onel5969 (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Onel5969 - thank you for your reply and reviewer comments. The page has been edited to have an encyclopaedic tone; descriptions have been removed from the fragrances table and 'Jo' replaced with her surname only as per your recommendation. Quotes have been reduced to neutral outtakes only and certain word choices have been made more neutral throughout the article. Looking forward to your thoughts. Many thanks! Teriw (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2015 (BST)
Hi. The article needs to be about the company. I edited it to get rid of all the fluff. Promotional stuff like the creator telling you how great her stuff is was deleted. Her explaining why some of the fragrances is okay, but the rest of the fluff about her didn't belong. Onel5969 (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much Onel5969! I made final grammar tweaks following your edits, and added a very brief mention of 'fragrance tapas' under the company's innovations (realise this was lengthy and thus removed). A user named Jimfbleak removed the draft 12 April but this was before your edits! Please could you advise how we may get this published now that it is edited by you? Many thanks again for your advice and help. Teriw (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2015 (BST)
Hi Teriw - I moved it to draft, and submitted it for review. Onel5969 (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you ever so much Onel5969! Fingers crossed... Teriw (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2015 (BST)

Article for TV show

Hello, I want to ask for your advise on article about TV show. I initially write this info to be put on their filmography. However other editors said that we can't put long details about a show on filmography article. There are 2 main reality show and I actually think it will be better if we can combined it in one page instead of two separate articles but I'm not too sure if we can do that here. Here is the draft. Kindly need your advise. Thank you so much :) Sonflower0210 (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sonflower0210 - The editors who told you about not putting too much info on a filmography were correct. You are also correct in assuming that you shouldn't put two shows in one article. One thing which will be necessary is that although the underlying links to the citations may be in Korean, the actual footnotes should be translated into English, and then (in Korean) should be added. This will let folks know what the title of the article is, and then that the article is in a foreign language. I don't think the APink News will pass the notability test. TrendE is not a notable station, and I don't think the citations are significant enough to show notability. The Showtime might pass muster, since it was aired on a notable station. I really don't think they've done enough to warrant a filmography. You could simply mention the 3 shows on their page. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I'm thinking maybe for "Showtime", it's better to combine all seasons under one article instead separate article because even though they choose different artist for each season but it still under one umbrella "Showtime". So far only season 1 have an article under EXO's_Showtime and the show has finished 4 seasons.For this, can we put it together under one article? Which one do you think is better?
For the filmography, I'm thinking whether videography is more appropriate than filmography since they're group of singers. The similar article you just approved also called videography instead of filmography. Here's the draft on my sandbox. I included their music videos, reality shows and commercial music video for the filmography. I'm still working on completing the ref and probably will added their most notable variety show appearance later on.Sonflower0210 (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Articles for creation

Hi! I know that you do great work in this area. Nevertheless, I'm going to stick my neck out and ask you to be a little more careful in what you accept. Lee Harris Pomeroy was created by an editor called Leeharrispomeroy; that suggests that there is a serious conflict of interest problem there at the very least. WP:COI, WP:AUTO apply; it should probably be speedy-deleted as G11, unambiguous advertising. Conflict-of-interest editors and would-be autobiographers are supposed to be strongly discouraged from editing related articles; one way of discouraging them might be to decline their drafts. Rather more worrying is PREMature (TV Series), where the copyvio blanking was removed by the article creator; just for future reference: that is never acceptable. If should ever happen to see it again, please restore the copyvio template or revert to the last version before it was removed. Many thanks for all you do, best regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers - never hesitate to give constructive criticism. Always welcome here. AfC can be frustrating at times, since so much crap is submitted, and so many editors simply want to argue rather than learn. But I think it's so necessary that I'm willing to devote time as often as possible to try to stay ahead of the backlog. Regarding the two articles, first let's deal with Lee Harris Pomeroy. I was aware of the potential COI. You can see the conversations I had with the editor HERE and HERE. I felt that the article, with one or two minor exceptions avoided the NPOV issue, and the sources seemed to me (imho) to show the notability. My understanding, as I stated in the one comment, is that COI doesn't preclude an article from being written by that editor, just that you must be careful regarding NPOV.
Regarding PREMature (TV Series), you're right. I missed the editor reverting the copyvio tag. When I went back to it, I simply did the copyvio check myself using earwig, and saw no conflict. On other articles I have caught it, I guess I didn't go far enough back in history to find it. I'll try to be more careful. Thanks for letting me know. Onel5969 (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Article on Rinaldo Paluzzi

Onel5969

I do need your assistance. It may take some of your valuable time, but I really do need your help. You recently rejected my article on the artist Paluzzi. I have personally talked to the curator of a major museum in Los Angeles, who agreed with me that Rinaldo Paluzzi is considered to be a Notable American Abstract Expressionist artist. I do understand the need to establish the Notability of Paluzzi and include references; and I believe I have done so in my article.

But please explain something to me?

Since Paluzzi was an American Abstract Expressionist Artist, I examined the list of artists whose mature work related to the American Abstract Expressionist movement (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_expressionism) (Note: 7.2 Other artists) and may I suggest my article on Paluzzi includes more information establishing his notability and references than do the articles on the following artists listed there: William Brice , Alexander Bogen (was neither significant nor American), Charles Ragland Bunnell, Edward Corbett, Lynne Mapp Drexler, Jean Dubuffet, Sam Gilliam, Joseph Glasco, JohnD. Graham, Stephen Greene, Gino Hollander, Frances Kornbluth, André Lansky, Michael Lowe, John Levee, Herbert Matter (he was not an Abstract Expressionist, he was a photographer and graphic designer), Seong Moy, Jan Müller, Pat Passlof, Earle M. Pilgraim, Aaron Siskind (a photographer who had little to do with the Abstract Expressionist movement), Ary Stillman, and Cora Kelley Ward. PLEASE look at the WIKIPEDIA articles on each of the above and explain why they have an article and Paluzzi does not?

By the age of 32, his work was already in major collections and being shown in major exhibitions. [1]

Also, may I suggest you look at the following:

http://www.javierbmartin.com/index.php/textos/535-obito-rinaldo-paluzzi

http://www.javierbmartin.com/index.php/pintores-javier-b-martin/222-rinaldo-paluzzi

Please go to: http://www.inwhiteriver.com/attractioncategory/public-art/ Scroll down to “Totem” and read the bio on Paluzzi. If that doesn’t establish his nobility and references more than all the artists listed in section 7.2 of the American Abstract Expressionist article, I don’t understand what will?

After taking the time to do what I have requested, please let me know exactly what needs to be added to my article for it to be included in WIKIPEDIA.

I am age 90.85 and may not live long enough to see my article in WIKIPEDIA.

With cordial regards, SirSwindon

Sirswindon (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to respond to this, but my reply will be on the identical request at kikichugirl's talk page. Primefac (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sirswindon - as noted above Primefac has responded to you on Kikichugirl's talk page. And he did it much more eloquently than I could have, so please see his response there. If, after you find and add more sources, feel free to let me know and I'll be more than happy to take another look at it. Onel5969 (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Sirswindon (talk · contribs) As someone who has worked a little in this subject area, I accepted the article. It would however help to have additional references. DGG ( talk ) 22:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ARinaldo_Paluzzi_Exhibition_Announcemant_Simone_Gallery_5-18-1962.jpg

This draft article has been resubmitted and is currently awaiting re-review. ~ User:Onel5969

Joél Célestin Filsaime, is a well known musician as J-Pimp, with reliable natural resource on his music career. Can you re-review this draft article and accepted this article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jo%C3%A9l_C%C3%A9lestin_Filsaime

deletions

I remind you that the criterion Speedy A7 only applies to people, organizations, organized events, and web content. It does not apply to concepts, or films, or any creative work. I am removing your tags, and I very strongly advise you not to do any further deletion tagging until you have carefully read WP:CSD and WP:Deletion policy. DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi DGG - Yeah Bbb23 also just pointed that out to me. Thought I understood that criteria. Obviously I was wrong. Re-read the criteria and now think I've got it. I was trying to pound a square peg in a round hole. Am just attempting to get up to speed at RPP to help with the backlog. Thanks for your patience. Onel5969 (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tags

I just declined three pages you tagged with WP:CSD#A7. Please read the criterion more carefully. Ordinary films are not eligible for A7. Neither is a neologism.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

S/O Satyamurthy

Can you please copy edit this article's plot? I believe it is a bit improper and long. However read it carefully and make sure the plot's basic essence is not lost in translation (i may be junior to you, but call it my desperation.) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 05:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the c/e. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Dispute resolution request

Hi, I've made a request for dispute resolution regarding the Moon Landing article. Just wanted to let you know :) LadyLeitMotif (talk) 12:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

thank you for your help, apologies if i didn't do it correctly. was listening to a 1981 bbc radio doc about the ripper case, and truth be told was trying to 'crowbar' the fact that sutcliffe showed his friend his VD in the men's room. (yuck) the part of the page i was trying to edit said something like 'other analysis showed no proof that he went to prostitutes'. how should i have done it, if at all? thanks again for your help, hope you are well. feel free to delete this after reading/ response. :) Onemorebrando (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)chip

Speedy deletion of Kidoz Montessori and Pre School

Hi,

Could you please tell me what data could help improve the page, will references form the following sites help? In addition to the references, I will be adding more content on the Pre School as well.


My username: Muthad Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidoz_Montessori_and_Pre_School

Thank you! Muthad (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Muthad - to show notability you should have 2-3 in-depth articles from independent, reliable sources about the school. Onel5969 (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

06:28:55, 13 April 2015 review of submission by Hydourite


I am making a first time article submission on Wikipedia and we haven't hired any agency to do the same and hence have put up the entire article on my own. This is one of the most successful cultural festivals of Hyderabad (India) and the only festival that spans across 100 days in the entire country of India. Please let me know how do I go about the editing or please suggest if we have any professional help that I can ask for. You could google for the term HYDOURITE and see the kind of responses you get for the same; if that helps. Hydourite (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hydourite - the article wasn't declined because the festival isn't notable. The sources seem to indicate that it is. It was declined because it's written as a promotional piece, not as an encyclopedia article. It needs to be edited to remove all the promotional aspects of it, as well as peacock terms. Don't express opinions, simply give facts. Also, take a look at WP:CIT to see how to correctly format citations. Go over it again, with those things in mind, and I'll take another look at it. Onel5969 (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much

Even though I'm not the author of She-She-She Camps, I appreciate the time that you put into helping the author get the article into main space because I think the information it contains is very interesting. I wasn't involved as much as I wanted to be in helping to improve the article so at this time I was wondering if you could share with me some of the things that you still think need to be improved.

  Bfpage |leave a message  11:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bfpage - No worries. I found the article very well done for a first effort. Was very impressed, and the editor wanted to learn, so it was easy to want to help them. Noticed you put it at "start" level for that project. Personally, I think it is definitely a C level, and not far from B. The first thing I think that needs to be done is fixing the "images" section. If the pictures that those links go to are to free pics, than upload the photos and integrate them into the article. You could leave a brief gallery (say no more than 6 pics). Second, the citations need to be formatted correctly. Third, it needs a quick edit to get MOS guidelines adhered to (e.g. capitalization in the headers, overuse of bold in the body of the article, etc.) Then it needs a c/e. There's niggling things like capitalization errors (e.g. Pleurisy instead of pleurisy). Other than the photos, the other three are easily done. Once you get those four things done, I'll be happy to take another look, but at that point I think you could easily move it to B status. Onel5969 (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Such excellent suggestions! I'll probably be able to get to these things today. I'm glad you think the article could advance to a B status. I took a look at the procedures related to an article becoming a DYK entry on the main page and at this point time it's beyond my understanding. Have you ever done anything like this? I'm not asking you to do all the work that it would take to highlight this article in the DYK section of the main page, but if you know another editor who is really good at making this happen could you let me know? Also, I find it difficult sometimes to locate articles submitted to AfC, to help with.
I was also very impressed for this being the first article from this editor and intend to encourage him or her to keep on creating articles. They obviously have a gift in writing and would take such a short time to get them up to speed to create significant content. If you want to keep me in mind and let me know when you think someone could use my help in topics related to science, health. medicine. and/or biology I would be glad to help out. I am quite useless in bringing biographical articles up to standards because I don't understand the fascination with the lives of other people who I don't think are notable... I appreciate the communication that we've had and I look forward to hearing from you again. Best Regards
  Bfpage |leave a message  12:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Will definitely keep you in mind Bfpage for those types of articles, particularly since they are not my strong point. I try to encourage as many new editors as I can, especially those who either have such a good first effort, or those who are simply begging to learn. Regarding DYK... no, I've never attempted to advanced an article like that (although 3 of my articles have been featured). I guess you could always go to the Teahouse and ask there if someone knows the process. Regarding AfC entrants, you main link to find articles is: Category:Pending AfC submissions, I use that, then click on the AfC pending submissions by age. Nice talking to you. Happy editing! Onel5969 (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit of Regina A. Herzlinger

Hi, you edited and rejected the article with Regina E. Herzlinger. I created a usename TrentTrout59 AFTER the article was edited. Do you have any guidance for us? Dr. Herzlinger is one of the foremost health policy analysts in the United States, one of the most admired professors at Harvard Business School, the first woman to earn tenure on the faculty of Harvard Business School, and the author of numerous influential books and articles on health care. I think you're looking for references that aren't HBS websites.

TrentTrout59 - although I'm not sure that is your correct username, since there isn't a user page or talk page with that name (but it could be you simply haven't created them yet). For notability purposes, you should have citations from 2-3 independent, reliable sources which show in-depth coverage of the subject. In other words, the sources can't be affiliated with the subject or with any organization she is affiliated with (you can use sources like that to verify the facts of the article, just not for notability purposes). In addition, take a look at WP:CIT on how to format citations. If a citation has a weblink, it should be included. If a citation is from a newspaper or magazine, it should have the date, page #, author's name and title of the article, as well as the publication name. If from a book, it should include title, publisher, author, page #, date published, isbn #, etc. I hope this helps, will be happy to take another look at it after you make the corrections. Onel5969 (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, I understand. We had sources including The Economist, Modern Healthcare, and New England Journal of Medicine but I can provide many more. Here's what I did. I wasn't sure about whether I needed to create a username so I did it after I submitted the article. How can I get back to the draft I submitted?TrentTrout59 (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi TrentTrout59 - Here's the link to your draft: Draft:Regina E. Herzlinger. That will take you back. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Guitar pickup potting

Hi I was asked to provide inline references, this I did. I have waited 2 weeks and now rejected again. I hope you can provide a clue as to what is missing, I did what was asked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Guitar_pickup_potting Thanks The Naughty Badger (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi The Naughty Badger - Well, there are 2 inline citations, but at least 2 more are needed (I've marked where). Second, I'm not sure the topic meets the notability criteria. Check out WP:GNG. Are there any articles from reputable sources which speak about this topic in-depth? If not, you might want to folk this information into the Pickup (music technology) article. Onel5969 (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi and thanks, I have added two more inline citations and another video demonstrating the process. I would say that pickup potting is indeed notable and a very important aspect of guitar electronics and certainly not just an aside in the main category. I will certainly add further information and refernces to this article over time. The Naughty Badger (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 18:49:40, 13 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Lizseach


Hello! Thank you for your review and feedback. (And also for your nice note.) I am hoping that you could give me some more specific suggestions. About ten days ago, this article was declined for a similar reason, namely that I needed to add more inline citations. I wrote to that reviewer and asked him if he had any ideas about where I should put more citations. I explained that I had been trying to gauge how many citations to put in based on looking at articles about similar academics and using them as models. The two I had chosen were Nelson Lichtenstein (another faculty member at the same institution) and James T. Richardson (another sociologist). Based on those examples (they each only have two), I was afraid that I had actually put too many citations into mine as it is now, and I did not put even more in for fear of looking amateurish. In response, the reviewer said that upon considering my article again, he had concluded that he'd had "brain failure" when reviewing it the first time, and he put it back in the line to be reviewed again. So I did not end up getting any specific feedback as to where more citations might be effective. I'm wondering if you have any that might help me? Thanks! :) Lizseach (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Lizseach

Lizseach (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lizseach - There is such a thing as overciting, but that has to do when you have more then 2 citations per fact in the article. Your article is a "blp" (biography of a living person), and as such, has a higher level of inline citations needed than other articles. Basically, every "fact" in the article should have its own citation. Sometimes a citation covers more than one fact, and that's okay. Your article needs at least two more inline citations, I've marked where in the text I think they belong. More importantly, your article needs 2-3 in-depth articles from independent reliable sources, which show his notability. Right now, all the sources you have are from pages of organizations of which the subject is affiliated, and therefore not independent. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Onel5969! That was very helpful. I have revised now with the "more is more" philosophy in mind and resubmitted. I found it somewhat tricky: in order to assert aspects of notability as "facts," and thereby create opportunities to cite them, I was required to say things that felt less neutral. I hope I have managed to strike the right balance. Any further editing suggestions are welcome. Again, many thanks for your help. :) Lizseach (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Lizseacg

Kansas City, Missouri - redlinks to school districts

Hi! I would like to discuss this edit.

I want to emphasize that sometimes red links are a good thing. Wikipedians want to encourage others to write contents at topics which don't yet have their articles. School districts in the United States have been shown to be notable, and this is a common outcome at AFD. This is especially so for the state of Missouri, where school districts are independent of municipal boundaries and have their own taxation departments. Every single Missouri school district should have a Wikipedia article, and removing redlinks to those topics impedes that goal.

Please don't remove redlinks of Missouri school districts. If you want to have something other than redlinks, please consider writing stubs for these school districts.

I am aware that one of the links points to the wrong target, so I'll hunt it and retarget the link.

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi WhisperToMe - I understand your point, and you do such good work, I hear you. I don't usually simply get rid of redlinks. I do a lot of editing on old films, and definitely know the advantage of redlinks. My thinking here was that, unlike redlinks in films, which can be spread over dozens, if not hundreds of articles - and so when an article is created, the article creater doesn't have to go through all those articles and wikilink them, in this instance the number of articles a wikilink would affect is minimal.
I really reverted simply in response to your question in your edit summary. I will defer to your judgment if you want to keep the redlinks. The only thing I would ask is that if you do wikilink, please make sure it is to the correct article, which I see you recognize now. Happy editing! Onel5969 (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! I'll check to make sure new blue links point to the right place. Often these school districts cover multiple municipalities and each have one or more high schools (some of which already have articles!) and so I would like to make sure these concepts are linked together so no walled gardens pop up :) - I'm actually working on Raytown's district article right now. Its high schools already had articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Bichetteln

Hello ,

In your last message you said that everything was ok about my work ...

so i submit it but it's rejected again ???? i don't understand why

Regards

Bichetteln (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bichetteln - I can't find our earlier conversation, but your article has zero inline citations. Inline citations are just that: citations that are in the line of the copy of the articles. All of your citations are simply references, at the end of the article. Each fact in your article needs a citation. So, you say he moved to Paris in 1976. That needs a citation right at that point in the article. Same for each other fact you have in the article. Onel5969 (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Temper (film)

Can you please perform a complete c/e on this article which i am aiming to take to GA status? Please let me know whether you are interested in doing so and if yes, please inform me before beginning the process. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you perform the c/e ASAP? I'm running out of time. Its a humble request and if you cant do this now or never, please let me know. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Onel, it has been 10 days since the request of the c/e and 5 days since the renewed request. Considering the fact that you have been replying all the other messages since then except for mine, i believe that either you forgot this or you are too busy to take up this task of a c/e. Please do confirm whether you are interested in conducting a c/e or not within the end of 24 April, my birthday. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 05:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Pavanjandhyala - Sorry about that. You see how much activity there's been on my talk page. I didn't miss your post once, but twice. Truly sorry. I'm taking a break from c/e work. Every once in a while I have to step away from one of the housekeeping activities I'm involved in, just so I can maintain perspective. Sorry. Onel5969 (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Its okay. I shall approach someone else. Hoping to collaborate with you in the near future for a similar activity. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

15:56:55, 14 April 2015 review of submission by Gomegas


Thank you for reviewing this submission. I am unclear on which of the references are considered unverifiable. All of the selected works are available online via the various journal webpages. The Google Scholar page shows a much larger research base than the selected references and all remaining references are independent of the article subject. Also, after reading the notability guidelines and reviewing many published articles about Dr. Marakas' peers in information research, I am unclear as to how to proceed to further establish notability. Most of Dr. Marakas' works are published in the premiere journals with his field. Would it help to include citation counts from Web of Science? He has been my research mentor for many years and I believe his notability within the field of information systems is beyond reproach. Please guide me in how to proceed to reach a successful publication.

Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. Gomegas (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Gomegas (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gomegas. First, you have a potential conflict of interest, since you are connected to the subject. Doesn't mean you can't write the article, but it does mean you have to be careful of maintaining a neutral point of view. Second, to show notability, you need to have 2-3 in-depth articles from independent reliable sources (such as major newspapers or magazines). Also, please check out WP:CIT for examples on how to properly format citations. Onel5969 (talk) 03:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

"Comparison of Modern Surface to Air Missiles" - Brovich

Upon reviewing and rejecting my draft you proposed moving this information to "List of surface-to-air missiles".

There are two main problems to this and I am currently looking for solutions.

1. MODERN. "List of surface-to-air missiles" attempts to encompass all of them in existence. My intended scope was relevant, moderns SAMs. Including all SAMs into the list would make the comparison cluttered, and inefficient.

2. By Country. "List of surface-to-air missiles" arranges them by country in alphabetical order. It makes it easy to see what one country has developed. Splitting SAMs up into range categories makes comparing missiles easy, but does not accomplish the task of "List of surface-to-air missiles".

Excellent points, Brovich - I think the way to go is for you to add your information as an entirely new section in the existing article. Would that work for you? Onel5969 (talk) 03:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I have to consider why others use "List of surface-to-air missiles". It would seem quite awkward, (right at then end of the article)/(right at the beginning of the article) to have something that deviates from the scope of "List of surface-to-air missiles". I already considered this before I wrote my article.
Info Type "List of surface-to-air missiles" name implicates List of surface-to-air missiles accomplishes My article
All encompassing history Yes Yes No
In a list format Yes Yes No
In a table format No No Yes
A Modern Scope No No Yes
Comparison No No Yes
Technical Data No No Yes

If there was an article named "modern SAMS" or "List of modern SAMS", I would merge without hesitation. There are plenty of articles about modern SAMS(on a case by case basis), but there is no all encompassing article. This is my attempt and making that article.

OK I will propose a new solution that you can critique: -Create an new article called "list of modern surface-to-air missiles" and then add in the comparison tables.

Then there is always the option of accepting my original article. I believe it would be unique article with a unique purpose. Whether its an article about a specific MANPADS, short range SAM, medium range SAM, long range SAM or ABM. My article will remove the need for all the "See also:"s at the end of these pages and reduce the clutter on Wikipedia by a lot. Brovich

Hi Brovich - I changed the name of your article. The difficulty that you will face with this new list is that it is almost totally unsourced. I don't think it will be a huge issue, since all of the listings have their own articles. But resubmit now, and I'll move it to the mainspace. I'll also create a hatnote on the other list to show that users might want to check this one out as well (and vice versa). Onel5969 (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Resubmitted


Never mind, I fixed the typos in the title.

Thank you,

Brovich

17:34:15, 14 April 2015 review of submission by 777desha777


Hi Onel, a colleague of mine asked me to take a look at this page they submitted and asked me to do what I can to edit it. Since I've done a couple of other wiki pages, they thought I might be better able to edit the page and get it up to standard. I would like to submit it by the end of the week, but thought I would check with you first to see if you have any suggestions.

The import of this page Silbermann is primarily his position in the Middle East Cancer Consortium (a stub page that I will also be updating shortly. I want to link to Silbermann's page, as I believe these should be two separate topics).

Your advice is greatly appreciated.

777desha777 (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi 777desha777 - I'm not sure this individual meets the notability criteria. Currently, there are 5 citations, and the first four are simply about 4 facts about the subject, none of which makes him notable. The fact that he's the chair of a notable group/committee does not in and of itself make him notable. With the current information in the article, I don't see the notability. Are there any other notable in-depth articles about him? Onel5969 (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Onel5969, I will keep doing some research. I think the situation may be that he is notable but I can't PROVE his notability. Please give me a some time to work on this. Please don't delete this page yet. I have a feeling it may be easier to find the newspaper articles about him in the Hebrew press... but I need to explore this more thoroughly. I know from everything I have read that he has had a huge impact on scientific relations related to cancer research, and brought together opposing parties for the common good in the battle against cancer. I just need to find how to prove this. If you have any other suggestions, I'm listening, and my research goes on. Thanks again! 777desha777 (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi 777desha777 - First, articles are never deleted from the draft space unless they are abandoned (not worked on for more than 6 months), so take your time. Second, you could be right about his notability. That's why when we decline it, we don't say the subject isn't notable, but simply that the citations don't support that notability. Good luck on working on it. Onel5969 (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Thomas A. Nazario

Hello, Onel5969. User:Ktscurria here, back from travels. Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Thomas_A._Nazario, they (Tom Nazario and his organization) understandably don’t want to give up their copyright. But if I rewrite the article such that the material objected to is no longer part, is that sufficient, or are there other problems with the material I’ve submitted?Ktscurria (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ktscurria - It's difficult to tell since the article has been blanked. After copyvio, the biggest issue will be notability. Are there 2-3 in-depth sources from independent reliable sources (usually well-known newspapers or magazines) about the subject? Onel5969 (talk) 03:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Proving Subject Notability

Thanks for reviewing my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Cooper_Phillip

Unfortunately it wasn't accepted due to notability issues. I have created citations using 8 reliable sources. Just wondering what could be the problem. Are the sources are not reliable enough?

Hi Oleksiguy - first, please remember to sign your comments with the four ~ ... it helps so that we can "ping" you back to let you know we're responding to your question. Now, about the article. For a reference to be reliable, it has to have editorial oversight. Music Emmissions doesn't. The Spotlight doesn't. ArtistDirect is a marketing site, and therefore not reliable. The Heed piece is nice, but that magazine is a fringe magazine at best, so you'd need several like that, from different sources to show notability. Your 7th and 8th sources are good for verifying the facts in the article, but not for notability. You need to find 2-3 in-depth articles from reliable sources (like Rolling Stone, or the Seattle Times for example - The Seattle PI is a good source as well, but that article isn't really about the subject, it's about the other person's album) - Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Jayantilal_Gada

user name: Yatin Rewale article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jayantilal_Gada Hello - I got expert feedback that This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. The feedback seems very general and I would like to amend and resubmit, but would like more specifics in order to do so.Please tell me what changes i have to do to get this article accepted.Now I added more references about person from news papers and others web cites.Jayantilal_Gada is one of the famous personality in bollywood industry.Many articles are published on him in news papers and other media.Please help me how can i solve this problemYatin Rewale (talk) 06:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Yatin Rewale - There are a few issues with the article, although I think that the notability issue has been resolved. First, the article is written in an informal style. Talking about his "dream" and "journey" and "business sense". Additionally, you need to find someone who can do a very thorough c/e on the article, correcting a lot of the grammar issues. You should also check out MOS:LAYOUT to learn more about the layout and structure of an article. Finally, since this article is a blp (biography of a living person), you need many more inline citations to verify the facts asserted in the article. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Arfidalocin

Hi Onel5969, Thanks for your review and for your time. I added many references as you suggested about Stefano Siragusa's new page. Can I do something to improve on the quality of this page? Kind regards, Arfidalocin

Arfidalocin - Hi. I see you resubmitted and Arthur goes shopping has already responded to your query on his talk page. He pretty much tells you exactly what the issues with the article are. Onel5969 (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Bichetteln

Hello Onel5969

this was your two last answer :

[User:Bichetteln|Bichetteln]] (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC) 

	+	
	+
Hi Bichetteln - Yes and no. The letelegramme and le-petitbleu are decent articles. I would think you would need another 1-2 articles like that to show notability. Wikipedia can't be a reference to itself. Also, get rid of the LinkedIn link, doesn't belong Wikipedia. The official website should be included, but doesn't help with notability. The references, however, need to be in-line citations. See referencing for beginners, to help you with that. Good luck. Onel5969 (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


Bichetteln (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC) 

	+	
	+
Hi Bichetteln - Nice Job! I see your point regarding the portfolio issue, and like how you've handled it by including the most important ones in the business section. Moved it to the mainspace. Happy editing. Onel5969 (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Bichetteln (talk) 09:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bichetteln - I see what the issue is now, and I apologize for the confusion. When you leave a comment on a user's talkpage, you should start a new heading (or edit in the existing thread that you started earlier). On April 1, you clearly gave the article Draft:Yann Benoist. At that point, I felt there were two issues with the article, you needed another 1-2 references to show the notability of Benoist, and you also needed to put the citations in-line. However, on the fourth, you simply added to thread of the ip editor above you, who referenced Icon Ventures. Not realizing that Icon wasn't your article, I was responding to that editor, since that was the article I looked at. On a blp (biography of a living person), there is a high degree of ilc (in-line citations) needed. Take a look at WP:ILC. Sorry about the confusion. Took me a while to figure it out, so I can imagine what it did to you. After you add the ilc, let me know and I'll take a look at it. Remember to provide a link to your article, and to create a new section on my talkpage. Onel5969 (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Jacob Whiteside article cleaned up

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

cleaned it up added solid sources please review Danandrewsreporter (talk) 04:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Danandrewsreporter

Hi Danandrewsreporter - Hi. You might pass the notability criteria, it's borderline. I'll let another editor take a crack at it, and see what they think. In the meantime, the article still has a slightly Non-neutral tone, and there are some formatting/grammar issues which need cleaning up. Onel5969 (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Christelyn Karazin

How and why did you decide so quickly that the above was non-notable? She is a published author. It certainly wasn't advertising as I have no connection with the subject. SmokeyTheCat 08:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi SmokeyTheCat - Have no clue as to what you're talking about as there does not seem to be a draft by that name. Onel5969 (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Christelyn Karazin

Hello SmokeyTheCat,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Christelyn Karazin for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Onel5969 (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC) <<< Your entry on my talk page. SmokeyTheCat 05:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi SmokeyTheCat - That means it had no credible references, or no references at all. Onel5969 (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
She's a published and widely read author:- http://www.amazon.com/Swirling-Relate-Mixing-Culture-Creed/dp/1451625855/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1429449967&sr=8-1&keywords=Christelyn SmokeyTheCat 13:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: Jacob Whitesides

How can an artist who has a number one hit on Itunes be borderline? An artist in music can go no higher then #1. So we have a number 1 selling artist, 1.5 million twitter followers, in Billboard, Vogue, American Songwriter, and that is borderline? As far as cleaning up grammar...I am not going to invest anymore time in this article until it either gets a green light or a second review from someone with more realistic standards. In all do professionalism, few artists reach number one...in sales on Itunes. That is what makes someone noteworthy. Again, I see no real point of spending time cleaning this up if you are going to be unrealistic in the process of what defines notability.

On a side note this is part of the reason why I hate wikipedia...common sense states if someone reaches number one on the music charts then that is a clearly noteworthy accomplishment...

Hi Danandrewsreporter - Hi. You might pass the notability criteria, it's borderline. I'll let another editor take a crack at it, and see what they think. In the meantime, the article still has a slightly Non-neutral tone, and there are some formatting/grammar issues which need cleaning up. Onel5969 (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


Danandrewsreporter (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)danandrewsreporter

User:RubyJMDE/sandbox

You offered to assist me 10 days ago when I received a rejection notice. Finally, I now have a presentable edit. However, I am not able to resubmit for some unknown (to me) reason. My only writing is an attempt to update the bio of General Richard H Ellis. It is in my sandbox page. I recognize that I do not have full working knowledge of proper reference protocol, and for that, I ask your help. Thank you RubyJMDE (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)RubyJMDE

Hi RubyJMDE - You can check out Referencing for Beginners for hints about references. What you'll want to find is 2-3 significant, in-depth articles on Ellis in reliable, independent sources. Those are usually magazines and newspapers. Those will show his notability. Then, you'll need a reference for the facts in the article (they can be the same, but sometimes you can get facts from non-independent sources, e.g. US Army sources). Once you add sources, let me know and I'll take another look at the article. Onel5969 (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

20:45:58, 16 April 2015 review of submission by RubyJMDE


I have completely revised the last few sentences of the bio I would like to edit. Reference sources have been provided. It is now an accurate update for future generations. RubyJMDE (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)RubyJMDE

RubyJMDE (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

General Richard H Ellis

10 days ago upon my first submission, I was not ready for the final edit. I now have completed it and given accurate references. When trying to resubmit, the edited sandbox does not allow me to finalize the changed edit. Can you provide help or guidance? RubyJMDE (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)RubyJMDE

Radius Books

You might want to keep an eye on this. It got out of hand the moment you accepted it. Fiddle Faddle 20:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent - Yeah, I see that. I guess that's always something that can happen. I'll keep an eye on it as well. Question - regarding the awards, I always thought that if they were notable awards (following wiki guidelines on what is or is not notable), they were valid to include, as long as referenced. I know by their very nature they are promotional, but am I wrong in that assumption? Onel5969 (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
With awards I think the answer is that truly notable awards are excellent additions to any article. I admit to having ripped the entire section down with no thought, or, rather, with the thought that we were seeing a wallpapering exercise that needed to be nipped in the bud. With less wallpaper I would have considered each one individually. The editor is an employee of the organisation and deserves guidance. Fiddle Faddle 08:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Fooled myself. No, I never ripped that section down! I asked for references. It was some other enormous section I ripped down. With awards I have asked for references. Mea culpa. Fiddle Faddle 08:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Timtrent, if I gave the impression you had trashed the awards. Re-reading what I wrote, I can see why you might have thought that. I just wanted clarification for my own purposes as I look at other articles on AfC. I see we're on the same page. Thanks for getting back to me. Onel5969 (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
No, I just confused myself. I find that easy to do! Fiddle Faddle 19:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

alexander Beridze article by AnnRos

Thank you for reviewing the article on Alexander Beridze. I have made revisions that I hope will satisfy the copyright concerns and I added a photo of him that was posted on Wikimedia. Wikiawesome also reviewed the article and suggested some changes which I have made. If there are any specific sections or sentences that you think are in need of revision, it would be a big help if you could identify those. I appreciate your help. AnnRos (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi AnnRos - There is still an issue with the copyright violation. Here's a link to the page showing the issues. That should make it clearer to you. There are always going to be stuff that's the same, like names of schools and organizations, etc. Don't worry about those. It's much better, but still needs work. Also, there are a few places where you need a citation to verify the facts in the article (in the Early life section, and the last line of the Awards section). Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 22:33:53, 16 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Redilion


Hi, Thanks for reviewing my article. I have read the guidelines but wonder if you could tell me what you think is the major reason it's rated a C and not above. My thoughts were, it's a bit rambly and the lead in could be crisper. Any suggestions? Redilion (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC) Redilion (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Redilion - First of all, congrats on the article, it's rare that I see an article accepted and put right in the C category. I can't think of one ever starting off as a B. If you look at the 6 criteria for grading, your article would pass on #1, #2, #5, and #6. The lead section needs work, take a look at WP:LEAD, other than that you would also pass #3. The prose also needs work, which is what you noticed above. So you are pretty much dead on regarding what it needs. Again, nice job. Happy editing! Onel5969 (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Captain Trevor Haworth article

Hi, You very kindly reviewed my submission for a page to be created for my late Father who passed away last year. Unfortunately you denied my article on the basis that it appeared to infringe copyright. The article that has created the conflict was infact written by me - its just that the reporters who published Trevor's Bio never acknowledged that they were my words. I'd still like to try to create an entry for Trevor. He had an interesting life and made a significant contribution to Tourism and Cruising in Sydney a in Fiji. Given the amount of time Id have to invest in writing this getting the formatting correct, figuring out how Wiki works etc, I would therefore like to ask you if you could assist with publishing the article for me? I have volumes of information on Trevor, his life and contribution. Can I send these to you? Do you do this on a paid basis? If you are unable to help, can you recommend someone who might be able to assist me?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Captain_Trevor_Haworth&action=edit&redlink=1

Look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, AnthonyAnthonyHaworth (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi AnthonyHaworth - If you have links to the information, I can attempt to write the article. No, I do not get paid, I simply do this because I believe in the concept. If you want to pay, make a contribution to the organization. It might take me a week or two to write the article, even longer if I really get into it. But send me the information and I'll take a look. Onel5969 (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thanks for helping out as I am getting started! MMSS4S (talk) 06:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969

I'm not sure i understand all your answers :

about inline citations when you said he moved to Paris : do you mean i have to explain the reason ???

so i wrote a reason ....


About Reference : i added one link about his work with the French singer Sheila

and one article about CD of the French singer Serge Lama . His CD was succesfull and a new direction for his career . Yann Benoist is credited as arranger and composer on this CD


Bichetteln (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bichetteln - No, an inline citation doesn't mean stating a reason; it means that there needs to be a citation (a reference) which verifies that fact. So in the Paris instance, after that sentence there should be a footnote linking to a source which verifies that he moved to Paris. References like the one of the CD are okay to verify facts, but not for notability purposes. Onel5969 (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

18:32:11, 17 April 2015 review of submission by Talimagnum


Talimagnum (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, My name is ivan. i have been requested by the son of Alfonso Valdés jr. to write a certain type of biography of his father in wikipedia. Same as his father Alfonso Alfonso_Valdés_Cobián and his daughter Camalia_Valdés he have been involved in a lot of relevant activities as i wrote on the bio. Alfonso Valdes III whos is his son is really confused by why the information he gave is not being taken in a relevant manner since, both his daughter and father got accepted. i really want to help him since i also belive he have been an important person in the industry of island of Puerto Rico.

Hi Talimagnum - The issue is the caliber of the references used in your article. Just because an article exists on Wikipedia does not mean it is necessarily a good model to base a new article on. Wikipedia is monitored by volunteers, so it's not unusual for an inappropriate article to slip through the cracks. Those two examples you gave were created 5 or more years ago, when standards for inclusion may have been different. The article on Camalia most likely wouldn't be approved by today's standards either. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Onel5969 for your answer. This is exactly what i have been thinking about on why it keeps getting rejected. i will try to find more relevant information about him.

19:46:19, 17 April 2015 review of submission by 38.98.222.171


Hello, I am not sure what other criteria to include for David R. Gastfriend, as it seems to me that he does fit the description, and the details included, for your guidelines of a notable person. Please advise as to how I can make this information more notable. Thank you 38.98.222.171 (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi - It's not the notability, but the lack of references. You have none. You need references to meet the criteria for notability, and since this is a blp (biography of a living person), you'll need references to back up each assertion made in the article. In addition, the Initiatives section gives the article a promotional tone which will have to be addressed. Onel5969 (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

A. G. Riddle rejection

Hello, I am at a loss how being a best selling author and having your books being picked up for film doesn't warrant being "notable." I have not referenced Riddle's personal website; I have used Amazon as a reference regarding his book sales, and have used independent sources regarding movie adaptations. What else can I do/reference? It seems strange that I could probably create a page for one of his books, or when the film comes out a page for the film, but I can't create a page for the one who created them? Please advise! Steven C. Price 21:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Please read the links provided about the criteria for notability, and how to use references to show that notability. Onel5969 (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

alexander Beridze article by AnnRos

Thank you for the review of the article on Alexander Beidze. It was extremely helpful to see the link to the earwig copyvio detector to see the problem areas. I have made quite a few revisions and added some new references that I hope will work to make the article publishable. Could you please review it again? Thanks so much. AnnRos (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

13:41:27, 18 April 2015 review of submission by Cyberinfo24


Thanks for your review and your subsequent suggestions. This is my first time using wikipedia to write an article and i did not follow the guidelines needed in citation. Kindly give me another chance to edit and make the article compatible to the guidelines as set by wikipedia. I would start the necessary editing of the whole document and looking forward to your further advice and suggestion please.

Cyberinfo24 (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cyberinfo24 - there's a paragraph about his achievements which is basically cut and paste from the underlying source. Articles on Wikipedia have to be in your own words, and be careful of simply paraphrasing, see WP:PARAPHRASE. I formatted the first reference to give you an example on how to format your citations. You can learn more about that at formatting citations or at referencing for beginners. The structure looks good, although the lead is probably too long (see MOS:LEAD). I also corrected the format of the title of your first section to conform to MOS (manual of style) guidelines. Be aware that this is a blp (bio of a living person), so almost every assertion in the article will need an underlying source. For example, all the info in the Education section will need citations to show that it is accurate. The Membership section needs to go away... it's promotional. Also be wary of using peacock words. Sentences like "His achievements then did not go unnoticed: he received honours both at home and abroad on account of his streak of successes at the agency." are also an neutral point of view issue. Just tell us the facts, and don't editorialize. Hope this helps. Good luck. Onel5969 (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

James B. Drew

Thanks for approving my article on James B. Drew. Happy to say that I now have 4 articles on Wikipedia. I believe that you have been involved in all of them - my sincere thanks to you. My next goal is to get one of them ranked above Start Class.Buckmor54 (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Buckmor54 - No worries - keep up the good editing. Don't be concerned about the grading. On historical figures who are less than prominent, sometimes it is difficult to build an article which meets the C and B criteria. That has nothing to do with the quality of the article, simply the availability and quality of sources. If you get really into this, you can go to Newspapers.com and get a subscription, which might help you get more sources. But it might not, it is hit or miss sometimes, depending on the historical person you're writing about. One thing, check out WP:CIT on how to format your citations. Hope this helps. Happy editing! Onel5969 (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Articles For Creation Hard Work Barnstar

Articles For Creation Hard Work Barnstar
For your solid hard work at the WP:AFC coalface Fiddle Faddle 17:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that Timtrent - just doing what I can when I can... Onel5969 (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

alexander Beridze article by AnnRos

I made several revisions to avoid any paraphrasing of the references sources. Could you please review the article again? Thank you, AnnRos (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

AKJAYINTX - Why was my article declined.

My article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Military_Working_Dog_Teams_National_Monument was declined by you stating it was not naotable. In fact, it is a US NATIONAL MONUMENT and there are dozens of articles about other US national monuments on wikipedia. It was extensively referenced including national media sources. What else is required? Why would a US National Monument not be notable when many others are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akjayintx (talk • contribs) 12:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 15:26:03, 19 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Susanemma

Deletion of article Janne Kyttanen

Hi, my article (Janne Kyttanen) was deleted for copyright infringement. I wrote the original copy which is featured on this designer's site (ie it is my own copyright). What can I provide as proof of this? Susanemma (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC) Susanemma (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Susanemma - the process for donating copyrighted material can be found HERE. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Captain Trevor Haworth article

Hi, Thank you for offering to assist with the article. I know Im sounding like a complete Philistine, however can you let me know how I can send you the info? regards, Anthony58.162.130.101 (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi - are they online sources? If so, simply paste the links here. Onel5969 (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Captain Trevor Haworth article

Dear Onel5969,

The following is a link to a dropbox which contains Trevors story and photos.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/winoibi11x257jw/AABcSZhvh52z8gvUXlCVvc8pa?dl=0

Ive also indicated some further online links below which quote some of the information contained in the document in the dropbox.

http://www.expeditioncruising.com/2014/03/vale-trevor-haworth-am-master-mariner.html

http://www.companydirectors.com.au/Director-Resource-Centre/Publications/Company-Director-magazine/2014-back-editions/May/Obituary-Vale-Captain-Trevor-Haworth

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/obituaries/trevor-haworth-brought-the-pleasures-of-the-harbour-to-all-20140410-zqsxc.html

Let me know if you need anything further Best regards, Anthony58.162.130.101 (talk) 07:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi - I'll take a look this week and begin on the article. I'll be working on it in my sandbox, so you can check it out there to see where my progress is. Won't start until tomorrow or the day after. Onel5969 (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi - I published the preliminary version of the article. Will continue to work on it over the next few weeks. If you want the pictures included, please visit Widimedia Commons, and upload them, and leave the links here, and I'll include them. Hope you like it. Onel5969 (talk) 04:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

10:14:16, 20 April 2015 review of submission by Pfeilers


Hi Onel5969!

I have a last question concerning my submission. I have read the notability-guidelines and I see how Mr. Rabe doesn't fit into those. You mentioned that we have written "Rabe became internationally well known ..." which suggests that there should be publications in news and media about him and his work. I was thinking about this and the problem here is that notability in this case is also meant as notability within a particular scientific community. A reliable(ish) criterion for this could be the h- and i10-indexes, which are quite high for Mr. Rabe. A problem with scientific work and its notability is, that it often takes decades to evaluate the actual use of research that has been done.

Regarding the publication in news and media: I have found the following, but this again is a very specific publication for scientists working in nano-technology. Nevertheless it is reporting a finding of Mr. Rabe, though it has an advertising character to it and it is not clear who has written the article: http://www.azonano.com/news.aspx?newsID=23930

I have also found several articles from german newspapers but I think those might not be relevant for the english version of wikipedia. If that is not the case, I'd be glad about a notification.

Best regards, pfeilers

Pfeilers (talk) 10:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pfeilers - Under WP:NACADEMIC, there are specific criteria which deal with this type of situation. I am definitely NOT qualified to comment on them, however. You might go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics and leave a message on their talk page asking for suggestions about how to word your article, and provide citations which will show Rabe's notability. I wish I could be more help, but this is clearly outside my realm. Hope this helps. Let me know how it turns out. Onel5969 (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Onel5969! Yeah, that helped a lot. These are exactly the criteria I was looking for. I found a reliable source that should satisfy the need for criterion 1 at least. So I added this and resubmitted. I hope this works! Thanks for your help. Pfeilers (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The Morris Quinlan Experience

The Morris Quinlan Experience

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Morris_Quinlan_Experience — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoTheDobermann (talk • contribs) 14:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969 Respectfully, I wrote before on 7th March, but it seems I didn't get an answer. Having read the notability guidelines for musical ensembles, it does appear that two of the criteria are met. Here's what I wrote to you earlier:-


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

You declined this article (3rd March 2015) on the grounds of not being sufficiently notable. However, I believe at least two of Wikipedia's notability guidelines are indeed met for this ensemble, as follows...

"1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1] This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following: Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3]


Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories."

Album reviews in The Times and Melody Maker, as well as the feature article in the Newcastle Journal were all independently written, and despite being unavailable online, are all verifiable.

"12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network."

Does not the group's live appearance as guests on Ned Sherrin's Loose Ends programme on BBC Radio 4 (Saturday 11th August 2001) count here? It was a segment of approaching 10 minutes duration, during which Sherrin gave a lengthy introduction to the band, and talked further about them after their live performance of one of their pieces, all in front of a live audience. Most notably, the segment was repeated on the Loose Ends Pick Of The Year show at the end of 2001.

The band can not yet claim 'rotation' play for any of their releases, but they are regulars on Bob Harris's BBC Radio 2 Sunday Show (considered to be a very influential rock music programme, if not the most influential currently on UK radio), and indeed a playlist search shows they have received more Bob Harris plays than even (for instance) Kate Bush!!!

That said their most recent singe release 'Scarborough Fair' received multiple plays on the Radio 2 network, not just from Bob Harris.

BBC Radio 4 and BBC Radio 2 are major national radio networks in the UK.

One of the band's members, Dave Maughan, is well known as a record producer, having recorded and produced Mercury Music Prize nominated Little Black Numbers album by Kathryn Williams, who herself has guested on an MQE released track. Would it be helpful to this article if Dave Maughan had a Wikipedia entry?

Hoping you can reconsider the article...

LeoTheDobermann (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Question resubmitted 20th April 2015

LeoTheDobermann LeoTheDobermann (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi LeoTheDobermann - No, it doesn't meet #1. Your best bet is the #12, but that doesn't meet the requirement in my opinion. Another editor might see it differently. One other thing. It also will help if you properly format your citations. For instance, simply putting "The Times, London Saturday 12th August 2000" is worthless. Take a look at WP:CIT on how to format citations and what information you need to include. They don't have to have online links (but it is helpful if they do), but more information is needed so editors can verify them. Onel5969 (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Edits to the Draft article on Karnabharam

Hello Onel5969,

Thank you very much for your comments on the draft article I submitted to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Karnabharam_by_Bhasa) a few months back. I have removed the overkill ( :) ) of references in one place, have distributed them across sections and have also included two new ones.

You have an impressive profile! Best wishes, margie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margieparikh (talk • contribs) 17:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

17:22:34, 20 April 2015 review of submission by PattiMoly99

Resubmitting!! This is a fun, learning experience! Thank you! PattiMoly99 (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


Good Afternoon! Thank you for your note about my submission. Please help me understand the reason for the decline. I used the Phoenix Nuclear Labe Wikipedia as my template and was as factual using non-expressive language. Any pointers would be welcome. I will re-read the Articles of Notability. The only medical isotope production facility for North America is shutting down (NRU), and we will step in as that does shut down to provide Medical Isotope's, we are working with the US NRC and DOE. I thought I couldn't write more than I did, but if I can in a neutral voice I will! Thank you for your help!

PattiMoly99 (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi PattiMoly99 - yes, please do read the guidelines. To show notability, there must be significant coverage. Three articles by the same author from a small paper do not rise to the level of "significant". Just because an article exists on Wikipedia does not mean it is necessarily a good model to base a new article on. Wikipedia is monitored by volunteers, so it's not unusual for an inappropriate article to slip through the cracks. However, that example you gave me is very well-sourced. You need to come up with several sources similar to the ones in that article. Hope that helps. Onel5969 (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you OneL5969! Everyone is so helpful here!! One of our Nuclear engineers found some scientific articles written about SHINE by National Labs! So everyone here is pitching in! Thank you again. Lots of reading and trying to understand are in my future today!

PattiMoly99 (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

19:15:57, 20 April 2015 review of submission by Angel Spent


Hi Onel! Thanks for reviewing my article. I have understood that it is not really ready yet in order to be a real article for Wikipedia. Anyway, I have inserted the following at the end:

This article on a United States punk rock band is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Would it work this way?

Thanks!

Angel Spent (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Angel Spent - The class of the article has nothing to do with its notability. Notability comes from, in the case of musical articles, one of two lists of criteria: WP:GNG (which is for any article), and WP:NMUSIC (which are just for articles dealing with music items). You'll still need to provide references which show that the subject meets the criteria in one of those. The reviewer who accepts the article will give it a classification. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Flora MacDonnell article

Dear Onel5969,

I hope this finds you well. I am surprised you deleted my article, which was intended to be a stub to allow others to include more information. The reason given concerns notability. However, I would like to stress that the sources used are enough for a short stub. I included three references, none of which was directly related to the subject. Te two books are from reliable publishers; one of them is available on Google Books (snippet view); the other source is a publicly available archive search of the Abbey Theatre (Ireland's National Theatre). I would like to think that these sources are enough. I have recently been introduced to Wiki editing and was hoping to use my expertise to create new articles and to cover some gaps in Irish literary history. I am discouraged and disappointed by what happened, and I hope you would reconsider. All best

irabarbanel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irabarbanel (talk • contribs) 19:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Irabarbanel - As I explained to the editor in the above comment, notability and classification of articles have nothing to do with one another. Your spot on about your sources, but only the first really speaks to notability. They are all definitely independent and realiable. The AfC process is here in an attempt to reduce the # of articles which get deleted. I definitely don't want to discourage you, I do a lot of work with older film actors, and so I can understand how difficult it can be to find sources. Right now, the article doesn't show the notability of the subject, it reads as if she were an actress in a couple of plays in a non-notable (by Wiki standards) theater in Ireland at the turn of the last century, one of which was a starring role. Do you have a link (or offline reference) which gives her corpus of work? That way you could write a simple sentence along the lines, "MacDonnell appeared in XXX plays over her YYYY year career, mostly in starring or major supporting roles". Take a look at Freeman Wood, your article has more sources, but Wood's notability is shown by his body of work. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Maplepond

Hi, thanks for your response to my latest submission. This is my third submission and I still don't understand what is wrong with it. I have included several independent verifiable sources about the company and I have reviewed several of our competitors in Australia that have Wikipedia entries. I have closely matched the style of information they provided and their reference approach. I have also revieewed your guidelines about the golden triangle but I still don't know what I have to do. Could you please give me some guidance. Do I need more references? Do I need more information on the company? eg We are the fastest growing life insurance company in Australia. What do I need to include to show that we are 'notable'? Thank you in advance for any assistance you can provide. Maplepond (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Maplepond - None of the citations show the notability of the subject. They are all non-independent or simple listings of the company. Notability requires significant coverage. I hope this explains it. Good luck. Onel5969 (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Spinnaker-UK rejection of submission

Hi,

I wanted to write regarding your rejection of my recent wiki submission for Spinnaker International.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Spinnaker-UK/sandbox#Intelligent_Cash_Protection

I am a little disappointed that the article has been rejected on the grounds of lack of notability. This is a unique company in the UK, operating in a very select environment, this alone should be notable.

There are 6 reference links, 5 of which refer directly to industry bodies and/or news articles pertaining to this technology.

Furthermore, an almost identical article for a competitor company has been approved and is on Wikipedia EN & FR today:

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

I have purposefully changed the structure of my submission, in the hope it would be published.

Would you be able to take a look at this article again and see if it can be published?

Many thanks

Richard Sokl (Spinnaker-UK) Spinnaker-UK (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Spinnaker-UK - Your references don't show notability. They show the company exists. The article you compare it to has very significant coverage from many notable sources. Your article doesn't. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Philip Robert Presants

Thanks for notifying me about your comments on Draft:Philip Robert Presants article. I have stripped out unnecessary and possibly 'informal' text or commentary. Hoping it is now acceptable? JulianHeyes (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Nice job JulianHeyes, moved it to the mainspace. Now, please check out WP:CIT about how to properly format citations, and correct those in your article. Thanks and congratulations. Onel5969 (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

20:31:34, 21 April 2015 review of submission by Mishmash5


Hi Onel55969! I made an article of an actor but your review of it says it needs more notability stuff, wondered if you could give me some guidance on what would be suitable? its my 1st article so i want it to work! thanks, Mishmash5 Mishmash5 (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mishmash5 - the issue was that the citations were not about Stanmore, they simply mentioned him. However, with the additional citations you've now included, I think the overall notability of Stanmore has been shown. Moved it to the mainspace. When your attempting to show notability through articles, those articles should be from reputable, third party sources (yours were), and be in-depth about the subject (yours weren't). When you can't find in-depth articles about the subject, you can show notability as you did by providing enough brief mentions of the subject. Hope this helps. Congrats, and nice job. Onel5969 (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

An AfC Barnstar for you!

The Articles for Creation barnstar
Whenever I go around AfC, I'm bound to see something reviewed by you. Thank you for your prolific contributions to the wikiproject! Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Winner 42 - just trying to help out where I can. AfC does seem never-ending! Onel5969 (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

00:46:21, 22 April 2015 review of submission by 66.133.207.13


Hello - thanks for your review. Our updates are complete. Apologies - my staff assumed my web articles and credits spoke for themselves. But we understand the need for corroboration. Please review the new "Recognition" section. Simply put, one does not write for the Oxford press or curate exhibits in public museums by being "un-notable". Thanks for your time. Gregg Miner 66.133.207.13 (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

66.133.207.13 (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi - I'm pinging a more experienced editor, Fuhghettaboutit. Fuhghettaboutit - I haven't bugged you in a long time (at least from my point of view ), but I don't even know where to begin to respond to this. Onel5969 (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello all. Notability, as we use that term here, is not the vernacular definition. It is not a measure of worth or merit of the topic, but of whether it belongs in an encyclopedia, which is not in the slightest the same thing. It is an objective measure of whether the world has taken note of a topic by writing about it (he, she, they) substantively in independent, third-party, reliable sources, as demonstrated by article writers by citation to those sources. This works hand-in-hand with our verifiability and no original research policies, as it assures, respectively, that an article's information is verifiable in reliable sources and that the content does not include information about acts, allegations, and ideas for which no reliable, published sources exist. (A point of clarity is that both verifiability and no original research can be met through non-secondary sources; whereas notability only looks to secondary sources.)

To parse the basic definition a bit: substantive treatment means not just mere mention but real content about the subject, which can be used to verify detailed statements about it. Independent, third party sources means that the sources cited should be completely unconnected to the subject. Reliable sources are those with a reputation for checking the facts, editorial oversight and accuracy – so not some unknown persons on blog or random websites, not Facebook or Linkin, not the subject's own website or any connected to them, not press releases, but books published by major publishing houses, newspaper articles, magazine write-ups, treatment in peer-reviewed scholarly journals and websites that meet the same requirements as reputable print-based sources, etc.

You have not demonstrated the existence of such sources. The draft already notes some of this in its reviews. The recognition section you talk about above does not help. First, articles should be made up of prose paragraphs exploring the topic, not long lists of accomplishments or credits. This article has one sentence of prose followed by lists. Encyclopedia articles are not directories or résumés. The recognition section lists other Wikipedia articles which is useless. Wikipedia is itself not a reliable source but user generated content and citation to other articles is circular. Everything else is mere mentions, all in a section which doesn't belong in the first place. All this is not to say the sources we want don't exist and the type of writing we seek can't be accomplished, but it's distinctly lacking from this draft. A proper article would strip out 90% of the list material, all of which reads as promotional and résumé fodder, and would instead have a few paragraphs of prose with reliable sources cited. To give you an example of some sources that might help, possibly this and this. Neither would be enough to sustain an article – I don't know if enough exist to sustain an article – but those are far more in the realm of the types of sources we're looking for.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow Fuhghettaboutit - thanks for your detailed and comprehensive answer. With your permission, I'm going to use quite a bit of what you wrote above in future answers. Thanks again. Onel5969 (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Anytime Onel. Glad to help.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

02:49:39, 22 April 2015 review of submission by 75.134.126.188


Just typing that name on google alone will show you how notable the man is.

You may also want to look into this article in the scholar library http://www.naulibrary.org/dglibrary/admin/book_directory/Thesis/9940.pdf

75.134.126.188 (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Then might I suggest that you show that notability in the article? Right now it does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. In addition, you'll need to add inline citations, since this is a blp (bio of a living person). You might also check out WP:CIT to see how to properly format your citations. References for beginners is another good place to learn about how to cite an article. Onel5969 (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969

Thanks for your answer ..

I try to understand what you mean so i added some détails in the Contents about " Biography"

and "References"


Regards

Bichetteln (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bichetteln - Okay, I'm not explaining this very well. There are several issues with your article: 1-inline citations; 2-notability; 3-formatting.
Regarding inline citations. These means that citations need to be made inline. You have no inline citations. Take a look at Gabriel Macht. See his Early life section? The article has 4 inline citations in that section (the 4 superscript numbers). Your article needs to have citations like that for each fact asserted in the article.
Regarding notability. I think you've established his notability.
Regarding formatting. First, your "See also" section is incorrect. "See also" sections are for pointing the reader to other Wikipedia articles which relate to the article they are reading. For example, an article on Phoenix, Arizona might have a link to the Wikipedia article on the Phoenix Zoo. What you have in your section are really all citations/references, and should be moved to the reference section. Or they should become footnotes when you start your inline citation process. Here's one of the better bio articles I created: Edward Cronjager. You can go into that article and see how to create inline citations. I hope all of this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

GODAN draft article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Klara_cabi#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_GODAN_.28April_21.29

Hi,

I'm writing in about the GODAN draft I did. Just to let you know, I had GODAN send the appropriate copyrights to your copyright department by email. Can you check, please? They cc'd me in so I know it has been sent.

Thanks,

Klara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klara cabi (talk • contribs) 12:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Klara cabi. They haven't been processed yet. You can check yourself, a tag will be placed on the article, either in the article itself, or on it's talkpage, alerting editors that the copyright has been waived. Onel5969 (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

14:39:16, 22 April 2015 review of submission by Fboyd20


Hello! I am looking for advice on what to change in order for my article to be accepted. Nearly every piece of information is substantiated from external/independent source. Could you give me a concrete example of something that I should take out or write differently?

Thank you! Fiona

Fboyd20 (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fboyd20 - Hi. I actually didn't check your article for sourcing or notability. The first thing I check is whether or not the article is a copyright violation, and currently yours is. It relies very heavily, and cuts and paste from this site. You need to delete the copyright violations and write the article in your own words. Briefly glancing at the article, it does appear to meet sourcing and notability concerns, but the copyright is a major problem. The issue is with the lead, the Notable performances sections and the Discography section. Onel5969 (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

BFKL

Hallo. I can make some contributions to subjects related with the study of subatomic particles: deep-inelastic scattering, Quantum chromodynamics, the structure of the proton and so on. For example, the BFKL equation is a missing link of the article about Lev Lipatov (al least). So, I started with article about BFKL. OK, I added link to independet reference, to Particle Data Group. I do not know more "reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject". Could you explain me briefly, what do you expect? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.20.41.39 (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I've asked for help on this from the WikiProject Physics group. In general, the article needs to be more clear that it is about the equation, not the four authors. The authors should be mentioned in connection with it, not the other way around. Are there any other independent sources which talk about the equation? Onel5969 (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Betty Lane

Hello you were kind enough to review the Wikipedia Post Betty Lane, and further promote it to start class. Since then I have gotten permission to add images of works by Betty Lane to Wikimedia, as well as clippings and exhibition catalogs. Do you think the entry is at C on the Wikipedia Quality scale? Thank you for your feedback, --1offby (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done - nice job! Onel5969 (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Onel5969--very happy to see the C quality rating. Thanks again for your work on the project.--1offby (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

14:10:55, 23 April 2015 review of submission by Archiwriter


Archiwriter (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I made edits to this article 10 days ago, including a longer list of sources that point to the notability of the subject, including two documentary films, several academic books both by and about the subject, and an obituary in the most important German cultural newspaper (Die Zeit). I have also included a link to her German Wikipedia page. Please let me know if these edits are sufficient or if something else is required.

Many thanks, Daniela

Hi Daniela - Right now, you only have two references, and one of those is by the subject of the article. To show notability you must show significant coverage, which usually amounts to at least 3 in-depth pieces from major, independent sources (usually magazines or newspapers). Obits are great sources for verifying facts in articles, but not so great for notability purposes, since anyone can have an obituary. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969

Thank you and it's really nice of you to help me

i think now i understand specially about footnotes

tell me if it seems ok for you or if i'm on the good way

Regards

Bichetteln (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bichetteln - That's what we're talking about regarding the inline citations. Now if you could format those citations that would help. You can find examples of how to format at WP:CIT. Take care of that, then resubmit and let me know. Onel5969 (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

20:20:34, 23 April 2015 review of submission by 75.111.82.26

I don't understand what that means "an encyclopedia format"? Did yoy need more references?

75.111.82.26 (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you please reevaluate my new article name 'Meaku'

Hi Onel5969,

I am only here to help, I've done a few articles in the past to try and help East African Artists understand what Wikipedia was about and now I am back. My new article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Meaku_%28Musician%29 was declined by you and I understood, I made some changes and added some more reliable sources. If you can please reevaluate it, I would be grateful.

Thank you

--Hemdee31 (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

PS: How rude of me... Thank you for all the work that you do and taking time to look over our articles.

John Harrison Finger - Mr. Walk America

I don't understand what that means when you say you want my article in a encyclopedia format and something about peacocks. Did you want more references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.82.26 (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Your article is written in a very informal tone, rather like you were sitting around a fire and telling a story, rather than in the formal tone of an encyclopedia article, where you just give facts and data. Sentences like "His family moved around a lot, due to his father's oft drunkenness ..." and "He raised over $1,700.00, breaking the wagon, and became the father of all modern-day charity walks, since the walk was also his own idea" are conversational in tone. Take a look at WP:MOS. As well as using his first name throughout the article (MOS is a good source for that as well) Peacock words aren't really a problem in your article (the message left you is a "form letter"), although you should avoid using "!". Also, your article has not a single in-line citation, which you'll need. Take a look at WP:REFB. Finally, you'll want to format your citations correctly, and you can find examples at WP:CIT. Hope this explains things well enough. Onel5969 (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Karola Bloch

Hi, I think you were too hard on the draft Karola Bloch -- you declined it even though one of the cited references is a book held by a number of libraries that is exclusively about Bloch. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Calliopejen1 - you're entitled to your opinion. However, that was the ONLY independent citation. A single citation on a bio is rarely, if ever, enough to show notability. The other citation was by the subject of the article. The only other source was a book which had a brief mention of the subject. Take care. Onel5969 (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

08:29:24, 24 April 2015 review of submission by JakeStory


Hi,

I'm getting in touch to learn more about a recently declined page submission for the Learning Technologies Group.

It's my first time adding a page to wikipedia, so I'm not too sure how best to improve it in order to get the page made live, can you provide some feedback on - why exactly the page is declined - how far away the page is from being accepted - what would you be looking for in the page to get it accepted.

I had based the page on other AIM listed companies (such as this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisy_Group), so I would like to know what you think I should do in order to get the page accepted. I had considered possibly adding a section on the board of directors, as they are well known investors/ directors of other companies... or was the page declined in it's current state because of another reason - citations maybe?

Anyway, I'm all ears on this, I will be creating pages for each company within the group once the LTG page is accepted, so would like to be able to improve how I'm creating the pages in order to ensure I can get them accepted with little trouble.

Look forward to hearing back, kind regards JakeStory (talk) 08:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC) JakeStory

Hi JakeStory - Just because an article exists on Wikipedia does not mean it is necessarily a good model to base a new article on. Wikipedia is monitored by volunteers, so it's not unusual for an inappropriate article to slip through the cracks. That example you gave was created 4 years ago, when standards for inclusion may have been different. However, looking at the citations in that article, there are quite a few substantive citations there. All of your citations are either: corporate listings, press releases, or other forms of communication by the subject company. For notability purposes, the citations need to be from independent, reliable sources, and be in-depth. Hope this helps.Onel5969 (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

10:20:29, 24 April 2015 review of submission by Fashionista888


Hello Onel5969 and thanks for reviewing the page. Are there particular elements of the draft that read like an advertisement and I should look to revise? Thank you!

Fashionista888 (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fashionista888 - For such a short article, any promotional terms can make the entire article seem promotional. Your entire lead, due to uses of words like "premium" and "iconic", as well as the list of brands is promotional. Those are details customers want to see, not encyclopedia users. The last sentence of the History section is also puffery. If those two folks were notable, they might deserve a mention, but right now the only reason they are there is so that the article can attempt to bestow notability by association, by including the 3 notable companies they used to work for. In the Ops section, the first sentence should end at Stockport (the rest is promotional), and the second sentence is entirely promotional. The list of awards is promotional as well, because it includes non-notable awards, and then on top of that it lists times the company didn't win, but was simply shortlisted or commended. You should re-write that into prose and simply say they won in 2013 and 2014, for xxxxx and xxxx, respectively. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Fred Fox

Hi there. . . you reviewed a recent submission I made for a french horn player named Fred Fox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fred_Fox) and rejected it based on notability issues. I wonder if you might be able to give me any more specific feedback on why the page doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Any advice would be much appreciated! Thank you. Pitneyj (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pitneyj - Fox has local notability, but does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG, nor of WP:NMUSIC. Since UofA named a building after him, I'm guessing you might be able to find other articles outside of the Tucson area which talk about him and his achievements? They should be from reliable, independent sources. I tried to do some research, but there are quite a few Fred Foxes. Any press on him from any of the LA papers? SF? Any press about his time at the NY Philharmonic in any of the NY papers? Or any papers from his time as part of the National Symphony? I feel this guy is clearly notable, but right now the sources don't show it. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Onel5969. I appreciate your feedback. I've done some further research and added some sources outside of the Tuscon area. I wonder if these do the trick? Thank you! Pitneyj (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Pitneyj - Yup, that'll do it. Resubmit and let me know. Onel5969 (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Great. Thanks Onel5969! I just resubmitted it. Pitneyj (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

17:55:19, 24 April 2015 review of submission by Slainte12


Hi Onel5969 and thanks so much for reviewing my draft. I saw that you declined it on grounds that it read like an advertisement and I was hoping you could point out the specific areas that were of concern? Thanks again really appreciate your help Slainte12 (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Slainte12 - phrases like " plans to commercialize" and "produce highly-efficient solar panels at the world’s lowest cost" (just as examples) are wholly promotional in tone. Using self-aggrandizing quotes from the company is also promotional, such as "Siva Power states that it can produce some of the ...". Other examples are "but if successful would be the world’s ...", "Mattson stated one of his goals was to create a “dream team” for ...". In fact, the entire "Team" section is promotional in nature. I guess you simply want to state facts about the company, not opinions or "dreams". If you do have a statement about future plans, make sure it is neutral in tone, something along the lines, "The company plans to build a xxxxxx square foot plant in Pomona, commencing in June 2015". Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Onel5969 - that's great feedback thank you for the specifics. I will be sure to tone down the planning and "future" part of the article, and that any superlative statements are referenced and of actual events that have "past." I see some appropriate edits I can make and then will resubmit for review. Thanks for your patience and assistance. Slainte12 (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi again hope you're well. I wanted to let you know that I made the suggested revisions to the draft for Siva Power - thanks for your input. I doubt you'll be the next editor to review it, but regardless I wanted to thank you for your help. Slainte12 (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up Slainte12. Actually, I'm no longer involved in the AfC process, so good luck with the article. Onel5969 (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Nagasawa Kanaye

Hi. You rejected my article for lack of sufficient resources/notability. I've fleshed it out with a couple more sources (that aren't from the Press-Democrat). If you have a moment, could you take a look and let me know if anything else needs to be fixed or if these were sufficient? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nagasawa_Kanaye Thank you. Fuzchia (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Fuzchia

Hi Fuzchia - Yup. Much better. In my opinion it passes the notability criteria. What you need to do now is to provide citations which back up the assertions in the article, using in-line citations. Once you do that, resubmit and let me know, so you don't have to wait for approval. Onel5969 (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello again! I've moved the citations around to clarify which info came from which source and resubmitted. Thank you so much for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzchia (talk • contribs) 16:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Fuzchia - I went to take a look at it this morning, and MatthewVanitas had already moved it to the mainspace. Nice job! Congrats. Keep on editing! Onel5969 (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Rejection of my article

Hi there Onel5969. Ok, I know that he is not that famous, but he will be!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Muhammed_Emin_%C3%96zt%C3%BCrk

Can you reconsider this article!

Thanks!!!

Sintiminti — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sintiminti (talk • contribs) 22:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Sintiminti: See WP:TOOSOON Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I agree, [[WP:TOOSOON]|too soon]]. Wait until they get famous, then they will meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sintiminti - What they said. Onel5969 (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:David Fishelov

Thanks for your comments. I've tried to answer all the viewers but last time didn't get any response but and the viewer (Vchimpanzee) copied my answer, so I assumed that my answer was accepted. I'll do as many adaptations as needed in the article in order to follow the rules. Will you be kind enough to respond to my last post in this page?

Here is my last answer from this page:

Hi Vchimpanzee,

Re Fishelov's notability: according to the list of criteria specified in "Wikipeida: Notability (academics)" Fishelov definitely meets the first two criteria: 1. Fishelov's work has made significant impact in his scholarly discipline, i.e. literary studies. His book Metaphors of Genre is widely discussed and cited by scholars working in the field: Google-Scholar counts more than 130 citations of this book, much above the average of scholarly books in that field. It is no coincidence that the article on "Genre studies" on Wikipedia devotes a significant part of its section on "Generic Conventions" to present Fishelov's contribution to that field. 2. Fishelov's book Samson's Locks won the first Bahat Prize. The Bahat Prize is a prestigious Israeli national award for a scholarly, non-fiction book and many Israeli scholars in the Humanities and the Social Sciences compete for that prize. Moreover, Fishelov has also made a substantial impact outside academia in his academic capacity, hence he also meets criterion #7: based on his reputation as a literary scholar Fishelov was invited to chair the committee appointed by the Israeli Ministry of Culture and the Jerusalem municipality, to award the prestigious Yehuda Amichai Prize in poetry. Furthermore, the numerous reviews and essays Fishelov published in the literary supplements of three national Israeli newspapers made a significant impact outside academia. Note also the important role he played in introducing to Israeli readers to several classical works of modern English literature (e.g. Robinson Crusoe) by writing comprehensive afterword to their Hebrew translations.

Let me also mention the fact that Fishelov was invited to teach at several distinguished universities, including UC Berkeley, University of Chicago, Columbia University and EHESS in Paris. Perhaps this last fact, in and of itself, does not fall exactly into the list of criteria listed in "Wikipedia: Notability (academics)", but it is definitely another indication of his reputation as a leading scholar in the field of literary studies.

Re Fishelov's books: I elaborated a bit on the content of Fishelov's books and briefly described several reviews in order to illustrate his contribution to literary studies both in Israel and abroad. If you want me to shorten or to change that part, please let me know. Davidgute (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Davidgute - When I reviewed your article, I didn't know about all this discussion which had preceded its submission. Not that it would have changed my decision, but now it allows me to give you a more detailed response. First, it appears that Vchimpanzee simply copied that portion of your discussion on his talk page not that he was agreeing with you, but because you couldn't find the discussion thread. My reasons are similar to the reservations expressed by Timtrent (Fiddle Faddle). More than half of the article is a discussion of 4 of this author's books. Now, if the four books were Tom Sawyer, Moby Dick, Crime and Punishment and Don Quixote, than I could understand that. Regarding the above post, I think your strongest argument is the #1 criteria. He doesn't meet the other two criteria, in my opinion. But if he's going to be regarded for his notability as an academic, rather than as an author, the lengthy book discussions make even less sense. As Timtrent said, this article is close, but when you take away the references not dealing with his books, the other 4 citations don't really go in-depth on the subject at all. There aren't any references which go into the author. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Onel5969, it is correct that I simply copied the talk page response by Davidgute. I wanted to make sure all the information was in one place.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Dear Onel5969,
Thanks for your useful response. Following your comments, I made a substantial revision in the article: I omitted the long descriptions of Fishelov's books (in the Books section) as well as the quotes taken from reviews of his books that were published in scholarly journals. The updated version focuses now on Fishelov's academic career and the significant contribution he has made to the academic field of literary studies. Since his contribution to literary studies is found mainly in his publications, I offer a brief description of his most important and influential works in the Work section. In addition to purely academic research, Fishelov also made an impact on Israeli literature as a literary critic and there is a paragraph on that in the Career section.
I believe all needed references are provided according to Wikipedia's guidelines.
I hope that after these substantial revisions you can approve the article. In case you have more constructive comments, please let me know and I will do my best to comply.
Hi Davidgute - First, don't forget to sign your comments with the four ~. It helps editors respond more quickly. Okay, on to the article. Much better. I still feel that the description of each book is overdone, but another editor might disagree with me. However, you have a section titled "Work", and another titled "Books". The books section is redundant, but I think the earlier section should have that title, and include the details of the books that only appears in the later section. But here is what I feel is the main issue: being accomplished is not the same thing as being notable. The vast majority of the citations in your article are excellent for verifying the facts of the article, but not for showing notability. What they show is that he did these things, but not that those things are notable. Your 3 citations which are reviews of the Hebrew translations would be excellent, if Fishelov had done the translations, not simply supplied an afterword. Again, another editor may see it differently. I also formatted your first citation correctly, to give you an example (there are other ways - which you can find at WP:CIT, but they should all include the basic information in that citation). You should correct the formatting in all your citations.
Once you make those citation corrections, and deal with the Work/Books issue, resubmit it. I won't review it, and see if another editor sees it differently. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Dear Onel5969,
I re-submit the article on David Fishelov after doing the changes you had suggested. I believe the updated version of the article is in accordance with your guidelines and I hope it can be approved now. Davidgute (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Davidgute - I'm no longer involved with the AfC project, but I'm sure another editor will take a look at it. Good luck. Onel5969 (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mdpathak70Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Amruteshwar_temple_.28April_24.29

Hi,

the article is rejected for the reason of references .. unfortunately this 1000 year old temple in India do not have anything written on internet, hence I was trying to add information on this beautiful temple, please guide me how to add references if they are not available at all ? ?Unfortunately many old temples in India like this are no documentation by government authorities too !

Thank you Mahesh Pathak (talk) 12:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Mahesh Pathak

Hi Mdpathak70 - Citations don't have to be from online sources, that simply makes researching them easier. But if you do use offline sources, make sure the citations are complete. You can find how to format them at WP:CIT, also, Referencing for beginners is a good place to start. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Watch What U Wish... Notability

I don't understand why you declined my article for Watch What U Wish... In regards to Notability because I checked the qualifications for an Album to be Notable on the following page --> Wikipedia:MUSIC and it has passed TWO of the requirements. The two that my article passed are as follows;

1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it.
  • The criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries 'except' for the following:
  • Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about the recording, and all advertising that mentions the recording, including manufacturers' advertising.
  • Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases.

The two published works are HipHopDX and Faygoluvers which both have NOTHING to do with the artists who made the album.

And it has also passed;

2. The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart.

The chart it appeared on was Billboard's Top 25 Heatseakers. It doesn't get any bigger and more notable than Billboard as far as Charts are concerned.

So please re-review my article and consider accepting it for creation. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CECB:5060:75C2:28BF:C45F:D8E7 (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Those citations are from niche publications, therefore they don't rise to the level of substantial coverage. The Heatseekers chart is NOT the Billboard chart, it's a genre-specific chart. If the album had hit #25 on Billboard's Album chart, that would be a different matter. Hope this clears it up for you. Onel5969 (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Help understanding what I have to do

Hi Onel5969!

I posted that article on the french wikipedia (with some help). But the french wikipedia isn't working exactly as this one obviously. So I would definitely appreciate your help for my article. I'm kinda lost.

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

Merci beaucoup!

--Afiavi2014 (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Afiavi2014 - I've edited the article to give it a more formal tone. I've added citation tags where you'll need to provide references for the information asserted in the article. I've also added a couple of notes where you'll need to expand a bit. Take a look, make the corrections, and let me know so I can take another look at it. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Most recent draft for an article initially rejected

Dear One:

First of all, I hope you are having a great weekend. The reason I'm writing is because you had rejected an article draft I had made on a Mexican TV conductress from Monterrey whose name is Michelle Gonzalez. The reason I was given is that this person is not notheworthy enough to have an article on Wikipedia, which I don't believe is the case. I have worked on this draft and added more sources than it initially had when you first reviewed it. I don't know if it would be possible for you or another editor to look at it and give me anymore suggestions as to how to further improve it in order to get it published. Thank you in advance for your invaluable help. This is the link to my most current draft on this person: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:OmarIsahuCorral/sandbox#Grace_Michelle_Gonz.C3.A1lez_T.C3.A1mez

OmarIsahuCorral (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


Hi OmarIsahuCorral - Your article has several issues. First, notability: so you have to have references which denote notability. Independent, third party sources means that the sources cited should be completely unconnected to the subject. Reliable sources are those with a reputation for checking the facts, editorial oversight and accuracy – so not some unknown persons on blog or random websites, not Facebook or Linkin, not the subject's own website or any connected to them, not press releases, but books published by major publishing houses, newspaper articles, magazine write-ups, treatment in peer-reviewed scholarly journals and websites that meet the same requirements as reputable print-based sources, etc. All of your sources do not meet the above guidelines. Second, neutral point of view: your article needs to maintain an unbiased view of the subject, not promoting the subject, simply stating facts. Using terms like "remarkable" and "extensive" and "memorable", are subjective, and slant the article. Third, puffery: the long list of who she has worked with also needs to go away, as it is an attempt to convey notability through association. You can mention the most significant people she has worked with, but if they don't have their own Wikipedia article, they aren't notable (from a wiki perspective), so I wouldn't include them. Fourth, and finally, since this is blp (bio of a living person), almost everything you assert in the article needs a citation, verifying the fact. Hope this helps.Onel5969 (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

07:41:57, 27 April 2015 review of submission by Dartex123


A number of our competitors already have pages approved on Wikipedia. We feel that we have as much history and interest for readers as they do to justify a wikipedia page. I have amended the opening paragraph, and would be interested to know which bits the editor felt were too much like an advert so that I can amend these too? Wherever possible, I have referenced external journal articles that relate to the research undertaken by the company in the development of its products as external links to verify the credentials of the page. Many thanks for your help and look forward to hearing from you soon Katie Dartex123 (talk) 07:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dartex123 - First, since you are a connected contributor, I've added a template to the talk page of your draft. This could be viewed as a conflict of interest, and folks are discouraged from writing articles about themselves or their company. Now about the promotional tone of the article. Encyclopedia articles are to inform readers about the company, not sell products to those readers. This is a tricky proposal when writing about companies, Your history section is fine. However, your product development and operations sections are highly promotional. First, remove all the copyright, trademark and registered symbols. As per WP:TRADEMARK, they are never used. The list of organizations is okay, but boring, and other editors may find it trivial, since only the International Safety Equipment Association is considered notable by wiki standards. Virtually everything else in that section is promotional. In the ops section simply state what sectors the company is involved in, but don't add commentary. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Requesting Advice with my Article

Hi,

Just dropping you a message to see if my draft is now ready to be published? Would be great if it could be, as many of my professional contacts are requesting that we have a wikipedia page on Romail.

I have inserted the link to the draft, it would be much appreciated if you could have a look at it.


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

Kind Regards

Immie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romg10 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Romg10. I have a question: You copied and pasted content directly from at least two websites in creating the draft. I have removed them as blatant copyright violations. You may not take someone else's pre-existing writing and just use it (unless it's in the public domain or under a suitably-free copyright license) and even then you must provide attribution and citations to comply – in the case of a free license, with that license's attribution requirements, or copyright is still violated – and in either case, to avoid plagiarism. Is any of the other content copied from anywhere, like the LinkedIn page used in the draft which I was not able to access?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Fuhghettaboutit The reason that I quoted directly from those websites is that they are mine and Romail's own words and therefore plagiarism is not happening. Pukaar News and Pukaar Magazine are Romail's websites and he asked me to use that content. However, I understand if this is unacceptable. No no further content is copied from other websites and therefore if there are no further problems with the page it would be incredible if we could get it published. Thank you. Romg10 (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, Okay. Thanks for responding. I do want you to understand one thing. This would not be plagiarism, then, but it would still be a copyright violation (so you cannot return that material). The reason why is because even though you say you own the material and have authority over its copyright, Wikipedia does not allow anyone to license their material for one-time use here. Instead, any material we use (outside of fair use, such as short quotations, in quotation marks), must be released to to the world, so that our end user (our readers) can take the content and use it themselves under the very unrestrictive license we provide for our content – which allows modification and reuse even for commercial purposes, with only an attribution requirement. I don't think it would be worth the effort here at all, but instructions about donating copyrighted material in a way to prove you have the authority and to issue the release are set out at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello One5969

Thanks for your answer

i have done some corrections in "Réference" is that you talk about in your last message ????

tell me about ..

if it seems ok next time i think i will submit again???? What do you think

Best regards

Bichetteln (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 15:41:23, 27 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by PalmerWolf


My article on Onissim Goldovsky was rejected due to insufficient footnotes. I placed additional footnotes in the indicated places and resubmitted for review. I have not heard back. Are there additional problems?

PalmerWolf (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi PalmerWolf - There's a backlog at AfC, so it could be up to 3 weeks before an article is reviewed. I wasn't the original reviewer, so I'm pinging them (Wikiisawesome. Taking a brief look at the article, it looks like you've done good work with the in-line citations. The issue I might have with it is that all of the sources seem connected to the subject of the article. Are there any references you could use which aren't by Goldovsky, his children, or his lover? Onel5969 (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@Onel5969: PalmerWolf and I have been in conversation on my talk page and I also recommended trying to find a few more non-primary sources. Other than that, I thought the article was well-written and the inline citations were done nicely. wia (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

19:00:05, 27 April 2015 review of submission by Mahmike7


Hello,

I'm creating an article on the company "Education at Work." It has been declined twice due to it sounding "more like an advertisement." I'd like to know exactly what I can do to fix that issue because I've made numerous edits and ensured of its credibility with my references. At the moment, I'm just a little confused as to what your reasoning is and would like some insight.

Thanks, Mahmike7 (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mahmike7 - This is one of the most difficult things for someone to write about if they feel strongly about the organization. Encyclopedia articles simply state facts, they don't promote the subject of the article. So stuff which is overly descriptive of products/services becomes promotional. For example, the final sentence of your lead paragraph is providing information which is for potential customers/users, not for someone who is reading an encyclopedia article. The products and services section is something you'd see in a promotional brochure, not an encyclopedia article, as is the Corporate Affairs section. Once you get past the advertising issue, I'm not seeing a great case made for notability. Most of the citations are mere listings, or brief mentions, or from fringe publications. The history section is fine, if you could expand the article along those lines, that might be better, and provide some more mainstream citations. Onel5969 (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

19:37:04, 27 April 2015 review of submission by Bhimsworth


Bhimsworth (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC) Hi OneL5969. I was wondering if you could provide me with insight on what changes I need to make towards my article to have it approved. I would appreciate any advice you can give me. Thank you. I would like the article to be approved, as it is for one of my classes and I am willing to make the required changes. Thank you for your time.

Hi Bhimsworth - Good luck in your class. First take a look at the essay link provided on your draft. You draw conclusions, make observations, and include commentary. None of which you would find in an encyclopedia article, which basically states facts, and offers citations to back up the validity of those facts. Because there are no in-line citations, much of what you wrote appears to be original research, which is a Wikipedia no-no. Also, the article needs a good copy-edit, as there are quite a few grammar and punctuation issues. Try not to tell a story, simply state the facts associated with your subject. Get rid of fluff words. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

David Gardner

Hi there,

Can you please give me some feedback for my client Sfhome who has submitted an article for inclusion on Wikipedia that has been denied. Here is a link

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

Thank you and Sincerely, 76.113.71.168 (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC) Audrey Nadia Rubinstein


Hi Audrey - Another editor, Worldbruce, has pretty much given a great summary of the issues with the article on the draft page. Take a look there. Onel5969 (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

David Gardner: Submission Rejection

Hi there, Hope you are doing well. My client is getting ready to launch a large non-profit project that gives back to the community. His previous experience and notable past is that he is a cofounder of Ishares. His profile was rejected by Wikipedia and I would really appreciate any and all advice you have for resubmission.

Here is a link to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:David_Gardner


Many thanks,

Audrey Nadia Rubinstein Sfhome (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC) Sfhome (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfhome (talk • contribs) 23:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Edits to SPACES Archives

Hi there, I'm finally getting around to revising and expanding the sandbox page for Saving and Preserving Arts and Cultural Environments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joyamerica/sandbox), which you reviewed and declined a bit ago. I'll be sure to have good sources for everything before resubmitting.

First question for ya: I'm not understanding how to get an image in the image box. Right now, it just shows the file-name "Slidshow-Seymour-2.jpg" -- Let me know if you can help!

Thanks, Jenn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyamerica (talk • contribs) 00:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Joyamerica - You have to upload a file onto Wikipedia in order to use it. On the left side of the page are some links. Under the "Tools" heading is a link, "Upload file". It's pretty simple to use, using the Upload Wizard. A detailed explanation can be found at WP:UPIMAGE. Hope this helps. Good luck. Onel5969 (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Jayantilal_Gada

user name: Yatin Rewale article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jayantilal_Gada Hello - My Article Draft:Jayantilal Gada has been rejected after review, with the Expert's feedback .I would like to amend and resubmit, but would like more specifics in order to do so.Please tell me what changes i have to do to get this article accepted.Now I made some changes for improve my article.Please check and help me.Yatin Rewale (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Yatin Rewale - Your article has two main issues: notability and a neutral, formal tone. Since the last time it was declined, you haven't added another single valid reference towards notability. Notability requires substantial coverage, which means not just mere mention but real content about the subject, which can be used to verify detailed statements about it.Independent, third party sources means that the sources cited should be completely unconnected to the subject. Reliable sources are those with a reputation for checking the facts, editorial oversight and accuracy – so not some unknown persons on blog or random websites, not Facebook or Linkin, not the subject's own website or any connected to them, not press releases, but books published by major publishing houses, newspaper articles, magazine write-ups, treatment in peer-reviewed scholarly journals and websites that meet the same requirements as reputable print-based sources, etc.
Furthermore, the tone of your article is relatively informal. Look at other articles about US producers, and see how they are written. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Rêve En Vert by christiannaps

Hi Onel5969, thank you for reviewing my article. would it be possible for you to help me make it appropriate for Wikipedia as I'm a little unsure on how to do this. Maybe you could give me some further advice in how to do this. thank you chris Christiannaps (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Christiannaps - In such a short article even small things can make the entire article seem promotional. The Future section needs to go away, very self-promotional. Don't use quotes by principles on how great their company is, or where they see it heading. Sentences like "Aiming to raise standards in the fashion industry and without compromising on aesthetics, they source a range of brands that are sustainable, local and ethical" are also highly promotional.
Also, your phraseology also lends itself to making the article more informal. Right now your History section reads

Rêve En Vert was founded in 2013 by Cora Hilts and Natasha Tucker and was born from a blog that Hilts started during her Masters course in Environmental Politics and Sustainability. Tucker has a degree in Art History and an MA in Art and Politics, and spent a year working on an organic farm in Bermuda, which is where her love for sustainability stems from.[3] Together they were shocked at the realisation that the fashion industry - second only to energy - is the second worst polluting industry in the world,[4] and thus Rêve En Vert was born.

It might be better to not wax wistfully on the subject, and simply state the facts:

While studying for her masters in environmental politics and sustainability, Cora Hilts began a blog centering on ________ in _____. Natasha Tucker had developed an interest in sustainability while working on an organic farm. Tucker responded to Hilts blog, and when the two discovered that the fashion industry is the second worst polluting industry in the world (the foremost being the energy industry), they decided to form a company to attempt to address that situation. The result was the creation of Rêve En Vert.

Be aware, that you'll need citations for stuff like the second and most polluting industries, in addition to citations regarding the history of the two young women.
I have to say, you handle the products section better than most. It's a little promotional, but the fact that you really don't go into specifics makes it more informational than promotional. Hope all of this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 13:28:56, 28 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Hanjush



Hanjush (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

My draft on de:Jürgen Neffe: His biography on Einstein was not only published in the US, it was highly acclaimed. Shall I add more reviews on "Einstein - A biography". Further on he has developed de:Libroid, a new multimedia interactive ebook which, being multilingual, can also be read and consumed in English and was reviewed by English and American media (see there). What else is needed to make a person like him, who has lived and worked in the US as a correspondent for Der Spiegel, "notable". Thanks for your help! Hanjush Hanjush (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hanjush - First, take a look at WP:CITEKILL. You've established the notability of the book, but not of the author. Most of the citations in your article are by the subject, not about him. To show notability, Wikipedia requires substantial coverage of the subject, which means not just mere mention but real content about the subject, which can be used to verify detailed statements about it. Independent, third party sources means that the sources cited should be completely unconnected to the subject. Reliable sources are those with a reputation for checking the facts, editorial oversight and accuracy – so not some unknown persons on blog or random websites, not Facebook or Linkin, not the subject's own website or any connected to them, not press releases, but books published by major publishing houses, newspaper articles, magazine write-ups, treatment in peer-reviewed scholarly journals and websites that meet the same requirements as reputable print-based sources, etc. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for looking at the new page patrol and for commenting at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol#Proposal_for_a_.22wait.22_tag. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

16:22:39, 28 April 2015 review of submission by Prreyes


I do not understand what within my submitted article is considered copyright infringement. Please specify so I can make the proper changes.

Prreyes (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Prreyes - Not sure what you are talking about. The article was not declined for copyright violations, but due to the fact that the references cited did not meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia. Onel5969 (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must've been looking at something else. Which sources are insufficient? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prreyes (talk • contribs) 17:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

21:33:28, 28 April 2015 review of submission by Maxvs91


Hi-

It is not clear to me how to modify this to meet the request of better references.

The page submission was an attempt to link this person to his name on the Guggenheim Fellowship awardee list on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guggenheim_Fellowships_awarded_in_2010

and was modeled after similar awardee stub pages, e.g.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Josh_Donlan

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

There are many many pages like this, which seem to be made to complete the connectivity of the wiki Guggenheim Fellowship list to individuals. Indeed the Guggenheim award on its own appears to be enough to have a stub included.

Maxvs91 (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Maxvs91 - I didn't see that he was a Guggenheim Fellow. It was in the body of the article, and usually the most prominent thing about an individual is in the body, so I didn't look at the list of awards. Being a GF qualifies as notable under WP:NACADEMIC, so resubmit it. I think you might mention it in the body. And btw, the Guggenheim Fellowship does have its own page. Sorry about the confusion. Onel5969 (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

SkyTechSport Article Submission For Review Changes

Hi There! I saw you didn't approve the SkyTechSport page. Seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:SkyTechSport&redirect=no. I have no idea what else to change. I seriously have done everything people have told me and can't catch a break. ha Please advise what else you think I need to change. Thanks so much for your help! :) Alex at SkyTechSport (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Alex at SkyTechSport - tell us about the company, don't sell us their products. The entire article is a promotional brochure about what they sell, and tells us nothing about the company. When were they founded? Who founded them? Where were they founded? Have they expanded? Merged? Bought other companies? Been bought by other companies? Where are they currently located. Get the idea? You can have one or two sentences about what they produce, but that's about all for an article that size. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Thanks for the ping thanks O. Turns out that 65.183.78.112 (talk · contribs) was adding bogus numbers to any article that they touched. I filed an AIV but it hasn't been replied to yet. Thus, I wanted to let you know about this so you can keep an eye out for in case this IP continuous on. Thanks for your time and cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 01:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi MarnetteD - Always good to hear from you. You do such fine work. Hadn't noticed that pattern, so nice job on figuring it out. Will keep my eyes open for anymore of their unconstructive work. Cheers. Onel5969 (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Music Fest Perugia Draft

User Name: Gkwork Article Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Music_Fest_Perugia

Hi, thanks for the reviewing. what kind of citations should I add? I have these articles from the internet: Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 Link 4 Link 5 Link 6 Link 7 Link 8

I didn't provide all of them as citaition since most are in italian and the 2 that I have provided contain all the information on the page.

in addition to these there are articles in printed newspaper mostly in italian which I didn't know how and if to include.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkwork (talk • contribs) 05:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gkwork - Those are all great. When you submitted the article, the first citation was excellent, but the second was from a shaky source (no editorial oversight). You can put those as general references (as I did with the first one, or incorporate them as footnotes. If you do use them as footnotes beware of WP:CITEKILL. That's why I showed you how to add them as general. Definitely notable with those additional citations. Nice job. Let me know when you make the corrections and I'll take a look. Onel5969 (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Onel5969 thanks again for the review, I have added two references which I think are the most comprehensive (I didn't add all of the citations so it won't be a long list). Please let me know what you think.

Thanks!

Looks good, Gkwork - resubmit and let me know. Onel5969 (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Onel5969 I have submitted the article, thanks!

Draft:CaratLane

Hi! This is the article that my message refers to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:CaratLane. You recently reviewed it and declined its submission, I have changed the article based on the reasons for rejection. Could you please take another look at it and let me know if you have any further suggestions?

Thanks very much for your time!

([[User:Kiranbramakrishna|Kiranbramakrishna]]&#124[[User talk:Kiranbramakrishna|t]] )([[User:Kiranbramakrishna|COI]]) (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Kiranbramakrishna

Hi Kiranbramakrishna - In such a brief article, any type of promotion can make the entire article seem promotional. In the lead, I would tone down the description of their products, simply saying that they specialize in diamond jewelry and gold coins. The funding section looks like a way to beef up the article with fluff. After stating the relationship with Tiger Global, simply say something like "To date, the hedge fund has invested xxxx dollars in the company", and add the citations. Get rid of the bulleted list. In such a short article, you don't need a new section to rehash what you said in the lead, so I'd delete the products section. The competition section also should probably go. It would be one thing if any of those other companies were notable, but since they're not, it's irrelevant. The Awards section is okay. I hope this helps. Make those changes and re-submit. Then let me know. Take it easy. Onel5969 (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

About article on Herve Moulin

Hi, you just reviewed an article about Herve Moulin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Herv%C3%A9_Moulin) You claimed that his article "do not adequately show the subject's notability". I have provided evidence that Moulin's work is relevant by showing it was quoted in a Nobel Laureate speech. Also, I provided links to already existing pages in wikipedia which talk about his work, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participation_criterion, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_economics or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entitlement_(fair_division). Moreover, I am providing evidence of scientific journals: I do not know of any material which I can quote that is more verifiable (I am even providing the ISBNs and DOIs) or notable of including in an encyclopedia.

Your feedback and reevaluation will be very acknowledged.

Hi. You have a single reference. And it's the subject's own website. References need to be independent, and show significant coverage of the subject. I changed the mention of the nobel lecture into a citation, as per MOS. But a single mention in a single lecture does not rise to the level of notability (see WP:NACADEMIC). Those scientific journals might show this subject's notability, so I would add them in the appropriate place. Once you have enough to show his notability, and again take a look at the NACADEMIC link, you also need to ensure that you have enough in-line citations as per WP:ILC. This article is a blp (bio of a living person), so there is a high degree of in-line citations necessary. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Improper AfC rejection

You rejected Hilary Paynter, which I have now published, and which is about someone who has works in the Victoria & Albert Museum, and The Ashmolean; who is an Honorary Member of the Royal Birmingham Society of Artists; and a Past President of the Royal Society of Painter Printmakers, as non-notable. Rejecting good articles such as this is damaging to Wikipedia, and demotivating to editors. Please review WP:N and WP:BITE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries, Pigsonthewing - I'll stop participating in the AfC process, as per your request. Take care. Onel5969 (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Andy, no-one can possibly edit Wikipedia without making mistakes. You have, I have, Onel5969 has. We all learn and we all move forwards. Thank you for drawing their attention to this, and for making a good catch and accepting the article.
Onel5969: No, do not stop. Instead continue to learn. Just make fewer errors as you learn, just like we all do. Do it by researching just a little more when you accept or reject articles. And be aware that you cannot do AFC without making errors. Fiddle Faddle 21:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

You and I usually disagree, and therefore I think you are usually wrong, but, irregardless, I greatly appreciate your hard work at Articles for Creation! Please keep up your great work, with more care or more cookies as appropriate. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Does "irregardless" mean without having no regard, i.e. regardful? Just kidding. MacPraughan (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Cant seem to meet Wikipedia's expectations on notability and source/ reliability of the information submitted.

Hi I have done my very best to provide the most accurate information about my article to your esteemed office. I even went as far as sending soft copies of the 2 separate articles from the 2 different magazines from 1987 to Mr Axl Matulic so as to verify the sources of the draft of my article.

As for notability, I believe anyone who had escaped with about 2 to 3 million dollars of money through fraudulent mail order business in 1986 in the USA and had done something similar in 2012 in Singapore taking unsecured loans from almost all major banks here) and again escaping to an overseas location is worth reading and taking note of.

I cant figure out what else could I do to encourage your office to publish my article on your homepage.

I would be obliged if you could please reply to me directly at [email protected].

Regards

Jerry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victim86 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Victim86 - I have no clue as to which article you are speaking about. In addition, I am no longer part of the AfC process, you might want to ask your question at the Teahouse. If you do, you might want to include the wikilink to the article you have a question about. Good luck. Onel5969 (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Dalai Lama status serial deletions

Hi, One15969, you might remember me from the article on Barry Kerzin which you kindly helped me with and eventually approved. I wonder if you could advise me, please? I have been working on a related article, on the Dalai Lama, since I saw what was written really needed some correction and improvement, and over the last week or so I added quite a bit of carefully researched information, with citations, to state what I know to be the facts (I've known the present Dalai Lama personally and been a Tibetan Buddhist myself for the last 40 years). However, someone called Victoria Grayson has just come in and deleted everything I added wholesale saying it was "original research". Could you have time to take a look and let me know if it is right, that my addition is inappropriate, or whether it's just a case of vandalism. It's the second time he/she's deleted all my work here and this person seems to have an axe to grind and is determined to cling to his/her views - despite all my careful research and addition of what I thought were adequate citations along with references to other related Wikipedia articles; and also detailed explanations which I posted in the related discussion on the article's 'talk' page. If it's a form of vandalism, what can I do about it? Many thanks, MacPraughan (talk) 09:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC) P.S> I changed my user name from Sean M Jones

Hi MacPraughan - I took a look at the revision, and I think I understand the other editor's issue with your edits. You appear to have a mixture of cited and uncited material provided. For example, the "emanations" passage and the entire part about the Namgyal monastery. In addition, some of your commentary has an NPOV issue. Avoid making conclusions and commentary. Simply state facts. Avoid phrases like "it is a common misconception...", "became a powerful institution ...". I run into this as well from time to time, when some of an edit is well-sourced, but other parts are not, what do you do? You can either revert, or go through and add [citation needed] tags. However, when the prose also has an npov issue, than you are left with little choice than to revert. Also, be aware that Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference to itself.
You have some valid points. In particular, I disagree with the other editor who said, "To say "The Dalai Lama is a lama of the Gelug or "Yellow Hat" school of Tibetan Buddhism" is like saying "a bishop is a priest in Catholicism." " A more accurate simile would have been "a bishop is a priest of the Dominican order of Catholicism" (as an example, it's not the case, a bishop can come from any order). Talk page discussions are just that, discussions, and any information put into the article still needs to be cited in contentious situations like this. For example, you state that it's not debatable that the Ganden Tripa is the head of the Gelug school. Cite a reference to back that up. But if there are some who don't consider that to be the fact, than incorporate that into the article as well, and cite it too. Something like, "While their are some groups which do not consider the Ganden Tripa as the head of the Gelug school,(citation) most (or all or the vast majority) of Tibetan Gelugas do look to him as their leader".
In the end, it's not vandalism. The other editor is being obstinate, in my opinion, but I can be that way as well. Don't think I would have in this instance, but who knows. Edit the article. State facts. Use citations for EVERY piece of information you add. Do NOT make comments or use WP:PEACOCK words. I hope this helps. Good luck. Onel5969 (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much, that is very helpful, I shall try to do as you suggest. MacPraughan (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes thanks Onel5969, I have made conciliatory/appreciative notes on the talk pages and done more work to gather citations for and against the DL being 'the head monk of the Gelugs'. 'For' cites are very hard to find, while 'against' are plentiful. So I suspected the citation given on both DL & 14th DL articles in support of the wrong statement (a book called Tibet: A History") was invalid. So I emailed to the author of the cited book to query the quote. He is a Tibetologist and responded immediately saying: "I entirely agree with you that it is a mistake to assert that the Dalai Lamas are/were the head of the Gelug school. I certainly hope I didn't say that in my book. I checked p.129 and I didn't say it there, so the citation is wrong in any case. If you are considering removing the citation from Wikipedia, please go ahead. All best wishes, Sam". So what do you think my next step should be? How to reject that citation politely? Many thanks for your advice, it is invaluable. MacPraughan (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

RIAS insurance references

Hello,

Thank you very much for reviewing the article I submit. I would really appriciate it if you can give me some more details of how i can improve my article. I understand that the references are not notable, however is the content right? Should I add more information, like awards? Also, I found some good references in websites such as postonline.co.uk and insurancetimes.co.uk, however you need to subscrive to view the articles. Is this a problem?

This is the link to my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:RIAS_insuranceCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

Thank you very much, Antonia.christodoulou80.0.219.171 (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Antonia. Thank you for your very polite question above. Just so you're aware, I'm no longer part of the AfC process, so you might want to ask your question at the Teahouse. In general, subscription sites and off-line records are acceptable, just be sure to give a complete citations (you can find formats at WP:CIT), so a reviewer can accurately verify the facts of the article. Good luck, and hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Club Manitou

One15969

I truly respect your editor status and wanting WIKI to present itself in the highest mode. Can you help the Club Manitou article? It truly was an important part of Michigan history in 1930's-1940's. It then morphed into the Club Ponytail in 1962. The Ponytail was the premier mid-west teen dance club from 1962 until it was destroyed by fire in 1969. Both articles are important to Michigan history. Thank you-EFV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugene Francois Vidocq (talk • contribs) 17:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

17:37:13, 30 April 2015 review of submission by 100.33.115.76


Hi, I really need some help and guidance in creating this page. The subject: Charles Edward Hall has been santa for Radio City Music Hall for 30 years and his book is being turned into a movie. I feel like that is noteworthy enough for wikipedia. Could you please help me organize this information correctly.

Thanks,


100.33.115.76 (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi 100.33.115.76 - I edited it a bit, found some more references. I marked where citations are needed as well. Where did you come up with that information? Onel5969 (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Florence Morse Kingsley

Hi One5969 -

I was just in Scottsdale last weekend. Great weather as it was cooler than normal. I have updated the draft for Florence Morse Kingsley located at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Florence_Morse_Kingsley#Professional_life

Much of her work is still available even though it was written a century ago. Not sure if it meets Wikipedia's standards. Let me know. Regards, Sfo1980 Sfo1980 (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sfo1980 - sorry, but I'm no longer a part of the AfC process. You could post your question at WP:TEAHOUSE. Good luck. Onel5969 (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onel5969/Archive_17&oldid=1143208220"