User talk:Onel5969/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Archive 29: April 2016

More information required

Hi Onel5969,

Sorry for my late response. I'm a great fan of microtonal music and I think Sander Germanus is a composer who is one of a kind. So I don't understand why my article is rejected. You write that my article is not adequately supported by reliable sources. But there are enough resources below the text, as far as I can see. So can you tell me what's the problem? Do you need more links? There are many (not always in English), so here are just some other resources: www.recordsinternational.com/cd.php?cd=08N112 www.etcetera-records.com/album/158/lunapark Hope to hear from you soon. Thanks in advance.

TijsAmsterdam72

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sander_Germanus--TijsAmsterdam72 (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi TijsAmsterdam72 - You need in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources. Your sources are either supplied by the artist, or don't have editorial oversight. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 14:06:03, 1 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Dengland123

• Dengland123 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Timothy Seelig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Onel5969. I really could use some help. Do you know of someone that can help be build out the Timothy Seelig page that did not pass inspection. Surely someone has the time and resources to help me with this project. I do appreciate your help. My email address is [email protected]. Thank you.

Dengland123 (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dengland123 You can always go to the Teahouse and ask for someone to help (a link was put on your talkpage). Or you could go to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters. I've put some links on the draft which you could read and might help. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments on editing?

Dear Onel5969, I revised my draft contribution about Merrill Corporation and resubmitted it on March 3. I'm curious if these revisions are in the ballpark, and if the submission is closer to approval. This is based on my assumption that you're going to review it again.By the way, how many submissions are you reviewing/editing a day? And you're doing this all completely for free, correct? Thank you for your help and patience, StephenDupont55403 (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)StephenDupont55403

Hi StephenDupont55403 - First, it always help if you put a link to the draft/article you have a question about, like this: Draft:Merrill Corporation. Second, no, I try not to be the next reviewer. I just took a look at your draft, and it is still very promotional. Lose most of the adjectives; don't tell us what needs it services (that's a sales pitch). Take a look at the structure/format link I put on the draft. Sections like your "fast facts" could be lifted from a promo brochure. Third, your references. Press releases are invalid. As is encyclopedia.com (not a reliable source), or YouTube. Take a look at WP:CIT on how to format the citations. We need in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources. Fourth, I try to review at least 10 new articles a day... sometimes it's upwards of 50. Then I review stale drafts as well, about 50 or 60. Plus other gnomish activities. And yes, we're all volunteers. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Reversion

Hi Onel5969: A recent edit you performed here has been reverted. You may want to check it out. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Cute, Northamerica1000. Thanks for the chuckle! Happy April Fools Day! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Phoenix, Arizona

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if this is a repeat

Hi Onel5969,

I am still getting used to Wikipedia and the input fields don't look like standard E-mail drafts, so I apologize if this is a repeat message. Thank you for taking the time to review and consider the entry I wrote and submitted. I am a full-time professional mentalist with no side job. All of my income is generated from entertainment. Yet, I am not submitting any entry for myself because I do not consider myself big enough. I wouldn't just submit an entry of someone who is not massively influential and among the most skilled on the planet. Oz Pearlman is honestly is among the top performers on the planet. He is currently the most famous mentalist in the United States of America because he just won 3rd Place on America's Got Talent. I am not receiving a penny to create his Wikipedia entry. I cited sources that prove he was on America's Got Talent and a number of other national TV shows. He travels the world in airplanes delivering world class, original art (sometimes for 5 figures per gig) and just won 3rd Place on AGT. He was even on national TV the same day I submitted the original entry. He's HUGE. Even without fame, this guy was honestly the real deal and far more skilled than a plethora of people who already have a Wikipeida entry. What revision(s) must I make to have the entry accepted? Is there any chance you can generously donate your time and talents to modify mistakes in the entry and submit it? Thank you for any help. Cybernavigator (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Changes to Don College page

Thankyou, Onel5969, for your interest in the Don College page. I noticed that you have undone my minor edits and admit that as a new wikipedia member I am guilty of not providing enough supporting information.

These are my changes with more detailed comment:

Change of location from Don to Devonport The college is named for its position on The Don River. Not because it is in the suburb of Don. The Don township is on the other side of the river. Don College is more accurately described as Devonport. The locals refer to this area as Devonport.

Change of TQA to TASC Last year the Tasmanian Government disbanded the TQA and replaced it with TASC. (There were other structural changes to the authority which are not relevant here.) If you go to the the TQA web site you will see that it actually loads the TASC pages.

Change of name to Douglas Douglas is a Polar Bear, but he is refered to universally at the college as Douglas the Badly Behaved Bear. He appears at school assemblies and is renowned for his behaviour giving awards to students.

If you find these explanations satisfactory could you please undo your changes. --Squeaky1957 (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Ryder Cooley Notability

Hello Onel5969:

Are the references the main issue here? BTW, in passing, I would argue that IMDB, while not being a scholarly journal, is "notable" and frequently referenced in our culture. I'm not quoting opinion from IMDB, but an entry's existence, which is an entirely different matter. An entry in IMDB, in and of itself, while not proving a popular following, indicates an extent of work. Re the references by the artist (her CV) merely note facts, i.e. awards and "notable" residencies: Is it a matter of not trusting the author as a valid reporting source, i.e. the CV? The notion of "notability" has to be either subjective (in which case each examiner maintains individual biases), or, objective, in some achievable measurable way. I'm left with two impressions: (1) that Ms. Cooley is truly "not notable" (in the eyes of Wiki) regardless of my efforts to create the entry, or (2) Ms. Cooley is truly notable, but I haven't provided adequate references, or, have failed in some formal sense. I will assume that Wikipedia's editorial staff is sufficiently open-minded to accept evidence of Ms. Cooley's acclaim and that I must persist in making a better article. Please let me know if this assumption is dead wrong. For example, if there is cultural bias/subjectivity afoot rather than mere insufficiency of objective reference, then an article's author should know whether this is a feckless (worthless) exercise. Perplexed, But I will persist in improving. Slachutm (talk)

Slachutm - You could argue about imdb if you feel the need. But you'd be wrong. Categorically wrong. But this isn't up for discussion. Many things on Wikipedia are, but this isn't. imdb is not a reliable source. period. Regarding Cooley's notability: I haven't a clue. In the current article, with the current references, it hasn't been shown. I've explained what's necessary: in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. Check out WP:RS as to what a reliable source is. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Sarah Idan

Hello,

I recently submitted an article and you have rejected it stating the reference are not notable. Ishtar TV is a well known TV network and on satellite in the Middle East and every where on Nilesat. in fact you have a page on wiki for them yourself https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishtar_TV. And here is their website http://www.ishtartv.com/en/ All the other news websites are also notable. I see your argument was unreasonable I need further explanation...

Thanks

I have no idea who you are, or what you are talking about. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

New Denver skyline photograph

I have added another new Denver skyline picture to replace the outdated one. This is a high-res picture (3672 x 1688) so I believe it is acceptable. Please let me know your opinion.

First, you should always sign your posts on talk pages, using the ~~~~. Second, yes it is better. I don't agree with your choice of photo, I felt the earlier one was better, but that's a matter of choice. I reverted the earlier one because of the quality. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Article Submission Questions

Hi Onel5969,

Thank you for taking the time to read my submission: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hazlerigg-Rutland_Hall

Firstly I want to say that Reference 1 and 2 are completely different bodies. One is the university and the other connected to the students union. The bit I find hard to understand is that when I compare my references to other articles they seem really good. The first article on your list of pages for example seems as notable as my submission and the references appear to all be the same database. I realise that my references arent the best but I don't see how pages like this one and Towers hall (link further down) are better and I think that's where I'm in need of guidance. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_UCLA_Bruins_football_team

Secondly the advice is always quite general but one is that it is not notable. However there is already a page on another hall and I started this submission because this hall is just as notable(same idea, different hall): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towers_Hall

Thank you in advance for you help.

Joeys07 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeys07 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 2 April 2016‎ (UTC)

Hi Joeys07 - You're right, there is nothing notable about the other hall either, I've just nominated it for deletion. Typically dorms (or halls) at universities aren't notable enough for their own articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Aaron Webster

hello, i created a page for one of University of Cincinnati best players college players in school history and it was declined. I am unsure what else I need to reference or quote that he was a notable college athlete and gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aweb17 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I made some edits showing that this person is a notable college athlete and individual, not just a member of a team, along with references. Please let me know what else I can do for you to accept this page.

Thank you

Hi. Unfortunately, despite his talent, he doesn't pass WP:GNG, as the coverage is simply routine about an athlete. And he doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE either, having never played in a pro game. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

hello onel5969,

I also made edits adding that mr.webster has also meet the professional nobility by appearing in one regular season game in the National Football League, in which he also made a interception, and is referenced.

Please let me know if there is anything else you need from me. Thank you.

Hi Aweb17 - I changed the citation for that fact to a more reliable source (the official NFL stat page, doesn't get more reliable than that for NFL stats). Your article still has two hurdles. First, and most importantly, it's not written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, but more like a fan magazine. Second, see how I formatted my citation? That's one of the accepted forms of citation format (don't worry about the archiveurl and archivedate stuff, that's a resource you have to belong to). You should also get rid of the non-reliable sources, such as YouTube, and any blogs. Finally, I didn't notice before, but your username suggests you might have a close connection to the article subject. Please read WP:COI and take any necessary steps.

With his appearance in the NFL, along with the other press, he will pass notability criteria now.

Request on 16:24:43, 2 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by 63.240.97.125

• 63.240.97.125 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Charles P. Stevenson, Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The decline of the Stevenson bio for "lack of notoriety" is puzzling. A large publisher thought the person notable enough to write an entire book about him, and he has regularly been discussed in New York Magazine, the New York Post, the New York Observer, and Business Insider. While I can understand there may have been some work needed on improving citations, declining the article seems questionable at best, IMHO.

63.240.97.125 (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Submission questions

Hi Onel5969,

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hazlerigg-Rutland_Hall

The "Towers Hall" page you've just proposed for deletion is a piece of classic archietecture for the east midlands so I would argue against deleting that.

I don't see why a page on this hall is not notable as thousands of prospective students will be searching to find out information on these every year. I can't understand why https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_UCLA_Bruins_football_team is notable but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hazlerigg-Rutland_Hall is not?

Joey

A single season of a notable sports program (or television program), has by long-standing consensus been seen as notable. On the other hand, a single building on a university campus has had exactly the opposite consensus, and each building must show its own notability as per WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

21:13:56, 2 April 2016 review of submission by Englishshaun

• Englishshaun (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jerry Pasley aka Two Tonys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've added more reputable independent sources and tried my best to cite them properly. Is there anything else I can do to help get this article up to the reqired standard?

Request on 21:31:11, 2 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Englishshaun

• Englishshaun (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jerry Pasley aka Two Tonys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I apologise if I didn't follow correct linking netiquette with my previous question about improvements to this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jerry_Pasley_aka_Two_Tonys

Please advise if there is anything else that I can do to improve it to the required standard.

Many thanks, Englishshaun (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Englishshaun (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Englishshaun- The problem is the writing style. It's very informal. I've actually written an article about a gangster, Blaise Diesbourg. It was one of my earliest articles, and I really should go back and tighten it up a bit. It's about as informal as an article could be without having major issues. I'll put some links on your draft that you can read through to see how to write, structure, and format and article. In general, think boring. Not so much colorful description, keep it dry. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 05:56:56, 3 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Kashmirlife142260

• Kashmirlife142260 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Aamir Ali Shah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please help me to publish this page. I don't see why a page on this is not notable as thousands of prospective students will be searching to find out information about this man. More than 70000 people are following him on facebook Aamir is a famous journalist here in jammu kashmir. He is the founder of monthly magazine Kashmir Window.He is also the web designer and have developed Speak Up Kashmir Personal website of Aamir Ali Shah - http://aamiralishah.com

Please check these ref Govt officials a click away courtesy Kashmir teen’s website

Hi Kashmirlife142260 - Then you have to show that he passes the notability criteria, see WP:GNG, which will mean you have to provide in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Kashmirlife142260 (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Sukhumi

Please unblock article so I can edit it immediately.

Nope. It's protected for a reason. You can suggest changes on its talk page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Need help with my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mahabaleshwar_Morje

hi ,

I am new to writing and need help with my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mahabaleshwar_Morje.

I have some challenges in terms the definition of notable.. Can you explain the specific evidences you require for this article?

Thanks and Regards

Pradnyam (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Pradnyam

Hi Pradnyam - please read the guidelines at WP:GNG and WP:BIO. You need in-depth coverage from several independent, reliable sources to show notability. Currently you have none. Once you have those independent citations, you'll need to put them in-line (see WP:ILC on how to do that). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

00:46:11, 4 April 2016 review of submission by Brianne Pack

• Brianne Pack (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Michael Campion (musician/entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Onel5969,

I was wondering if you can be more specific for me?

I worked very hard on this article and have 2 or 3 more in the works. I want to submit quality work and I aim to please. I've looked at many articles about people like Mr. Campion with (what appear to be ) far fewer credible references.

I did update somethings last night after I submitted. (I don't think that I added new material, but I changed the way my reference links were written - I'm not sure if that will make a difference in your evaluation.)

In any event - I had 35 references. Of those there were:

8 Online articles 5 Newspaper articles 5 Magazine articles 1 Patent Summary 2 Blogs 5 Actual Promotional Video of business or concept 1 Social Network 5 Wiki articles and references 3 Websites

Some mention Mr. Campion specifically and others simply talk about his work and/or his companies.

Although I didn't use it as a "reference" I do have his IMDB page under "External Links" Mr. Campion's IMDB page will verify a dozen or so of his accomplishments? Should I reference and link these?

Also there is a source called AllMusic - He has a page here, but it has not been updated - Should see about having it updated as well and using it as a reference?

Here is my belief - Mr. Campion has made significant contributions to the music industry, as an innovative manufacturer of music products (musical instruments). He is responsible for new methods of design and process that changed price points and manufacturing on products worldwide.

He built a $20M business that changed the direction of the retail music industry. The brand name he chose was quite a "comeback story" for the well known, missed and admired "Danelectro."

This was an interesting and noteworthy story as it touch and affected so many musical icons - Eric Clapton, Jimmy Page, Tom Petty, Carlos Santana, Prince, Aerosmith, Eddie Van Halen and on and on - all contacted Campion at Daneletro to buy his products. This makes him noteworthy.

Before Danelectro, he had written and recorded numerous radio commercials for companies like Toyota, Honda, Century 21, etc.

He's played with Jan & Dean, The Beach Boys and Brian Wilson.

He's designed live entertainment shows for Disney.

Has produced television pilots with John Stamos for Disney

Many of the songs that he wrote or sang on have been in top television shows and movies. (Legally Blondes, One Tree Hill, According To Jim)

He has developed software and has a pending patent that companies like Pandora are considering.

This all seems very noteworthy to me.

The references are unbiased and span more almost 2 decades.

Please let me know (as specifically as you can), where I should go from him. I am eager to make a strong an credible article.

Thank you for your help!

Brianne Draft:Michael_Campion_(musician/entrepreneur)} Brianne Pack (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Brianne Pack - several things. First, asking questions is always a good thing. Nice job at that. Second, your note that other articles are crappily sourced - absolutely correct. It's an argument which can be found at WP:OSE. WP is run by volunteers, and there's always crap that makes it through. Also, back in the early days it was very easy to put almost anything up. With over 5M articles, we're still weeding through the stuff that needs to go, or needs to be improved. Third, notability. To show that, you need in-depth coverage from several reliable, independent sources. Your sources are either not reliable (name that tune, iTunes, huge racks, facebook, vimeo, etc), not independent (eyemagine), or are not in-depth about Campion (OC Register, vintage guitar, etc). I attempted to do some research, but apparently it's a very common name, so research is difficult using search engines like Google news. Finally, the tone of the article. It needs to be much drier, much less informal, and not contain commentary or judgments (for example, don't use the word "gig", and don't comment on whether or not a show was successful). Hope this helps. I'm going to post some links on the draft page you may want to read through. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Demand Control

In your comments in Draft:Demand Control, you said I need inline sources. What does that mean?

BillSkowronnek (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi BillSkowronnek - see WP:ILC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, onel5969. I re-edited it, and believe it fits the requirements.

12:08:06, 4 April 2016 review of submission by Vivekpahwa

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

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

what exactly is wrong with the article - we are still not sure - because we see other similar articles e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FindYogi on wikipedia

Vivekpahwa - Sources don't show notability. They are either not from independent sources are of a routine nature (announcements of funding, etc.). Bringing up other articles is an WP:OSE argument, and not applicable in this instance. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Aamir Ali Shah

Kashmirlife142260 (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Hello dear can you please check this draft now i have added a lot of information. I have added many links. Here is the draft Draft:Aamir_Ali_Shah Thank You.

Hi Kashmirlife142260 - There's not a single reference in the entire article. To show notability we need several in-depth references from independent, reliable sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Short Biography of José Gros-Camisó not considered

Hi!: I was indicated better having from you a comment about the non-notorius nature of the proposed short biography of José Gros-Camisó, an Spanish Communist Activist, sorry for my inital mistakes; if you want making any suggestion, perfect, if not, perfect too. Thanks, have a good academic year, regards, + Salut--Caula (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 05:31:25, 5 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Nairji

• Nairji (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Gitanjali Sinha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Sir,

I had submitted by first article "Gitanjali Sinha", the idea was to enlighten users about the achievements about this individual but unfortunately it got declined.

Need your inputs in gettig this included. Kindly guide Nairji (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Nairji (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nairji - not commenting on the notability of the individual, but currently the article is little more than a public relations blurb for them. Needs to be almost completely re-written from a neutral POV. Lose all the adjectives, lose all the commentary. WP:CITEKILL doesn't help either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Question about reliable sources

Dear Onel5969,

I understand your point. So in that sense I don't know if they're reliable either. Maybe I will use some other references which are clearly independent and rewrite the article a little. But frankly, there isn't a lot in English which has editorial oversight. So I have a question: Can I use reliable sources written in another language than English? This would make it far more easy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sander_Germanus--212.64.20.126 (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi - absolutely! There is no requirement that references be in English (but since this is English Wikipedia, it does make it easier). I would encourage you to check out WP:CIT on how to properly format citations, and include all the necessary information. Also, even though the reference itself doesn't need to be in English, it does help if the citation is translated. Good luck. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 14:22:57, 5 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Balamani123

• Balamani123 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Palghat Ramprasad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

May be you are not familiar with artists in India or Indian classical music. The artist that I have written about is such a popular one with a huge fan following that a mere google search on "palghat ramprasad" would throw numerous reviews and concert clippings. Fans like myself have finally got an approval from him to write about him in wikipedia after several months of insistence; and now you rejected because you need authentication. Authentication of what? In fact, most of the content I have used is from http://www.musicrux.com/artists/palghat-r-ramprasad ; which is a portal for artists of repute in India. Can you kindly reconsider and/or at least do some preliminary research on this great artists before outright rejecting it on grounds which, in my humble opinion is totally invalid? Balamani123 (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Balamani123 - In a word, no. Might I suggest you familiarize yourself with what constitutes notability on Wikipedia. You can find out at WP:GNG. Then I suggest you read up on what constitutes a reliable sources at [[WP:RS]. Finally, you might want to check out now to properly format your citations at WP:CIT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Edward Cronjager

The article Edward Cronjager you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Edward Cronjager for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Johanna -- Johanna (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

One other question

Hi Onel5969,

Great that I can use reliable sources written in another language. I checked your link (thanks!), but now I think it will take some more time to write a new article. So probably the original article (which I uploaded last month) will be removed in a few days, which would be fine actually. My question is: Do I have enough time to write a new article? And can that be weeks later from now? (I'm a little busy lately, that's why...)

Best!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sander_Germanus--212.64.20.126 (talk) 10:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi - drafts stay untouched for 5 months after the last edit. At that time, the article creator will get a notice saying that in another month there is a chance the draft might be deleted. After that month, if there is still no activity, there is a good chance the draft will be deleted. But you have 6 months to work on it, so you should be fine. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Miklos Veto

Dear Onel, Regarding the notability of philosopher Miklos Veto (Link to draft page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Miklos_Veto): You asked for further demonstration of the relevance of academic notability criterion:

Academic Notability: Criterion 3: "The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE)."

He is an "external member" of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Academy_of_Sciences) He is a "member" of the Catholic Academy of France. (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Académie_catholique_de_France)

Both of these are "highly selective and prestigious scholarly societies" to which he has been elected.

General notability: Criterion for "Any Biography" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANYBIO)

Criterion 1: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times."

He has also been awarded the merit of Officer of the National Order of the Republic of the Ivory Coast for his service to that nation. This is the highest award the country may give to a person: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Order_of_the_Ivory_Coast

I would finally like to add a supplementary criterion for academic notability: his books have been translated into Japanese, English, German, Italian, and Portuguese, (as noted in the bibliography section of his page)

Thank you.

Wihackett (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wihackett - none of the above meets the notability requirements. In addition, he has incredibly low citation counts (the highest is in the low 30s). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 12:52:52, 6 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Joeneanor

• Joeneanor (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Niall MacMahon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Reviewer

1. You ask for the citations/sources to be set out in line with WIKI policy for the draft WIKI entry for Niall MacMahon. For me this will be technically difficult. 2. So before I further revise the draft entry it would be really helpfully if you could confirm that Niall MacMahon now meets WIKI notability criteria. As you can see from the draft entry, his work has been endorsed by UK publication New Musical Express and Irish publication Hot Press, both of which have their own WIKI entries. Furthermore, Niall's work was produced by the renowned Phillip Chevron, who also has his own WIKI entry.

Many thanks

Joe Neanor Joeneanor (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Joeneanor (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Joeneanor - I'm not seeing anything in the current draft to show that he meets either WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Doesn't mean he's not, it could simply mean that I'm not seeing it, or you haven't put it in the article. Take a look at those two guidelines, and see if he meets any of the criteria. If you think he does, but don't want to put a lot of effort into the article, simply tell me which criteria and why, and I'll let you know what I think. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Undeleting User:Athomeeditor/sandbox (G 13 (TW))

Hi,

I wanted to restore my sandbox, deleted for not being used for six months. I intend to use it soon. I would like to edit out my mistakes, but no longer have the 23,000 of characters I typed in about Brad Myers (which was in my sandbox). I responded to the message from the admin (not you) within two hours, but it was already too late.

I apologize for leaving it so long, but I didn't realize it would disappear. I tried to contact the admin listed,

09:57, 6 April 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Athomeeditor/sandbox (G 13 (TW))

but was unable to find a message link on his Talk page. Also, I requested an Undeletion G13.

Thank you so much for looking at this, and hopefully helping me!

Athomeeditor (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Athomeeditor - I'm not an admin, so I can't restore the sandbox, but I've left a message at the admin's page who deleted it. He should restore it in short order (it's pretty automatic in cases like this). Good luck. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Onel5969! I'll be patient.Athomeeditor (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Query on Citations?

Thank you for your input Sir.

I am in the process of rewriting the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gitanjali_Sinha, in the same context, as you had reviewed it earlier, would like to check if the citations provided are notable enough. I understand that the usage was improper because of an unintentional "Citations Overkill" practice. Wasn't completely aware of it. Will take care in the revised article.

However, would request a response from you on the quality and notability of citations used. Have tried to use the best of information and publications available but would be grateful if you could guide on the same. Nairji (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nairji - unfortunately you're going to run into a problem which is becoming more and more pronounced regarding the film and arts in India: the reliability of what would normally be considered reliable sources. Mainstream media in India has begun to simply regurgitate press releases and masquerade them as news articles. The two articles you have from the Deccan Herald are really the same. They are written by the same author, and carry much of the same language. The other articles, while from different papers, all basically hit the same talking points. That said, they are different enough, that she probably passes notability requirements. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Sir! I am happy to be in touch with you for a simple reason that Wikipedia basics were never made so elaborate and thoughtful before, specifically from my academic interest viewpoint. I would try my best to write and submit a piece that is worthy enough to be included in the article space, however I completely understand that getting it included or not would be a virtue of the content-piece adhering to the Wikipedia guidelines.

Thanks again, highly appreciate your guidance.

Nairji (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 10:15:11, 7 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by 117.239.137.177

• [[User:117%25252E239%25252E137%25252E177%25257Cts%25253D10%25253A15%25253A11%25252C 7 April 2016|117%25252E239%25252E137%25252E177%25257Cts%25253D10%25253A15%25253A11%25252C 7 April 2016]] ([[User talk:117%25252E239%25252E137%25252E177%25257Cts%25253D10%25253A15%25253A11%25252C 7 April 2016|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/117%25252E239%25252E137%25252E177%25257Cts%25253D10%25253A15%25253A11%25252C 7 April 2016|contribs]])
  • Draft:Vishwa Vidyapeeth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Sir, i am new to wikipedia editing. i have created draft page called Vishwa Vidyapiith. It was declined stating that it has promotional actvity. Can i please know what are my mistakes in that article so that i can change the way you want it to be done.

Thank you

117.239.137.177 (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi - the article reads like a promotional brochure for the school. Find references from independent, reliable sources, and then only talk about what they include in their articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I will be here not spaming, promise it. Vishwa Vidyapiith (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Master & Dynamic

Hi. Thanks for reviewing Draft:Master & Dynamic. Can you tell me specifically what reads like an advertisement so I can edit accordingly? (If you look at the edit history you'll see that I went back again and again to remove what I thought might be perceived as hype.) And again, thank you. It sat for a long time. JSFarman2 (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi JSFarman2 - I think you and I have talked about other articles? Your username seems familiar. Anyway, get rid of descriptive language such as "premium" for headphones. Lines like " Levine had previously launched two successful consumer product companies, Team Products International and Lancer & Loader Group" are also promotional in nature (meant to build up the rep for the founder) - not that you can't, or even shouldn't mention those other companies, it's the tone, using "successful", and including too much detail about what type of companies they are. However, since both of those companies aren't notable, you probably shouldn't mention them, something along the lines of "Levine had previously launched two other companies, when he saw an opportunity (or niche, etc) in the headphone market. Based upon designs from the 1940s, he began Master & Dynamic". That's it. The rest is pure promotional backstory. I can't really describe it more than that - Just state facts, don't get into personal details, feelings, insights, commentary. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You reviewed another article I wrote not too long ago and gave me spot-on advice then as you have here. I'll go back and give this another edit. I think I lost perspective...Thank you thank you thank you. Julie JSFarman2 (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 13:31:21, 7 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Coachjohnmckee

• Coachjohnmckee (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:John McKee & Associates Coach Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, made some changes to the article and have already added the references that I use to create it. Please, I would like to know if it works like this.

Thank you.

Coachjohnmckee (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Coachjohnmckee - see Sam Sailor's comments on your draft. Also, it appears you might have a WP:COI issue, so please read that link and take any appropriate steps necessary. I'm not seeing the notability - you might want to read WP:GNG regarding general notability and WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH regarding companies. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

16:29:46, 7 April 2016 review of submission by Raophi

• Raophi (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Usha Datar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for your time to review the submission. I have now updated the references section and hopefully you will find more value in the profile of Smt. Usha Datar.

Smt. Usha Datar is a very accomplished, recognized and felicitated Artiste in karnataka. It's just that given her elderly status, she's not been very active and visible on the new online media. But, if you would do a search on net for "kalamandalam usha datar", you will find many places where she has been recognized and acknowledged as a "Guru" by many of her disciples.

Additionally, Couple of references I'll provide here (you can search her name) where she has been felicitated or mentioned regarding her awards: http://karnatakatemplesyatra.kar.nic.in/homepage/html/Karnataka/culture2.htm http://www.bellevision.com/belle/index.php?action=topnews&type=145

I hope this helps support her qualification and you would now approve the submission.

Thanks, Raophi (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Raophi - not commenting on the notability, but there are two other issues with the article. First, there are no in-line citations (see WP:ILC), which are required in blp's (bios of living persons). Second, there is a huge neutrality issue with the article, which will need to be re-written from a neutral point of view. In addition, we don't use honorifics on Wikipedia, so remove all the smt's, dr's, etc. It also helps if the citations are formatted properly, as per WP:CIT. I haven't looked at the sources, but if they go in-depth about the subject, then it probably meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:NCOLLATH

I made a new proposal at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Proposed replacement for WP:NCOLLATH and based on the earlier discussion we were all having I wanted to put it on your radar.RonSigPi (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

19:48:53, 9 April 2016 review of submission by 98.225.153.222

• 98.225.153.222 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Basketball shoes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for your review. I was aiming for an article that exposed the conflicts and contradictions inherent in the relationships between professional basketball, shoe contracts, and popular culture--to show that there are huge economic incentives driving these relationships which are not always clear to young people who are the main targets of this. Does this make sense? Do you have suggestions how I could do this better?

Thanks!

Hi. I think the issue with your concept is that it is original research, or at least synthesis. Rather than a standalone article, you could probably include cited material in the current sneakers article, in the section "Sneaker culture". Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Pastrami on rye

On 10 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pastrami on rye, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the pastrami on rye sandwich has come to be a symbol of the classic New York Jewish deli? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pastrami on rye. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Edward Cronjager

The article Edward Cronjager you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Edward Cronjager for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Johanna -- Johanna (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

19:30:45, 10 April 2016 review of submission by Cndrblck

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

I do not understand what standard is being applied for notability here. The podcast is hosted by two people each with their own Wikipedia pages, so as a thing that they have done it should be notable just based on that. But if that's not enough, the podcast has been referenced by The Daily Show, Vanity Fair, etc. Their guest include lots of people who are notable in the film business -- even breaking news about Game of Thrones (noted by Vanity Fair) -- and they've done events for the Academy (the people that do the Oscars).

Previous rejections asked for additional references, which I provided. What is being asked for now? It's unclear to me how a podcast mentioned on The Daily Show isn't notable.

Cndrblck (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cndrblck - regarding inherited notability - nope. In fact, that's one of the biggest misconceptions. Mentions are by their very nature, trivial. Wikipedia requires in-depth coverage from reliable, secondary, independent sources. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it does not help, because that wasn't the only thing I mentioned. Is The Daily Show not a reliable, secondary, independent source? What about the Washington Post? What about Vanity Fair? What about the fact that it was listed as one of the 11 best podcasts about film by MTV? Is the podcast not notable for breaking news about Game of Thrones?

You did not answer my question, so I will ask it again -- What is being asked for? I cannot, for the life of me, fathom how this isn't considered notable.

Cndrblck (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Then please re-read the part where I mention in-depth. None of which the items you mention are. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

What does in-depth mean? The Daily Show extracted audio from the podcast, put a picture of one of the hosts up on the screen, and then talked about what he said as part of a 5 minute long segment. The MTV article says exactly why they included the podcast on the list. The Vanity Fair article is entirely about something that was said on the podcast. What is the standard for "in-depth" that you are using? Cndrblck (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, I just checked both https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web) and neither mention "in-depth" coverage AT ALL. The actual rule is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Bolding is from the original. Every single one of those items has been met. Suitability should be presumed! Cndrblck (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

This isn't an argument. in-depth and significant are the same thing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's suppose I grant you that in-depth and significant mean the same thing (they don't, but if you believe that fine): What is the standard for in-depth that you are using?

I ask not to have an argument, but because I do not understand how you can look at the article and its references and conclude that requirement has not been met. If I am unable to understand what standard you are using, I am unable to determine how to fix the article, let alone if the article should be deleted (because it will never meet that standard). Cndrblck (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

15:32:55, 11 April 2016 review of submission by 38.108.203.163

• 38.108.203.163 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Charles Porter Stevenson, Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Onel5969,

We went in and neutralized the tone of this submission, added some additional news and reliable source coverage, and restyled some of the prose to be more encyclopedic in nature. We also corrected some of the citations. We hope this addresses your concerns - feel free to let us know if you have any other suggested changes before the article is posted.

Thanks very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.108.203.163 (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Who exactly is "we"? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

hi Onel5969, thanks for your thanks over my edit on SwisterTwister's talkpage

Coolabahapple (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Coolabahapple - no worries. SwisterTwister gets a lot of crap on his talk page. In spite of this, he continues on, and even finds time to respond to some queries here on my talk page, which I greatly appreciate. So I watch his talk page, basically to help him deal with trolls. However, I saw that comment, and was trying to formulate a coherent response, when you beat me to the punch. And said it very succinctly and to the point. Nicely done. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

01:58:36, 12 April 2016 review of submission by Maok3

• Maok3 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:David Mullins (jockey) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, when you have time please take another look on Draft:David Mullins (jockey) article. Cheers, Maok3 (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Maok3 - It's in much better shape. I think he may pass the notability requirements (although it might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. But if not, he's very close. I won't review again at this point. To me, the article has a very informal tone not suitable for an encyclopedia. It reads more like an intro speech rather than an article. There's some verbiage which sounds like commentary like "caught him wrong-footed". Encyclopedia articles aren't so colorful. They are dry, simply stating facts. Another reviewer might see it differently, which is why I won't review it, but my guess is that most will have the same viewpoint as mine, so you might want to try to re-write it in a more neutral, less story-telling tone. But the structure and formatting are well done. I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. Will replace those phrases and try to make it more neutral. Best regards, Maok3 (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 05:03:25, 12 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by ZZE128

• ZZE128 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:NEMICON CORPORATION (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Messrs. Onel5969

Thank you for your helping. The 3-reference documents are Japanese only, I add the NEWS TOKYO's URL.

If the 3-document are no-need, could you remove them?

Best Regards ZZE128

ZZE128 (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

11:38:36, 12 April 2016 review of submission by Jordang8134

• Jordang8134 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jordan Gray (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

12:49:04, 12 April 2016 review of submission by Charlotsa

• Charlotsa (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Asante Capital (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Have checked the source code of all similar groups, and unclear why they are allowed to have pages and Asante Capital is not (given Asante has far more sources). Please see Campbell_Lutyens, _UBS, Probitas_Partners and Credit_Suisse. It appears these groups are sourcing in the exact same format. Please advise, thank you! Really appreciate your help!

Hi Charlotsa - Please read WP:GNG, WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH on how to show the notability (not success or accomplishments) of a corporation. Read WP:CIT on how to properly format citations, and WP:RS on what constitutes reliable sources. Trivial mentions, interviews and routine coverage don't show notability. In addition, after you find the appropriate sources, then the article will need to be rewritten to get rid of the promotional content (e.g. investor relationships, non-notable awards, etc.). Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

13:52:53, 12 April 2016 review of submission by 76.21.174.109

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

Can you please be a little more specific on why this submission was declined?

Not enough in-depth references from reliable, independent sources. Once that is fixed, the article, albeit brief, has a promotional aspect to it which will need to be corrected. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind action

Dear One15969,

I have added some references to the Draft: Tehreek-e-Dastak Pakistan..

Please check if it fulfills the Criteria needed by you or yet to be edited & referenced more?

RegardsMzl azakheli (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mzl azakheli - You need at least 3 references which go in-depth about the organization, which are from independent, reliable sources. In addition, you'll need to have inline citations (see WP:ILC), and you'll need to re-write the article to remove the promotional tone. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

15:35:47, 12 April 2016 review of submission by RV1348

• RV1348 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Raffaldini Vineyards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

The Raffaldini Vineyard is part of the Yadkin Valley AVA along with the vineyards below that have approved Wikipedia pages.

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

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

Raffaldini vineyard is notable because it is also apart of the National Wildlife Foundation, President Obama has gifted his wine, and it is a popular tourist destination in North Carolina.

Hi RV1348 - No, it's not. Please read the guidelines on notability to understand what is or is not notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I've read through the guidelines and it does meet the criteria. I can see how it reads trivial by putting the section about Obama delivering the wine, and can remove that.

Yadkin Valley AVA has a wikipedia, as do vineyards in it.. why is Raffaldini not considered notable if they are?

Here's an article with both mentioned:

https://www.pratesiliving.com/raffaldini-childress-vineyards-wines-of-the-yadkin-valley-in-north-carolina/

Notability is not inherited. You need 3-5 in-depth articles from independent, reliable sources about the vineyard, and not all of them can be local/regional coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Got it! Thank you One15969. I'll get the non local/regional sources for you.

16:05:35, 12 April 2016 review of submission by Susan.p.ashdown

• Susan.p.ashdown (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Susan Margaret Watkins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am not sure if you got my earlier request. I have found more references, and believe firmly that Prof. Watkins is notable as defined under 'notable academics', who as the Wiki page indicates, are often not the subject of extensive biographical references. I have, however found more references. I had asked in my earlier email to have you look at this again, but as I have not heard from you, I will re-submit for general review. Thank you!

Just sent you an email about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Susan_Margaret_Watkins because I sent a message earlier and had not heard back, but am submitting again for general review. I believe that Prof. Watkins is notable based on the Wiki guidelines that state that academic notables are not often the subject of extensive biographical refernces Thank you.Susan.p.ashdown (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Susan.p.ashdown - don't see where you've ever left me a message before. Regardless, the article suffers from several issues. First, notability. There is not enough coverage from independent (so Cornell, UMN, and stuff written by her don't count), reliable (so blogs don't count), which is in-depth. The only other reference doesn't even mention Watkins. Second, tone. The article is very promotional in tone, with many pumped up claims (seminal, foremost, etc). Third (and this is the smallest issue) is structure and formatting (you can look at WP:MOS and MOS:LAYOUT regarding how to correct the issues with the body of the article, and WP:CIT on how to properly format citations. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

	Thanks!
	Thank you for your helpful answer at the Teahouse! Elsa Enchanted (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Elsa Enchanted! No worries. Don't be afraid to ask questions. Happy editing! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

How to cope as an contributing editor

How did you face the rejection of all those articles you have created. The time you have spend...and the response you got...etc. I would like to know how you keep it up. 117.241.21.168 (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)117.242.253.32 (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi 117.242.253.32 - first, I suggest you create an account. It costs nothing, and helps keep track of the stuff you work on. Then, always remember to log on . Second, learn from experience. I've made lots of mistakes. Early on, for example, I came perilously close to edit-warring, before I understood and embraced the concept of consensus-building. But when you make mistakes, try to learn from them, and always be civil and respectful. When you get into discussions with other editors, focus on the content, not on the editor. Third, always look to improve. Sometimes that's adding citations from WP:RS, other times it's wikilinking, sometimes its article creation, even if it's a stub, in order to get rid of a redlink. The majority of the articles I created are either stubs or start class. Even though something is notable, and many times it's automatically notable, but there aren't a lot of sources out there with info on the subject. For example, a lot of my populated places are mere stubs, but they are as fleshed out as I can make them. I always add an infobox, and put as much info in it that I can glean from credible sources. Sometimes I create a stub with the intent to go back and flesh it out, as I did with a lot of film articles. Now I'm going back and trying to get most of them to at least C class. A lot of my work involves anti-vandalism. Fourth, and most importantly, try not to get caught up in the drama. It's easy to get your nose out of joint, to take something personally. I do. But when I do, I walk away. After giving it some thought, I may or may not respond, but I try to do so civilly. Lastly, learn the rules. There aren't many, but the ones that exist, exist for a reason (notability, reliable sources, bios of living people, civility). And try and learn the formatting techniques. Don't be afraid to ask questions. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.117.215.195.159 (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 14:29:52, 13 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Bibliothecarian

• Bibliothecarian (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Arthur L. Goldstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! Thank you for taking the time to review my article on Arthur L. Goldstein. I had a couple of follow up questions that shouldn't take too much time to answer (I hope!).

First, the issue of notability has come up and the need for independent sources to demonstrate that. My sources range from Boston Globe, NYT, Fortune, some books but many of the articles are older and not readily available online since they are hiding behind a paywall. I've looked at other comparable Wikipedia entries for and I confess I see some that are clearly better and some that are not as robust so I am not sure what the elusive element is in my article. Do you have any suggestions about what I might be missing?

Second, the company, Ionics, was at the forefront of a sustainable technology for the desalinzation process. With currently issues like climate change and population pressures, this technology will likely garner more attention than ever before. I notice Ionics doesn't have a page, however. Does this affect Goldstein's notability issue?

Thank you for your time. I appreciate your insight!

Regards, B. Bibliothecarian (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bibliothecarian - First, don't worry about other articles, that's an argument called other stuff exists. WP is run by volunteers, and there's a lot of crap out there. That being said, if you can find an article about a similar subject, that is rated GA or FA, those are the articles you want to emulate. They are "Good" or "Fine" quality articles.

Second, some folks confuse "accomplished" with notable. This is a pretty easy thing to confuse, but the two are not synonymous. You can be accomplished, but not notable (which I would currently put Goldstein in, at the moment), and likewise you can be notable without being accomplished (think of the stupid Kardashian clan). One of the weaknesses of WP is that it bases the ability to enter an article on notability, not accomplishment. It's a necessary weakness, however, since it is run by volunteers, and notability is easier to determine than accomplishments. And the baseline for notability is whether or not there have been several (usually at least 3) in-depth articles written on the subject from independent, reliable, secondary sources (usually books, magazines or peer-reviewed journals).

Sources do not need online access, that simply makes it easier for reviewers and researchers to check the veracity of the article. But if you do, please make sure to include all relevant information as per WP:CIT.

Third, no, it makes no difference about the company, since notability is not inherited. However, if the company is notable, that wouldn't hurt. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

01:16:04, 14 April 2016 review of submission by Mdragoiu

• Mdragoiu (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Billy Tuchscher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Onel5969, I have revised the biography to show credible "non-biased" notable sourced newspapers with citations. Will you please kindly review and accept or advise any changes needed in order to proceed? I greatly appreciate all of your help in advance. Warmest Personal Wishes, Monique (Mdragoiu (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC))

Hi Mdragoiu - Will respond on your draft page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Clumsiness

This edit was utterly misguided and close to vandalism. You could see what you had just done. Why did you not simply reverse the move? Your speedy tag on Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions-recent/5 was equally wrong. I suggest you find out how this page combination works before you make any more intemperate deletion proposals. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi RHaworth - Obviously I didn't see it that way, especially since there were two "drafts" very similarly created. I thought that the editor had simply copy paste from Teahouse and created a draft article somehow (hence my edit summary). Still not sure exactly what happened to make them appear as drafts awaiting for approval. But thank you so much for AGF, and your wonderful, pleasant and civil tone. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

17:39:51, 14 April 2016 review of submission by ToyFJ

• ToyFJ (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Aware, Inc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, can you please advise on how this article might be improved? It seems to be more notable and better referenced than the vast majority of company articles I have read. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Aware,_Inc ToyFJ (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi ToyFJ - First off, don't worry about other articles, that's an argument called other stuff exists, and isn't valid in this instance. Second, your article suffers from two issues. First, it's promotional. Be wary of phrases like "Aware's many innovations", stay away from thoughts and intents - simply state facts. Also, many of the assertions you make in the article are unsourced. After the many innovations remark, for example, you provide a list of accomplishments, without sourcing. H. L. Resnikoff can't be used, since he appears to have some relationship to the company. Second is notability. What you need are independent, reliable sources which talk in-depth about the company. Right now, you do have those types of sources, but their coverage is more of a routine nature (e.g. they sold this, they bought that). Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for Correcting me Sir

Dear One15969,

I have made the corrections to the Draft:Purplehed_Records

I request you to kindly check, if it meets the guidelines now and I am really sorry for my mistake, Its my first article, thank you for the patience. Feel free to give any constructive criticism as I have long way to go in order to Understand Wikipedia :) I assure I will do my best to correct myself.

Thanks and Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Catrat999 - still has a pretty big neutrality/informalness issue. But you've already resubmitted, so lets let another editor take a crack at it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)\

Thank you Onel5969 Sir, So sorry to disappoint you for the second time, With this I clearly conclude I need more examples to understand this rule. I will check for help at Teahouse to fix neutrality issue, meanwhile if any update appears on my draft from another editor would you be interested in reviewing it again especially once I fix issues given by others too? I appreciate your time for guiding me . Thanks for help. Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Rigobert Roger Andely

Hello,

The biography i've submitted is about a well known minister in the Republic of Congo. As i mentioned in the draft, his predecessor and his successor are already on wikipedia, so i don't get why he shouldn't be. Thanks to take a second look at it. page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rigobert_Roger_Andely 01021981aka (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)01021981aka

00:18:42, 18 April 2016 review of submission by 75.165.32.149

• 75.165.32.149 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jon Lewis (cartoonist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I modeled https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jon_Lewis_(cartoonist) on the Wikipedia pages of other cartoonists who are contemporaries of Jon Lewis. I still don't understand why they are all considered important enough to be included in Wikipedia, but Jon Lewis is not. I have provided more references for Jon Lewis than are listed for David Lasky, for example. I have added two more references and would like to have this content re-reviewed. Thank you.

I'm adding an addendum to this note because I have now had time to read your talk page and learn that the "other stuff" argument is not acceptable. I have read guidelines and followed them as well as I am able. Unfortunately, I still don't understand how a published book listed as among the best on TIME.com is not notable.

Thank you for your patience with me.97.126.21.19 (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The Time listing shows notability for the book, but an author has to have more than one best seller. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 05:12:22, 18 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Wikiuser music

• Wikiuser music (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Rupak Kulkarni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Onel,

Thanks for your review of my article draft : Rupak Kulkarni

I have collected few articles in the form of pdf. Can I send it to you ? Also note that top Grade artist of All India Radio is very rare in India and its already accomplished by Rupak Kulkarni. Fortunately I also have copy of the letter from Akashwani (All India Radiio). I can send that copy as well to you if you are fine with that.

Looking forward for your reply. I have edited article to more neutrality based on suggestions from Teahouse team.

Thanks and regards, Amit Wikiuser music (talk) 05:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC) wikiuser_music

Wikiuser music (talk) 05:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wikiuser music - Articles do not have to be available online, that simply makes it easier for reviewers and potential researchers to access them. But if you included offline sources, please make sure you included all necessary information as per WP:CITE. It also helps if you have properly formatted your citations as per WP:CIT. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding "edit" tab/feature to edit articles

Hi Onel5969,

I notice I am unable to edit entries and AfC submissions using the Edit tab. This seems to have happened just four days ago --- before that, there appeared an "edit" tab at the top right side of my screen, to make edits easy. Now it is gone! Instead, I only see an "Edit source" tab, which I can use to make edits but is much more cumbersome and difficult than using the easy editor "Edit" tab feature.

Have you ever encountered this problem when editing? If so, any advice/suggestions on what to do?

Cheers, ChopSticksChan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code 8 (2017 film)

While all are in agreement that an article on the projected 2017 film is premature, there is the general consensus that an article on the current short could be notable enough... that understood, the article has been edited and re-titled to be ABOUT the 2016 film. And since the corrected article is no longer about an unmade film, my own stance is that with these changes the article can now be kept as Code 8 and the projected 2017 film as a topic can be dealt with if and or when it happens. Pretty much for now we need only deal with a film which exists and is sourcable... and even the original nominator supports this view. Care to revisit the discussion? Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi MichaelQSchmidt - took another look, and nothing has really changed since I responded to NA's comment. It looks like you have an article with only 2 reliable sources, and one of those is an interview, hence not eligible for discerning notability. That leaves a single reliable source going to notability, which in my estimation does not rise to the level required by WP:GNG. I think the work done on the article is admirable, but not enough to sway my !vote. Thanks for the heads up, however, and take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you look at what was taken to AFD as premature for a 2017 film, and then compare it to the one now about a released 2016 film, it's kind of easy to see the article's focus has changed. And looking beyond what was used, I am able to see more than one source speaking toward the topic directly and in detail. So I believe it is a suitable stub... but maybe that's just me. Thank you though and have a great day. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

IE: To meet WP:GNG and WP:NF, I see we have multiple more-than-trivial coverage which addresses the topic directly and in detail: International Business Times, Entertainment Weekly, I09, Comicbook.com, MoviesRoom (Poland). Coming Soon, Crowdfund Insider'', Deadline, Da Endgadet (German), Journal Du Geek (French), Observatorio Do Cinema (Portuguese), Sensacine (Spanish), Tomatazos (Spanish), and more... but maybe that's just me. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Barnstar yay! Pachisu124 (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Pachisu124!

08:21:25, 20 April 2016 review of submission by Mara.ispas

• Mara.ispas (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Henley & Partners Visa Restrictions Index (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, please can you inform me specifically which sources you are refering to in the draft Henley & Partners Visa Restrictions Index page? I will apreciate any advice and help you can provide in order to get this page live. Thank you!

Mara.ispas (talk) 08:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mara.ispas - you've already re-submitted, so I'll let another reviewer take a crack at it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

11:06:01, 20 April 2016 review of submission by 217.156.212.1

• 217.156.212.1 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Victim Awareness Course (VAC) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

Could you give some advice/support on how to improve the notability of this submission? Following previous feedback we added a number of external references to the Victim Awareness Course in the media and reports but we've received the same feedback about the references not showing the subject's notability.

Any advice you can give on how to improve this will be gratefully received!

Thanks

Hi. There are two issues with the draft. First is the absence of independent, in-depth articles about the course from reliable sources. Right now you have 3 references, and 2 are from the organization itself. Second, the article is written from a non-neutral, informal point of view. Avoid commentary, don't tell us intentions or thought processes. Just state facts. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Romeo Mancini

Hi Onel5969,

I have added many notes to the draft about Romeo Mancini https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Romeo_Mancini, and eliminated the terms that I thought weren't neutral enough. Could you please tell me, before I submit it again, if it is ok now? If not, could you please indicate me what exactly is still not good, so I change it? Thank you for your help, Anna Lisa --Anna Lisa33 (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Anna Lisa33 - it's not just words or phrases, it's the entire tone of the article. You're not writing a story, you're writing an article. An encyclopedia article. Take this phrase: "In the years before the outbreak of the Second World War, Mancini attended the Accademia di Belle Arti di Perugia. There, Mancini studied and met another student who also became an artist, Leoncillo Leonardi. Some years later, while recalling the period he spent with Mancini at the Accademia di Belle Arti di Perugia, Leonardi wrote:" Very informal, telling a story. It could be: "Prior to World War II, Mancini attended Accademia di Belle Arti di Perugia, where he began a friendship with Leoncillo Leonardi." See the difference? Right now, the article is written in that mode. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Onel,

Yes I Have understood, I think I had worked on that, that phrase you mentioned has disappeard a long while ago. I think I have changed a lot on the tone. Why did you mentioned me a phrase that is not anymore in the draft? Could you please have a look now since I think I have reworked on the phrases that sounded like a story and not an article tone? What I am not sure about, and if u are referring to this as well is about the painting description. But I guess for artists this is present in each wikipedia article. Could you please have a look now?

Anna Lisa33 (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad! That phrase was still there!!! anyway ehm yes I guess I have a problem here. I can see a bit of difference, but I guess mine wasn't badly written or informal..... I guess it was nicer actually. I am seriously stating to be afraid that I am not going to make it. I mean why it sounded like a story and not an article? which kind of newspaper do you read? Just kidding! I guess I need serious help here. Kind regards, Anna Lisa33 (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Anna Lisa33. You have done a lot of work on the article, and now there appear to be at least 2 editors who are assisting you on re-crafting the article, both of whom are very good editors. Listen to their advice, look at the edits they make. I think the article will make it now, after some more work with some of the remaining issues. Good luck, and don't be afraid to ask questions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Onel, Thank you! ok, I will do my best! Anna Lisa33 (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Geanna Merola

Hello, In the page you rejected I had added many references and believe that everything is cited and should be published. Can you please let me know specifically what changes need to be made in order for approval? The draft is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Geanna_Merola Thank you in advance. Toulatoula (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Toulatoula

Hi Toulatoula - I didn't go through each of your references, but the vast majority of them are not independent of the subject (e.g. her website, brookdalecc.edu, wbjb.org, drumthwacket, bahdeebahdu, printcenter, inliquid), Trove doesn't mention her, and the Asbury Park article is a brief mention of her. In addition the endless lists of non-notable stuff make her look even weaker. Only the 2 NJ State things are worth anything from the grants section, the entire professional invitations needs to go; I'd pick the 5 most prestigious solo exhibitions, if there are 5; same with the group exhibitions; the entire articles/etc. section needs to go; and the vast majority of the permanent collections section needs to go. Any that remain need sources. Bottom line, however, is that you're confusing accomplished with notable. To show notability you need at least 3 in-depth articles about her from independent, reliable sources. Right now you have zero. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 14:06:41, 20 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Jeffpost

• Jeffpost (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Petros Stathis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Onel5969! I am writing you about my recent article submission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Petros_Stathis that you rejected. Could you give me specific examples about what I should change in my Wiki? I think I have already included references to reliable, substantive news coverage of the subject. If one of my references refers something that it can be a "peacock" term I cant use it? I should paraphrase it? For example, in my Wiki of Petros Stathis I write "Aman Sveti Stefan is often considered as one of the best spas and one of the best hotels for honeymoon in the world." which is based on the article of Telegraph here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/hotels/articles/The-worlds-50-best-honeymoon-hotels-and-destinations/ Any advice would be very helpful. Thank you!

Jeffpost (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jeffpost - Just state facts. The example you use above is perfect. What you wrote is commentary, based on your interpretation of an underlying article. A neutral statement about the same source is "In January 2016, Aman Sveti Stefan was included on a list of the top 50 honeymoon destinations." See the difference? Yours broadens the significance (which is promotional), mine states a simple fact. You're obviously a fan of Stathis, and sometimes it is difficult to write objectively about people we admire. There are a lot of little things in your article which come across as non-neutral, here are a few (but by no means comprehensive) examples: "Since 2014 Petros Stathis on his own initiative and with the assistance of his bank he managed to sponsor nine orphan children aged 3-5 years which they have given a significant amount at the highest interest deposited to the bank", "and ex famous model", "He supports farmers, producers, and food system entrepreneurs who don’t have access to traditional sources of growth capital by making small loans to them."; and "also owner of plots in the winter resort of Kolasin in Montenegro where upmarket villas will be built in."

On the positive side, the section about Dnevne Novine, while complimentary, is not promotional. It simply reports the underlying fact covered in the independent source. That section, however, does need more sourcing, for example, you need a source showing that Stathis established the paper. This guy is definitely notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Go through the draft a couple more times and try to make it as neutral as you can. Take your time, this isn't a race. When you think you're ready to resubmit, I'll be more than happy to take another look. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Marc D. Grossman

Hey,

I have a question regarding the references of and article I recently submitted. They are all independent and the subject had notoriety (including major publications and I think the Golden rule has been followed). Why does it say they are not? Should I be improving how they are cited?

Here is the article for creation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Marc_D._Grossman

Albert

Albertkole (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Albertkole - most of the references you use are what are called "non-independent", in other words the sources have some connection to the subject of the article (e.g. Sanders Firm, nystla, esquirebank, pntla, Trial Guides, etc). The references you have from independent sources (WSJ, Bloomberg, Reuters, NYP) are only trivial mentions of Grossman. As happens frequently in cases of limited notability like this one, in an attempt to show him as notable, the article reads more like an advertisement for him, rather than an article about him. A Google News Search turned up zero about him (well, it turned up 2 hits, but both were press releases). Admittedly, I did a quick search, so there might be others out there, and I used the "D.", simply using it without the D returned too many other Grossmans named Marc. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha and thank you!

There are indeed plenty more mentions that are more significant in nature. Marc Grossman is also an Ambassador so it's burdensome to find any other Grossman under the broad search. You're right, it does read a bit more ad like than it should. The reason the guy is notable is A) He represents the most amount of Mass Tort clients in the United States and B) He is on more Steering Committees than any other attorney in the United States. So he has pretty much changed the industry in how it handles volume and how a Mass Tort Law firm can be operated.

Everyone in our profession knows who he is based on these facts but it's difficult to gather enough sources to properly bolster these statements outside of PACER court docs that are generally limited to strictly attorneys. I'll see if these are publicly available in some form so I can reference them.

Hopefully I can start editing other attorney pages as well, great to contribute!

Albert

Albertkole (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

What should I fix?

Hello, I sent in an article to be reviewed last night and it was declined. I am not sure what to fix, and since you were the one who reviewed it, I figured that you could maybe tell me what I did wrong in the article. Everything is from a reliable source, and I put it in my own words. Thanks! Oh and it is an article about Alison Stroming.Page title or URLhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alison_Stroming

Fluffypillow16 (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fluffypillow16 - First you need to show notability - that will take at least 3 in-depth references from independent, reliable sources. Second, you need sources to validate any assertions you make in the article. Third, you need to work on the structure and formatting. I've added some links to the draft that you can read through, and should help you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Arena Football Hall of Fame

I finally got around to adding a few more sources to the Arena Football Hall of Fame page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Arena_Football_Hall_of_Fame — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhb55840 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Revert promotional

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WordPress&diff=716489433&oldid=716484973

Howdy there,

Saw you reverted my change for "rev promotional"

what is the promotional in reference to? My link was to cite the wordpress.com website and it links to wordpress which is the topic at hand.

thanks Centurytreedesigns (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Because it's a highly promotional insertion of content designed to promote the website, written in highly promotional tones. On a page which is already waaaaaay too promotional in tone. Other than that, not much. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week : nominations needed!

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Article to review

Dear Onel5969,

I've recently submitted an article for review : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rigobert_Roger_Andely

But it was denied because "it does not show the subject notability". We've provided multiple reliable references and his successor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifique_Issoïbeka) has the same accomplishement .. even less but his page is published. Also, we were able to have this article published in french(https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigobert_Roger_Andely), this is just the english version of the french one. Does this mean that wikipedia has a different set of rules per language of the same articles? Please review this one again.

Thank you in advance. 01021981aka (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi 01021981aka - You've asked several questions. First, regarding other folks of the same level, that's an argument known as other stuff exists, and isn't a valid argument in this case. Second, while another editor has passed the article to the mainspace with the rationale that his position makes him notable, that's incorrect, and doesn't follow WP:NPOL guidelines. Third, yes, English Wikipedia has much more rigorous standards than any of the other wikis. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Monica Lavín

You recently rejected this Draft article for reasons I find baffling. A newbie has submitted article several time for inclusion and we have helped her with software issue and she has submitted text, that still needs some work, that is stuffed with notable references. Could you explain to all of us what the objection is? Do you not speak Spanish? Have you never used the Irish Times?

Here is a copy of the references- could you explain for each one of them why they breech the criteria. I am looking for two notable references to qualify as substantial and thus to justify an article- additional references are helpful but don't need to be so rigourous verified.

The whole thing is important as we are short of coverage of Latin-American literature, and we have issues with gender balance and editor retention. The goalposts need to be clear. Can we use this incident to help draw up some further advice. --ClemRutter (talk) 09:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure ClemRutter - First, there was no reason to include the citations above, so I've removed them. I can look at them in the draft. Indeed, it's easier there, since they contain weblinks. #1 (and #6 - they are the same and should be combined - I did this one to give you an example) is not independent; #2 is a brief mention; #3 is a non-reliable source (YouTube); and #8 is an interview, which by definition is a primary source, and therefore cannot be used to establish notability. This leaves only a single reference (#4, #5 & #7 - again, same reference). Therefore, there's only a single reference that goes to notability. You'd need at least 3 of that caliber in order to show notability. One last thing, there's no need to be confrontational as you were in your above comment. That's not inducive to garnering a response. Think about it. If I had answered in the same tone, "Is English not your first language? Haven't you taken the time to read Wikipedia guidelines?" How would that have made you feel? Would that have led to a productive interchange? Regardless, hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely agree about my tone- that was totally wrong. I was trying to get this out of the way quickly- while juggling a plumber who was fixing a leak in the cellar, giving train directions to a non-English speaking friend of a friend who was late in getting to the airport- and life in general. I have already assisted this new editor who was having her edits mauled by Visual Editor, so we need to be very careful that she doesn't just give up. Lo siento! Do pop over for a beer at my place sometime.

You are requiring three sources to establish notability - that is important to know, as we can explain that to any trainees. I had always said two was sufficient if they were strong enough like La Revista.

We are attempting to establish the existence of the person, not a concept or idea. For inclusion we have to establish she is known, and has produced significant work.

• -#8 establishes that she is notable enough to have been invited to literary festival in a different continent- the content of the interview is extra material (primary source etc, etc) Key words "with bestselling Mexican author Monica Lavin" that a lone alerts me she needs to be included.
• -#1/6- yes, commercial link- but good enough to verify most of the book list in the article. The text is from an Spanish not Mexican site- explains she is a prize winning author- and writes for a notable Mexican Journal and is an academic (this provides the secondary source verifying #4 and #7 ).
• -#3- Is just padding.

The next three cannot be dismissed as being the same page, though ultimately they are all hosted on unam.mx. Other lands - other customs

• -#4- is Despertar los apetitos by Alberto Ruy Sánchez
• -#5- is a literary analysis by Ángel Vargas, in a supplement to La Journada about another of her books
• -#7--is a small author biography from La Revista de la UM- Quien somos explains La Revista de la Universidad de México es la publicación universitaria en circulación más antigua del país. Poco después de lograda la autonomía universitaria, en noviembre de 1930 se retomó la publicación del Boletín de la Universidad de México, que había fundado el rector José Vasconcelos en 1922-- En sus páginas han colaborado generaciones sucesivas de intelectuales, artistas y científicos mexicanos, por lo que constituye un referente central para el estudio de las fuentes literarias, académicas e intelectuales del México contemporáneo.

I claim only a cursory reading knowledge of Spanish- and I had already got this far before I responded. When the references have been read and assessed I see overwelming notability in 4,5,7 and 8. We need to get this article into mainspace so other editors can wikify it. The references seem to give a lot of leads to other authors requiring articles. --ClemRutter (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Author is clearly notable. She has been covered in the Mexican Ministry of Cultural's Encyclopedia [1], and interviewed in depth by many of the largest newspapers in Mexico. [2], [3], [4] all of which confirm her multiple awards and contributions. Does not appear to be a matter of not meeting notability, but one of not meeting the proper MOS in documenting same. I have no idea whether I can edit a draft that is at AfC, nor why an editor would reject a draft rather than try to verify (maybe that is the procedure which I admit I am clueless about?). As I live in Mexico and write many articles about Mexican women for English WP, I was asked to look at the draft. The author is notable and deserves a place in mainspace, having received the National Literature Prize Gilberto Owen, National Novel Prize Jorge Ibargüengoitia, and the Ibero-american Novel Prize Elena Poniatowska. SusunW (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi SusunW - just so you are aware, I responded to the initial query, but because of that editor's tone, have ceased to have the smallest interest in this topic. Have the editors resubmit the article. Good luck with it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. I would be glad to help improve the references, I just don't really know how AfC works. SusunW (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

SusunW - Simply after you correctly format the references, hit the resubmit button. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Weird, I didn't get your last ping, but was coming here to tell you that I moved her to mainspace. No point in AfC editors reviewing it further since there are multiple full articles on her. I redid the sourcing, added categories, added WikiProjects and linked her to the Spanish and French entries. Thanks for your help. Sorry for the confusion. SusunW (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

14:05:23, 23 April 2016 review of submission by 76.208.150.8

• 76.208.150.8 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Michael L. Fink (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi -- I don't understand why the my references are not good enough to verify the notability of the subject. My primary source: The "Internet Movie Database" (imdb.com) is the prime source for professional credits on filmmaking in the world. The other source is the Faculty Directory at the University of Southern California, an institution started more than 125 years ago and which hosts the oldest film school in the nation, founded in 1926. 76.208.150.8 (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)tom abrams

Hi. imdb.com is not a reliable source, except for rare, very limited circumstances, it's never used as a reference. And Fink is connected with USC, therefore that type of reference is good for backing up assertions made in the article, but has zero value for notability purposes. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Onel5969 -- This barnstar is to recognize your fine and tasty edits on Wikipedia. Thank you for all you do and the time dedicated to this project. Cheers! CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 19:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, CookieMonster755! Nice to see you back. Take it easy! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 19:38:34, 23 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Netherzone

• Netherzone (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Nade Haley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear User:Onel5969,

I have worked on the Draft on the late artist, Nade Haley. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nade_Haley

Subject's notability is established via sources/citations including: Princeton Architectural Press, National Endowment for the Arts, Artforum magazine, Art International, H.N. Abrams publishers, Washington Project for the Arts, Islip Art Museum, Socrates Sculpture Park and others. This artist has 40 years professional experience in public art, and many gallery and museum exhibitions. Was a full Professor of Art for 30+ years at the top art school in the U.S. Please reconsider your review stating that subject lacks notability. Thank you kindly in advance. Netherzone (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC) Netherzone (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

G. Gordon Liddy edits

You mention that my edit has been reversed "often enough", but you failed to notice that it is open proxies that are doing the reversal. There's a good reason that open proxies aren't allowed to edit. It because even veteran editors like yourself can be fooled into thinking there is consensus when none exits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.224.185 (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Never said there was consensus, and never said it shouldn't be added. What I said was it should be discussed on the talk page and consensus reached before it is re-added. But folks with an obvious agenda, like yourself, can fool yourselves into thinking almost anything. Don't bother responding, any further comments from you are unwanted on this talk page and will be deleted without reading. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

W17

Regarding this notice, Wordseventeen is now indeffed for socking while blocked. It would seem unlikely they will be doing anything to the draft, therefore, speedy delete is appropriate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Maury M. Cohen

Regarding article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maury_M._Cohen I am Maury Cohen's grandson. I edited the article about him. It was reverted by you on 4/16/16. Please let me know how I can get the changes I made accepted. It seems that IMDB was used as a source for this article. The info there is also wrong. Garuanonturna Garuanocturna (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Garuanocturna - I created the article about Cohen, when I was researching about C and I, and saw that there wasn't one about him. Actually, I rarely use imdb.com as a source, since it is highly unreliable. I do use it to point me in a direction of research. Much more do I rely on periodicals of that period, such as The Film Bulletin, Motion Picture Daily, The Film Daily, Variety, etc. And that's what I did in the case of Cohen.

Your edits are what is called original research, and is pretty much always reverted. The fact that some of what you said about Cohen contradicted information which had been published about him, also might lead one to think your claim to be his grandson is not true. That being said, when I was writing the article, I did find the dearth of information about Cohen from the 1950s on as somewhat strange. The only information I was able to find on that period came from the obit of his widow, Bonnie Key.

If you have access to published information about Cohen, which comes from reliable sources, I'll be more than happy to update the article. For example, do you have access to his obituary? Any other articles about him? Books? Let me know. If something is incorrect in the article, we definitely want the right information there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Your thoughts

Thanks for the ping thanks O. It is possible that I was wrong (not the first or last time I'm sure) about my edit. Please see this User talk:MarnetteD#Howard Da Silva. At worst it'll mean I have to watch the film again and there is never anything wrong with that :-) MarnetteD|Talk 00:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

MarnetteD - I was leaving a message for you on your talk page in that section, lol. Let me know your thoughts. I saw this film about a month ago, but there are so many cameos, for the life of me I can't remember about Da Silva. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I know you will have seen my posts on my talk page. I'll add that he might be in the restored footage which just adds to my reasons for seeing it again. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 00:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

ACC

• acc:169435. -- Cheers, Riley 02:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• acc:169452. -- Cheers, Riley 02:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• acc:169450. -- Cheers, Riley 02:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Riley Huntley - I will keep these as examples going forward. Not that I can do anything further today, having reached my limit of 6 creations. I actually got a little excited today, that there was stuff for me to do at account creation. Appreciate the guidance. If there's ever a backlog, don't be afraid to ping me, and I'll jump on when I have a chance. At least I can keep going until I approve 6. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll probably drop some more feedback in this section while it's open; if you ever get bored (pfft, who has time to be bored), or what to help further before you get the ACC flag; feel free to go through the Flagged user section in the future. You can review the username and similiar username data and close quite a few cases as taken or too similar, you only need the right to create them. Considering you don't need to reserve to see that information, its also handy. You'll also gain experience with handling similar accounts (sim account flowchart) this way. In the future, if you ever see a requester comment that reveals personal information (like in acc:169450), please bring it to the attention of an admin via IRC or the admins mailing list at enwiki-acc-adminsgooglegroups.com. We do not want privacy policy violations (even by the requester) in our database. -- Cheers, Riley 02:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• acc:169436; let's try UPolicy instead, I assume you just clicked the closure option directly below. Also general feedback; unless the requested username was moved to ___~enwiki, use Taken (Standard). Otherwise, thanks for the activity and keep it up! :) -- Cheers, Riley 03:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Walter von Goethe

I try to translate an article about the grandson and last descendent of our greatest German poet Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. This article does not exist English. It does exist in German:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_von_Goethe

I created the English article and used the German references.

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

In the German article they do not need more references. What can I do to make it pass? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burkhardt.alexander (talk • contribs) 06:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Burkhardt.alexander - Yes, there are different standards depending on the wiki. English Wikipedia has some of the highest. It is not enough that Wolfgang had a famous ancestor, notability is not inherited. He has to be notable on his own. Nothing in the article even asserts notability, other than his relationship to Wolfgang. Take a look at WP:BIO to see what constitutes notability. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 14:05:34, 25 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by PascaldeLacaze

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

Many thanks for your quick and valuable feedback. I'm trying to write an article that meets the quality expectations from Wikipedia. I do understand these rules are essential. Your comments are helping but I'm really puzzled now. Any help would be appreciated.

Indeed what is written here is only based on facts that can be checked and verified among the references I inserted. If I can ask you just a few more minutes of your time you will be able to check that these sources are the most independent and reliable sources you can find in the CAD industry. Medias such as Upfront.eZine, Cadalyst, Architosh, Desktop Engineering, Graphic Speaks... etc. represent the few last independent and expert sources following the CAD industry. I tried to follow any precious advice that was given here but I'm afraid I can't do much better without further details. I do feel however a page about Graebert makes sense as more than 8 Million professionals are using nowadays products powered by its technology which represents the second installed base. Graebert is also reknown in the CAD industry for pioneering innovations. I understand this should meet the expectations in terms of notability. I look forward improving the quality of the article. Any help will be much appreciated.

PascaldeLacaze (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi PascaldeLacaze - Everything in my car dealer's brochure about the new 2017 Jeep Grand Cherokees is factual as well. It is also a promotional brochure, which is what your article reads like. My guess is that you might have some connection with the company. Usually that's the case when an editor uses trademark, copyright, or registered symbols. All those have to go, they aren't used on Wikipedia. Second, don't try to sell us a product, simply tell us about the company. Product listings and partner listings are simply promotional. As are the inclusion of the non-notable awards. The use of press releases is also highly discouraged (such as the current #3). Peacock terms, like "pioneer", and claims like "the second largest installed base in the industry for 2D CAD" need to be backed up by independent, reliable sources. Neither of those are. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

18:37:04, 25 April 2016 review of submission by Alyssa Denim

• Alyssa Denim (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Joie (clothing company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, I am having some trouble getting my article approved. I am not sure I understand the "reads like an advertisement" critique as each statement is a fact rather than an opinion. Any specific insight on how I can improve this article would be super helpful. I am trying to be as objective as possible.

Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Joie_(clothing_company)

Alyssa Denim (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Alyssa Denim - I see you've already resubmitted it. I'll let another editor take a crack at it. If I reviewed it again at this point I'd still decline it as advertising. The entire article is like a sales pitch for the brand. It talks about its styles, its products, where to purchase. Not in the entire article does this say why this particular brand is notable. I didn't check the references, it might pass WP:GNG, but is still way too promotional in my estimation. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

20:08:01, 25 April 2016 review of submission by Ys865

• Ys865 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Navid Kandelousi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The article was declined due to lack of citations other than the artist's own website. It has been revised to include many additional references. This musician has worked and performed in various countries and therefore some references are in other languages. I would greatly appreciate a re-review and approval of this article to help publish information on this young and very talented musician. Ys865 (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Ys865

Hi Ys865 - I see you've already resubmitted, so I'll let another editor take a crack at it. I'll post a comment at the draft to help you and any future reviewers. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

Draft:Constantine Paraskevopoulos (I think)

Love this - I'm very new to contributing! look forward to learning lots! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.16.227 (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure if you have an account, the article has two accounts which have contributed to it. Please remember to sign in, whenever you work on an article, or simply post on talk pages. It helps communication. Anyway, if you stop back by here, I've posted some links at the draft which might be of help to you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

draft : Rupak Kulkarni

Dear Onel,

I have given few references to the article as a verification of reliable source.It also has the few books links where RUPKA Kulkarni's name was appreciated.

Please review and let me know the next steps.I have few more links and referecces in the form of offline files and can be sent to you for reference.Please let me know alternate way to send the offline files as I was not able upload the files as article is in draft stage.

Best regards, Amit wikiuser_music Wikiuser music (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wikiuser music - First, it's always a good thing to leave a link to the article you want to talk about, like this: Draft:Rupak Kulkarni, that makes it easy for editors to find it. Second, I see you've already resubmitted it, so I'll let another editor take a whack at it. I will tell you that it would help if the citations were properly formatted. You can find out how to do that at WP:CIT. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 14:47:17, 26 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by PascaldeLacaze

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

Hi Onel5969, thank you for your feedback. I edited the article accordingly and will resubmit it now.

PascaldeLacaze (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 15:12:30, 26 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by MasonB23

• MasonB23 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Andrew Blunt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Advice on Sourcing for Andy Blunt

Morning Onel5969,

I am wondering if you could give me some pointers on sourcing for the Andy Blunt page, which you reviewed in Articles for Creation this morning. Do you think I should add to the actual content of the page to expand on reasons Blunt is notable or do you think it is sufficient to simply add more Missouri based/national sources to our source list to back up the content that is currently on the page.

Thanks for taking the time to review and pass along a few tips!

MasonB23 (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi MasonB23 - That's actually an excellent question. The answer is both. To a certain extent. Right now, the article reads about a successful person, but there's nothing notable there. He ran some successful campaigns. He's been a successful businessman. Okay. The press coverage is all local stuff, which isn't going to help him establish notability. So, first, you have to assert notability. What makes him notable, as opposed to thousands of other campaign managers, and hundreds of millions of other successful businessmen? Doesn't have to be a deluge of stuff, but it should show some notability. Second, your sourcing is truly your weak point. You need more and better sourcing, preferably from non-local sources. And the more in-depth the article is about him, the better. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

20:15:38, 26 April 2016 review of submission by Traduttore1987

• Traduttore1987 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Alexey Kitaytsev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

AfCs

Hello, I simply wanted to let you know that whenever you see AfC submissions for artists who have been collected by major museums, they are instantly notable and acceptable. If you question any of them, please let me know and I'll examine. Sincerely,

Thanks SwisterTwister - I did know that. They have to be part of the permanent collection of that museum, not simply just part of an exhibition there. And I guess it's what you determine to be a "major museum". . Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

17:20:10, 27 April 2016 review of submission by Novak Breed

• Novak Breed (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:La Vieja Telita - Montevideo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. I want to understand if removing facebook and blog links is enough to publish my submission. The rest of the ssources are Montevideo Council, and other two independent medias.

17:33:16, 27 April 2016 review of submission by Lee James Simmons

• Lee James Simmons (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Lee Simmons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Onel5969,

With regards, to reliable and independent source's I do not accept this.

Firstly, please refer to the Evening Standard article below also (under References). The Evening Standard for example is London's most notable news agency. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/wow-factor-sculpture-aims-to-brighten-up-marble-arch-10043523.html

Please see link to The Evening Standards Wikipedia page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Evening_Standard The project at Marble Arch that I am working on will be one of the most 'notable' pieces of public art in London and I am also working inconjcution with one of Americas most 'notable' Architects Mr. Rafeal Vinoly. Please see link to Mr. Rafeal Vinoly Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Viñoly

Secondly, I have featured in The Independent which is one of the UK's most notable Broad sheet Newspapers see below. (Please note that this was previously not included, however I have now included this into the draft.) http://www.independent.co.uk/property/interiors/annie-deakin/new-designers-shake-up-old-timers-1739687.html

Please see link to The Independent Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Independent

I have also featured in CITY AM, another one of London's notable newspapers.

Please see link to City A.M Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_A.M.

I would appreciate it if you could please re-consider. I would also like to include images within my Wikipedia page and would appreciate if someone could assist with this.

Kind regards,

Lee Simmons Ref : Username Lee James Simmons

Hi Lee James Simmons - First, autobiographies are frowned upon on Wikipedia. There are many reasons for this, not the least of which is a pretty common inability to remain objective. Please see the article on autobiographies in the preceding link. Then take a look at WP:COI, and take any necessary steps. Second regarding your comment on the sourcing. Never said that the citations were from unreliable sources. What the declination was from was that the sourcing does not show that you meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. I didn't go through all of them, but I went through 4 of them. 3 are only passing mentions, one does go into a bit more detail. The issue then becomes that they are all around a single event, the Marble Arch Tower. At that point WP:BLP1E takes over. You can ask for help at the Teahouse, and see if someone is willing to help you write the article, if you can provide them with enough in-depth coverage to show notability. I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 17:41:09, 27 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Wikiwikiwikiwikishutup

• Wikiwikiwikiwikishutup (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Timothy Greenberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi - Onel5969 -

I got the message that the article I submitted was sufficiently notable but the structure and format was wrong. I'd love your suggestions on how to fix! Thanks.

Wikiwikiwikiwikishutup (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Wikiwikiwikiwikishutup

Wikiwikiwikiwikishutup (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wikiwikiwikiwikishutup - I left some links for you on the draft that are pretty good resources, you should really look at them, particularly MOS:LAYOUT, WP:CITE and WP:CIT. You can also go to other articles about producers and take a look at those. One of the first articles I ever created was about a lesser-known tv producer, David P. Levin. Take a look at that. In fact, when looking at it, I realized back then I didn't really know how to format citations, so I've just begun to flesh out the citations. Hope this helps, and don't be afraid to ask questions. Greenberg's Emmy's, if nothing else, qualify him as notable. Ping me here if you want me to take another look.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Report user that only vandalises

Hey, I'd like to report a user that I've noticed is only here to vandalise. The name of the user is "user:Rabbi M. Raff". How do I go by reporting them? Dovikap : Talk 04:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi KingofWiki - The editor seems to have done their 4 edits and then moved on. At this point, there's no reason to report them, but in the future, you can always go to WP:AIV, and follow the instructions there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

07:36:02, 28 April 2016 review of submission by Hachemjohnny

• Hachemjohnny (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Johnny Hachem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for taking the time to review my draft article, I'm a new editor and this is my first article submitted to Wiki, can you please advise on how this article might be improved?

Hachemjohnny (talk) 07:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hachemjohnny - First, because of your username, you might have a WP:COI, in fact, you should read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. If you aren't the composer, then your username violates our username policy, and you should request it be changed. Second, I'll place some links on the draft, which are good resources about how to go about writing articles. Hope they help. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)