Jump to content

User talk:Onel5969: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user is a WikiGnome.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 440: Line 440:
..does not work. Furthermore, it is nominated for '''speedy deletion''' and I am afraid all the work that the people have invested in this article might be lost. The point is that I could easily make the requested change, but the I don't have access to the draft and I am not able to find anywhere any possibility to do it.
..does not work. Furthermore, it is nominated for '''speedy deletion''' and I am afraid all the work that the people have invested in this article might be lost. The point is that I could easily make the requested change, but the I don't have access to the draft and I am not able to find anywhere any possibility to do it.
Thank you for your help and have a great day! <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:SirJamesHunt|SirJamesHunt]] ([[User talk:SirJamesHunt|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/SirJamesHunt|contribs]]) 18:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Thank you for your help and have a great day! <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:SirJamesHunt|SirJamesHunt]] ([[User talk:SirJamesHunt|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/SirJamesHunt|contribs]]) 18:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->



Hi {{ul|Onel5969}}!
I still have now response from Anthony. I am worried that the whole article, which is the work of a whole range of people, might be lost, because we are not allowed to make one small change to solve the copyright issue.
Your help would be very much appreciated. Thank you Onel5969.


==Lottie Williams==
==Lottie Williams==

Revision as of 14:26, 21 January 2015

Onel5969's Talk
Phoenix ... It's a dry heat ...
Born
New York city
NationalityAmerican


Edit count

Archived Material

Hi. From time to time I move pertinent info to archive pages.
2014 items can be found here: User:Onel5969/Talk from 2014 (Edited to remove insignificant sections) First manual archive
2015 items can be found here: User:Onel5969/Talk from 2015 (Edited to remove insignificant sections) Second manual archive

Wiki mark-up link

Hi! You might find these handy:

Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 22:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

00:55:38, 1 January 2015 review of submission by Surance


Dear Reviewer: I appreciate your time taken to review Wikipedia page on “Nancy D Erbe “, my professor and now a friend. I was trying to create a page to honor her achievements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nancy_D_Erbe

Getting a Fulbright Distinguished Chair is one of the highest award and recognition that a professor can get. She has four Fulbright honors till date with two honors in the year 2014 alone. I have yet to know a professor getting two Fulbright honors in same year.

Your Comment:" Not sure this individual meets the notability requirements. In addition, this article has a close paraphrasing issue with some of the underlying sources, e.g. http://www.ejournalncrp.org/warfare-on-the-streets-of-l-a/ and http://www4.csudh.edu/negotiation/faculty/nancy-erbe. Onel5969 (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)"

Both the links you quoted are on " Nancy D Erbe". On your comment " close paraphrasing.....", there is hardly any text description, other than her position and mentioning of her awards/books which have to be with same title everywhere.

I would appreciate if you could be specific where you desire changes and I will reedit and submit again. Thanks! Sincerely Surance

@Surance: - Hi again. You're right, there is very little text, and sometimes that makes close paraphrasing even more difficult, especially when a lot of the text consists of titles, which by necessity have to be exact matches. It's really just the opening paragraph which needs a tweak. Your text reads: "Nancy D Erbe is a Professor of Negotiation, Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding ... with students, clients and colleagues", while the source reads: "Nancy D. Erbe is Professor of Negotiation, Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding at California State University Dominguez Hills ... University of Oslo International Summer School (to-date her students, clients and colleagues represent over eighty countries)". Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

01:02:19, 1 January 2015 review of submission by Surance


Surance (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Reviewer: I appreciate your time taken to review Wikipedia page on “Nancy D Erbe “, my professor and now a friend. I was trying to create a page to honor her achievement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nancy_D_Erbe

Getting a Fulbright Distinguished Chair is one of the highest award and recognition that a professor can get. She has four Fulbright honors till date with two honors in the year 2014. I have yet to know a professor getting two Fulbright honors in same year.

Your Comment:" Not sure this individual meets the notability requirements. In addition, this article has a close paraphrasing issue with some of the underlying sources, e.g. http://www.ejournalncrp.org/warfare-on-the-streets-of-l-a/ and http://www4.csudh.edu/negotiation/faculty/nancy-erbe. Onel5969 (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)"

Both the links you quoted are on " Nancy D Erbe". On your comment " close paraphrasing..." there is hardly any text description, other than mention of her position and awards/books which have to be with same title everywhere.

I would appreciate if you could be specific where you desire changes and I will reedit and submit again. Thanks! Sincerely Surance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Surance

@Surance: - Hi. I see your point. I missed the relevance of the Fulbright awards. However, I think you need to add that to the lead. I was going to do it, but I'm a bit confused. Is she currently both a professor at CSUDH, as well as a Fulbright chair at PUC-Rio? Also, if you could clean up the citations, that would be a big help. You can find out how to format them at WP:CIT. Finally, while you don't seem to have many of them, citing other wikipages isn't a valid reference. Hope this helps. Let me know when you've made the corrections and I'll be happy to take a look at it again. Onel5969 (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Articles for Creation barnstar
Keep up the good work in AFC Becky Sayles (talk) 02:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Dear Onel5969,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Kimmie Rhodes

Kimmie Rhodes
Hello I have changed my article about the singer-songwirter Kimmie Rhodes. The sources are from allmusic.com. all about hte CDs Kimmie issued. The text was taken from a lot of interviews with her. If there are more sources necessary please let me know. This is my first work for Wikipedia especially in english, so I hope you can be of some help. Greetings from Germany ManfredGerspacher (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ManfredGerspacher: - Happy New Year to Germany from the U.S.! And welcome to the English Wikipedia. I'll be happy to help you with this article. First, the article needs to "in-line citations", per WP:ILC. Not everything in the article needs a citation, but if it's a fact that may be disputed (like her date of birth, or "KImmie recorded her first album at Willie Nelson's privately owned Pedernales Studios"), those need to have a citation, and it should appear as a reference at that point in the text (after the punctuation). You can learn about references at WP:CITE, and about how to format them at WP:CIT. Second, as I said before, this person clearly appears notable, however the citations you have now provided need to be looked at once they have been put in-line. I looked at one, which I've copied here, and it doesn't mention Rhodes at all. The proper link should be this, which takes you to the credits page, which references Rhodes. I would like to see a few articles about her from newspapers and/or magazines, which will help her case for notability. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I now found more sources that I included, some books from my own collection, some sources in the www. I hope this helps. I also improved/changed the sources from allmusic.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManfredGerspacher (talk • contribs) 19:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did add some more sources, so I need to know what more I have to do, until the article can be moved to the public area. Is there anything more I have to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManfredGerspacher (talk • contribs) 15:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ManfredGerspacher Hi! I'll look at the article later today, and I noticed some other issues (not stuff you'd be declined for, but stuff that needs to be cleaned up, like disambiguation links) - question: the wikilink for "Walls Fall Down" leads to a song by Bedouin Soundclash. Is this the same song? The page about the song does not mention Rhodes. Onel5969 (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you so much for your help with this article about Kimmie. The link wikilink for "Walls Fall Down" as well as all wikilinks in the discography were created automatically - they have to be removed. I will try to find out how that works. Also I have to find out, how to put a picture into this article. Again, many thanks from Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManfredGerspacher (talk • contribs) 18:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ManfredGerspacher - Nice job, keep up the good work. Regarding pics, here's the link to how to upload a pic: Wikipedia:Uploading images. Once you upload it, you simply go to the infobox (if that's where you want it) and paste it. Go to any other article, click on the edit link and you can see how someone else has done it (that's how most editors learn - look at an article you think looks good, then go to edit the article to see how it's done). Plus there are tons of tutorials available, a good place to start is WP:MOS. Regarding wikilinks, I like to think that there are two types, first are "direct links", like your article, Kimmie Rhodes. All that is required to link to it are brackets around the name. But other are indirect links, meaning that there is more than one subject with the same (or similar) name. For example, the name Robert Taylor won't take you to anyone named Robert Taylor, it takes you to a disambiguation (or DAB) page: Robert Taylor. To get wiki to take you to the page you actually want, you have to guide it a little more. So if you're interested in the actor, Robert Taylor, you'd have to put brackets around Robert Taylor (actor). But leaving it with the actor in parenthesis doesn't look so good, so you can put Robert Taylor. It now looks like the DAB link, but takes you to the right page. You can find that straight line thingamabob underneath the edit window, using the Wiki Markup tools. I hope this helps. Happy editing. Onel5969 (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still have problems with the picture I want to include in this article. I uploaded one, but I am not sure a) where I find this picture now and b) if ever I find this picture again, how to include it in my article. Can you pleae help me again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManfredGerspacher (talk • contribs) 18:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ManfredGerspacher - Hi. When you can't find something you've done, you can click on the "contributions" link at the very top of your page, right next to the log out. It shows you everything you've done on wp. (and you can filter what it shows using the drop down menu next to "namespace", e.g. only articles you've created, or files you've uploaded, etc.) I checked yours and can't see where you've uploaded a pic. Did you upload it on Wikipedia? Or on Wikimedia Commons? After you uploaded it, did you verify that it went through? Onel5969 (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23:50:29, 2 January 2015 review of submission by Surance


Surance (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Onel5969:

Thanks for your quick response. I tried to fix.It has been resubmitted. You are at liberty to do final re-edit if you so desire.

Yes, she is currently a professor at CSUDH and will continue to do so even when she will serve as Fulbright Distinguished chair ( PUC-Rio) from March-June 2015 ( Fulbright Distinguished Chair it is more like an honor and recognition along with educational/research work with host institution).

Thanks! Sincerely, Surance

@Surance: - Hi. Before it is moved to the mainspace, all the references should be formatted. I did an edit on the lead, to make it more in line with an encyclopedia entry, and formatted the references there to show you an example of how to do it. There are other ways to format citations (see WP:CIT), but this is the format I've found easiest. Let me know when you've formatted the references, and I'll take a last pass at it before accepting it to the mainspace. You're right, she definitely deserves an article. Onel5969 (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Padayappa

Hey bro, would like to give a c/e on this Rajini film? — Ssven2 speak 2 me 16:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssven2: - Hi! I'll definitely take a look at it, but it won't be until towards the end of next week. I have another long Indian article which Pavanjandhyala asked me to do a c/e on, so I'm going to do that one first. Then I have to create a montage for an article about Italians in England (but that will only take me a day or two). Then I'll start on your article. But it's another long one, so it will take me some time - you know how I work. Will give you a heads up when I start the c/e. Onel5969 (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 03:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssven2: - Okay, starting the c/e. It'll take me 2-3 days (I'm working on some other old US film stuff at the same time). Onel5969 (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Give the article a good c/e, bro. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to remind you of the copyedit. As I said above, do give it a good c/e, bro. Thanks. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 03:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssven2: - Hi, and Happy New Year. Yeah, with the holidays and all, haven't had time to get back to it. But I started again this morning. In the plot section, the 5th paragraph doesn't make sense, when put in conjunction with the 6th. The 5th makes it seem like the plot is Chandru's, while the 6th makes it seem like it is Neelambari's (which makes more sense). I'll go back and c/e the 5th, once I know which way to go.Onel5969 (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year to yout too. BTW, Neelambari advises Chandru, not the other way round. The 5th and 6th para copyedit is correct, don't worry. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 03:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The 5th and 6th are both Neelambari's only. Neelambari, having made Chandru pretend to fall in love with Anitha, plans to humiliate Padayappa by making Anitha say that she does not wish to marry her parents' choice for her, and that she is in love with someone else. Anitha defends her love in the process and Padayappa makes an oath to unite the couple by the next Muhurta day, or commit suicide. I didn't include the last part as I felt the plot might go above 700 words. I have now aded the last part and the plot is now at 674 words. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 03:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:01:34, 4 January 2015 review of submission by Surance


Surance (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Onel5969!

I have fixed all references as per your direction. Hope all is okay!

I would appreciate you have a look!

Surance

02:00:13, 5 January 2015 review of submission by Surance


Surance (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Onel5969:

I have refixed all references. "Nancy D Erbe" is leaving for Bethlehem for peace work in 10 days for a duration of six weeks. Hope this gets done before that.

Thanks Surance

@Surance: - Hi... finally got to look at it late last night. Nice work on the references. Article still needs work, but I've moved it to the mainspace. Other editors will pitch in over time. Onel5969 (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi O. I wanted to let you know that a few of us have found that the "ping" command doesn't seem to work anymore. There is a possibility that it was replaced by this {{reply to|Username}}. I have seen this new command on several pages though I haven't been contacted by it. I do know that {{u|Username}} works. Of course I could be wrong but if Surance doesn't contact you in a day or so you might want to try one of these. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 23:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interview for The Signpost

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (tell) @ 10:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

00:20:58, 7 January 2015 review of submission by Fbell74


Hi there User:Onel5969. Thank you for taking the time to review my article on the National Wellness Institute. I noted that the article was declined for reasons relating to the tone and am keen to address these issues. Which parts did you feel need to be changed? Thanks in advance Fbell74 (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Fbell74 (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fbell74! Phraseology like "joined together in the belief that people could live better, healthier lives by focusing on principles of balance and awareness." and "This ethos places the individual in the control of their wellbeing." are problematic in terms of their tone. The entire Models and tests section reads like a promotional brochure. Even the lead sentence reads more like a promotion for the group, rather than a neutral explanation of the group. One other thing, minor, but if you're editing, you should be aware. Since the article is about a US entity, you should use US English, not British English. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Onel5969 It looks like I need to go through the article in more detail. Thanks for the suggestions. When I've done this could I trouble you to give it a once-over? Fbell74 (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fbell74 - absolutely! Just let me know and I'll take a look at it. Onel5969 (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Onel5969 That's very kind - thank you Fbell74 (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there - I've gone through the article again and edited or removed parts that I thought might come across as partial. Hopefully it is more neutral now. When you have a moment would you mind having a look and seeing if you think it passes muster? Fbell74 (talk) 08:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fbell74 - Looks good. Resubmit it. Nice job. Onel5969 (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Onel5969 and also thank you for having a look again. I wondered whether it's possible for you to approve the page from your side as you had previously reviewed it? This would actually be the third time submitting the article as I first put it forward a few months back and it was rejected so I made changes and resubmitted. As you probably know there's a long line of articles in the queue and it takes a bit of time to progress. Just a thought Fbell74 (talk) 08:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fbell74 - Hi. Yeah, I'll approve it, but you need to resubmit it first. It's on my watchlist, so I'll see when you resubmit it, and then I'll approve it at some point later that day when I'm on Wikipedia. Onel5969 (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Onel5969 That's very kind of you. The waiting period for reviews is quite lengthy and my heart was slowly sinking at the thought of another two months. I'm guessing that it's caused by either the volume of new articles or a shortage of editors. Do you think that's the case? Fbell74 (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fbell74 - It's both, but there's also a third reason, and that's there are a ton of folks who don't want to learn. I'd say that about half of the older submissions have been declined at least once, and many several times. This tends to only exacerbate the clog. I think that's why when an editor has someone, like you, who asks for help, and then puts in the effort, we try to help however we can. Happy editing. Onel5969 (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness, that was quick! Thank you for being so proactive (and for your comments). It must get frustrating if contributors aren't making changes and just resubmitting. I appreciated your pointers on which areas specifically should be improved - they helped a lot.Fbell74 (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Hindhaugh

Did you notice that this iwas not the usual AFC submission, but an article that was previously deleted after an AfD? (I guess not, because you also placed a duplicate WP Bio banner...) --Randykitty (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Hindhaugh

Did you notice that this iwas not the usual AFC submission, but an article that was previously deleted after an AfD? --Randykitty (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randykitty. Yes. I looked at the AfD discussion, which had issues with the references. Those issues now seem to be corrected, with the Crank and Piston and Autosport articles providing in-depth information, and several of the other sources buttress that, as in the Simraceway, IMSA and dailysportscar citations. Since the article was deleted, I couldn't see what references were or were not included when that decision was made, so I had to base it on what was there. Onel5969 (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And sorry about the deletion of your comment about a duplicate banner (due to an edit conflict)... but not sure what you mean by that. I placed no banner on the article, the AfC tool must do that automatically. Onel5969 (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RainmakerUSA

Can I please get details as to what was a copyright infringement in the article "Tulsa Spotlight Theater ". All I received was a message that the article was rejected for copyright infringement. I thought I had permissions stated. Was is just one photo or sentence that got the whole article rejected?

RainmakerUSA - Sure thing. The source here, has been cut and paste regarding the following passages: "The play has been performed almost every Saturday night for six decades, and the company claims it to be the longest-running stage production in America. The 19th-century temperance melodrama The Drunkard has been performed virtually every Saturday night...", and "Riverside Studio in Tulsa, Oklahoma, United States, was built in 1928. It was built as a house with a studio wing for a music teacher named Patti Adams Shriner. The Riverside Studio was listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places in 2001.It was designed by architect Bruce Goff in International Style.
The house originally included a series of nine murals that Goff commissioned from Oklahoma artist Olinka Hrdy, but the murals later disappeared from the building; their fate has never been established clearly. Facing financial distress during the Great Depression, Shriner lost her ownership of the building in 1933. Actor Richard Mansfield Dickinson bought it in 1941." Onel5969 (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boston

Could you point me to the guideline? I'm just not sure which ones you're referring to. -- Calidum 01:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, Calidum! Here's the link. The infobox example clearly shows City Name, State Name. Hope this helps. Always a pleasure working with you.Onel5969 (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I appreciate it. -- Calidum 01:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chesterfield

Hi Onel5969

I'd like to provide the following reference for the Battle of Chesterfield:

The Battle of Chesterfield took place in 1266 when a band of rebellious barons were defeated by a royalist army.

Pegge, Samuel (1769). "A succinct and authentic narrative of the Battle of Chesterfield, A.D 1266 in the reign of King Henry III". Archaeologica. XXXVI: 276–285.


I don't know how to insert it into your article about Chesterfield without disturbing the numbering system for other references.

When I tried to reply to your message "...you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Onel5969 (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)" by clicking on the talk link, and then leaving you a new message, this Internal error: [c48431d5] 2015-01-08 15:07:43: Fatal exception of type Scribunto_LuaInterpreterNotFoundError appeared


Garden Bike (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Garden Bike - Thanks for providing the link. I'll insert the info into the article, with the reference, at some point today. Regarding the talk link, I'll let an admin know about that. Thanks for the heads up.Onel5969 (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:06:52, 8 January 2015 review of submission by Smithchris


Hi. I thought I'd written factual copy and the references. If it reads too much like an advertisement then so to do those for Seedrs and CrowdCube which have been approved. Smithchris (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Smithchris (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smithchris - I understand your point. The one article, CrowdCube, has been tagged for the same issue for over 2 years now. I'm actually putting in a question to an admin about why something hasn't been done about it yet. I've added the appropriate tag to the other. On Wiki, while consensus is important, there is also the custom of not simply allowing something because it's "been done on another article". One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is that articles should be from a neutral point of view. Just because those articles are incorrect, doesn't mean that other articles should also be written incorrectly.Onel5969 (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Smithchris - Hi again. I've gotten some feedback from other editors, and what I should have done is approve the article, and attach an NPOV tag to it. So if you resubmit and let me know, I'll approve it. Onel5969 (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your replies. I'm new to editing as you can probably tell. I'll try editing the article first before resubmitting. It would be good to get my first ever Wikipedia article right! Thanks. Smithchris (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Page (Motoring Journalist) - "Rejected due to Copyright"

Hi! It appears that the aforesaid article, written by myself, was rejected by yourself as it may have infringed copyright. After a quick investigation, it appears that the article infringed IMDb. I'd just like to point out that I also wrote the inclusion on IMDb. It isn't easy to change the wording too much, as there is only a small amount of information about Frank that I want to write. Does this still count as 'copyright' if I wrote both articles? Regards, Denby Spinks — Preceding unsigned comment added by DenbySpinks (talk • contribs) 17:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DenbySpinks - Hi! And the short answer is no, if you give the rights to WP, then it doesn't. However, one of the three main tenets of Wikipedia is WP:NOR — No Original Research. At which point this would then fall under that. Can you cite any of the underlying sources you used in the imdb piece? Also, per consensus, imdb itself is not considered a reliable source. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Well, by definition I give the rights to WP. I understand why IMDb is not considered a reliable source. However in this instance, it wasn't used as such. Of the two links that I submitted, one was a famous motoring journalist paying tribute to Frank, which confirmed his existence, where he'd worked, and when he had died, and the other, if I remember rightly, was a link to the Guild of Motoring Writers, which showed Frank's details and confirmed his previous chairmanship. It was only a short piece; basically, "Well liked motoring journalist" lived and died et al. If you could be more specific about the 'information' within the piece that seems to be causing a problem, I will endeavour to supply any references/links that I can. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DenbySpinks (talk • contribs) 08:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DenbySpinks - to give you an update, I've done some further research on this issue, and am now in the process of asking for help from some Admins. As soon as I know more, I'll let you know. Onel5969 (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Onel5969! I hope you don't mind if I just answer here directly. @DenbySpinks: Hi Denby. I'm sorry but I don't think you can't use this text. Copyright can be very counterintuitive and complex, so let me explain, first using a different situation – as if you wrote this content for your own website.

Under such a scenario, there would be no doubt you were the copyright owner of the creative expression (in this case, text). As such you would have the right to license it for someone else's one-time use and retain non-free copyright over the original. Such dispensation is common but it's useless at Wikipedia. We cannot agree to that because our licenses require that our end users (our readers) have the ability to take most content they see here and use (or modify) that content for their own ends, even for commercial uses (our free licenses only require that they provide attribution to our editors as the source). So, what we require is a release of the content to be used here to the world, under a compatibly free copyright license (or into the public domain).

That is all well and good except that in order to do so, we can't just take someone's word for it: "I'm releasing it"; we need something much more rigorous, some proof that the person who is releasing the content is the actual owner and their specific statement/form of release shown in a verifiable way. One way, for example, is for the author of the content, at the external site where the content comes from, to post the release right there (in place of any non-free copyright notice, if there was one), so that when you visit the website, that release is on view (it can also be archived using {{Text release}}). Such a release might look like this:

The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

Another way is to provide a release through an email from a domain name associated with the external site. See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries.

Okay, now hopefully you understand the playing field a bit. Here's the problem though. How would you go about proving you were the person who posted the material to IMDb? I'm not saying it's impossible but I see no clear way you could do so. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

08:58:10, 12 January 2015 review of submission by Jazanna


Jazanna (talk) 08:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Thanks for your review! It would be helpful for me to know what I can do to improve the article. The comment was, "Most likely notable, but the references don't meet Wikipedia's criteria." I have added one more reference now, and among the 9 provided references, 5 are external third party references that verify and certify the organisation. Any further comment or suggestions you could offer would be helpful. Thanks![reply]

Jazanna - Hi. I see that a couple of editors have already answered you on the help page, and they pretty much covered exactly what I would have told you. WP:RS can help you understand what types of citations qualify as independent and reliable. What you have to understand is that there are two major types of citations: those that back up the facts of an article (which can come from almost any source; and those which establish notability, and they have to come from sources which have nothing to do with the subject (independent), and have credibility. As an example of the former, to establish that Inter-Mission was founded in 1964, you can use a link to the website of the group itself. But because that site is not independent, it can't be used to determine notability. Those types of citations have to be from sources like the Times of India, for example.
You're correct those 5 references certainly show that the organization exists, but that doesn't prove notability as per WP:ORG. I did a quick search, and couldn't find any references, but I'm in the US, and the search engines skew to whatever country you're in. I hope this helps, and don't be afraid to ask for help, you'll find most editors more than willing. Anything I can do to help with this article, simply ask. Onel5969 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yevadu

Hi bro. Can you perform a copy-edit on Yevadu? Ssven2 wants to conduct a GAR and before that, we both want you to perform a copy-edit. So, are you willing to do it? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pavanjandhyala Sure. I'll begin work on it today. Will take a couple of days at least. Will let you know when I finish. Onel5969 (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One small correction bro. Actually Allu Arjun's character name is Satya. The role of Sarath was played by Raja which i will list in the Cast now. Well, i suggest you to watch this video from 00:08:00 - 00:18:05 and 02:24:13 - 02:31:35 with subs and without sound for better understanding. Thank you. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavanjandhyala: - No problem, that's why I worded the edit summary the way I did, I knew there was an issue with the cast list, just didn't know exactly how to fix it. It was more a heads up, something's missing, and I took a guess at it.Onel5969 (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. So when can i expect you to continue the c/e process? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pavanjandhyala-got sidetracked, sorry. Thanks for the reminder. Went back to work on it today. Will be done either tomorrow or the next day. Onel5969 (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pavanjandhyala - Okay, finished the c/e, although some of the text didn't seem to make sense, particularly with all the gross numbers. I would cut that section down drastically, and only point out the highlights, and totals, and drop most of the 3 days here, first week there stuff. Onel5969 (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. Now the article looks much better. I would try not to repeat such mistakes in my next GANs. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Rhoads Draft

Dear Onel5969, Thanks for reviewing our page 'George Rhoads.' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:George_Rhoads ) This is our first attempt at making a wikipedia page, so I just thought I would try to get some more information about the improvements we need to make in order to get our page approved. Your comment for us was 'The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.'

Just to clarify, we just need to put in footnotes to cite the information we gathered from each of the references we listed under the references section? Do we need to do anything further with the actual references we provided?

If you can provide any more information it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so much for your time.

Best, Georgerhoads (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Georgerhoads - No problem. Happy to help. This article is a blp (biography of a living person), and as such, has a much higher standard of citation than a normal article. Any fact in the in the article needs to be cited. For example, almost everything in the Childhood section needs to be backed up by a reliable citation. Same with the Education/career section. You can find out how to format citations at WP:CIT, there are quite a few choices. If you have a single cite which covers several facts, put it at the end of all those facts. Each paragraph will need at least one citation. They always follow punctuation, here's an example:
After seeing an exhibit of Rhoads’ ball machines in Greenwich Village, sculptor Hans Van de Bovenkamp hired him to invent devices to use in his metal fountains.[1] That's just an example, if you have the page number for a book, you should include that as well. Also, use straight quotation marks and apostrophes ( " and ' ). Every quote should be followed by a specific cite where it was pulled from. I would have given an example on the page, but I have no clue where each source belongs.
I'll make some minor formatting changes on the page, to give you other examples. Hope this helps.Onel5969 (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Brown, Suzanne (1975). Machine for the Manufacture of Automatic Spontaneity Arrives at Museum. Arnot Art Museum. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |city= ignored (|location= suggested) (help)
I put this reflist here, the reference was polluting my comment below. Feel free to revert. Deadbeef 07:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, we will get working on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgerhoads (talk • contribs) 17:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Georgerhoads - Couple of more things. I added an elementary infobox, you can add info to it, cutting and pasting lines from the template found HERE, such as spouse, the artist's website, children, etc. Also, each of the images should have a caption. I love these types of sculptures, been a fan of the genre for years. Will be happy to help you get this article in shape for moving it to the mainspace. It really is in good shape, overall, just needs the citations, and some formatting stuff done. One last thing, always remember to sign your comments with the four tilda's. Onel5969 (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

The Silver STiki Barnstar of Merit
Congratulations, Onel5969! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 10,000 classification threshold using STiki.

We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool.

We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Widr (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on Draft:Mauricio García Araujo

Dear Onel5969, I noticed that the draft I submitted about Mauricio Garcia Araujo wasn’t accepted. Mauricio Garcia Araujo is a notable person in Venezuela. He was the president of Central Bank of Venezuela between 1987 and 1989. He was also an iconic person in the public sector for directing different enterprises key to the country’s economy. He is also relevant for advising family business and being in the board of directors of many different private companies. Mauricio Garcia Araujo published different articles (listed in the draft) relevant to Venezuela’s oil economy. One of his articles is used as reference in the definition of Colegio Humboldt, Caracas.

I would really appreciate if you could help me improve the article or please tell me the changes I need to do in order to meet Wikipedia’s requirements. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleonora Venezuela (talk • contribs) 22:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eleonora Venezuela - Hi! And never a problem to help someone who wants to learn. First, take a look at WP:VRS. The first thing it says is: "Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic." 4 of the references in your article are by the subject, and therefore are not independent. The remaining 4 don't have significant coverage about the subject. We need articles from peer groups ABOUT him, showing how he is significant in that community. The articles should be about him, and in depth, not mere mentions of him. Those types of citations are useful for backing up the individual facts of the article, but not for establishing notability. The first citation is good, but it is such a short article, by itself it wouldn't qualify. The second citation highlights an issue with all your references: they are raw links. Take a look at WP:CIT about how to format citations. The second cite may be a good one, but since there is no page number, it is difficult to ascertain how appropriate it is. The third cite doesn't seem to lead to anything about the subject. The fourth is a mere mention of the subject. I hope this helps, and don't hesitate to ask any other questions you might have. Onel5969 (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thank you very much for your advice. I am a bit busy this days, but I do want to continue contributing to Wikipedia. I think it can be a good article, so I will follow your recommendations to improve it. I started to format the references, which I will complete in the next few days and I will also add new ones that talk about him in more depth. If it is OK with you, I would appreciate it if you could continue to help me by reviewing it once I am done. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions for improvement.--Eleonora Venezuela (talk) 08:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing Star Wars (film) to GA

Hi Onel,

I am looking to take the article to peer review soon and, ultimately, GA/FA. You seem at least somewhat interested in improving the article, so I thought you could help me out in making some fixes before I send it. Of primary concern is the main reason it was denied GA two years ago, which is its lack of referencing in certain sections. The third paragraph in Writing is rather bare, along with the Cinematic and literary allusions section; the Soundtrack section is almost entirely uncited. Do you have the time and desire to help me get these sections up to par for a GAN? I was working with Mediran previously but they seem to have rather disappeared. Thanks, Deadbeef 05:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deadbeef - Sure I'll help. I'm working on a pretty difficult c/e of an Indian film, which should keep me occupied for the next couple of days. After that, I'll jump in. I'll work first on the citation issue, then go on to the writing section. Then we can go back over the rest of the issues in the last GA review. Definitely deserves the attention to get it to at least GA. Onel5969 (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear it! GOCE was what brought me to the article in the first place. Let me know when you're ready to take it on... or just edit the page since I'm watching it anyways. Deadbeef 03:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sorry, You make a mistake, because the text on link has been copied from Wikipedia, and initially all written here. It could happen a year ago, when I first wrote an article. It is not necessary to delete paragraphs, unless you know what was the first =) http://www.designfirms.org/company/24179/designcontest/ If you look - they copied the text from here, even with links to resources on Wikipedia. Like [1] in text))) So, could you bring back your changes and view the article again? all the text that there is, I wrote on my own and not copied. SlavaBest (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SlavaBest - Thanks for explaining it to me... sometimes that happens. I try not to make that mistake, I've self-reverted. Onel5969 (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Onel5969 There still says, that "submission declined on 15 January 2015 by Onel5969". Can you review it and accept? Or what I need to do now? Please help me, I wait 2 month for accepting and now it's declined by your mistake =)))
SlavaBest - Hi... you simply have to resubmit it. Then let me know, and I'll take another look at it.Onel5969 (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Onel5969 I already did it)) When you have time - look again, I hope everything will be okay.SlavaBest (talk) 12:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SlavaBest - Hi. First, when you leave a message on an editor's talkpage, there's no need to alert them by putting the ul template, since they are automatically alerted whenever someone posts on their talkpage. I use it to let you know that I've responded.
Now, about your article. I went through the AfD discussion, since there's no point in accepting an article if it is just going to be deleted. Then I went through your revised article, and through each of it's sources. Here's what a I came up with:
Your sources. Here's what WP:CORP says: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." First, you have to understand that there are two types of sources: those which can be used to prove an underlying fact in your article, and those which can be used to show the notability of the subject you are writing about. In the second instance, those citations must be independent and reliable. So, things like press releases, the subject's own website, interviews with the subject, cannot be used in this instance since they are not independent. In looking at the citations below, the following items would fall into this category: 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 19, 21. In addition, the citations need to be broad coverage of the subject, not simple lists or mentions. The following items would fall into this category: 2, 5, 4, 14, 18, 20, 22, 23. Third, there are certain sites which are not considered reliable, such as blogs, youtube, or user reviews, which would include citations 6 and 15. Finally, references to other Wikipedia pages are not valid, so that would knock out #3. So what does that leave? 7, 12 (maybe), 13, 16, 17, and two of those are from the same author on the same site (13 & 17). Bottom line, you have 3 solid sources to establish notability (7, 13/17, and 16). Based upon those 3 alone, following WP:CORPDEPTH, I would have to decline inclusion. I did a websearch about this company, and the issue is, there is just no independent coverage. There are plenty of press releases, and the company is mentioned frequently by other companies who are running a contest, but other than the 3 citations you've already included I can't find another independent article.
However, I'm not going to decline it. I'm going to leave a comment, and perhaps another editor may feel differently about approving it. Onel5969 (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thank you for quick response :)

SlavaBest (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:55:19, 15 January 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by SirJamesHunt


I have tried to address the issues pointed out by the reviewer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anthony_Bradbury) who deleted the article on Soft Robotics. Unfortunately, I was not able to access the original draft to make the requested changes. So far the reviewer has not answered me and I am worried the whole draft that includes the work of a range of people might be lost. Would you be able to point to a place where I could make the changes to resubmit it? Thank you very much for your help. Best regards, Helmut


SirJamesHunt (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SirJamesHunt - you've just re-contacted him today. He might have a bit of a backlog, so give him a day or two to respond, if after that time he still hasn't gotten back to you, I'll try to see what I can do by contacting an admin, okay? Onel5969 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you Onel5969! I am new to Wikipedia and the provided link to contest the nomination... If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion ..does not work. Furthermore, it is nominated for speedy deletion and I am afraid all the work that the people have invested in this article might be lost. The point is that I could easily make the requested change, but the I don't have access to the draft and I am not able to find anywhere any possibility to do it. Thank you for your help and have a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirJamesHunt (talk • contribs) 18:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Onel5969! I still have now response from Anthony. I am worried that the whole article, which is the work of a whole range of people, might be lost, because we are not allowed to make one small change to solve the copyright issue. Your help would be very much appreciated. Thank you Onel5969.

Lottie Williams

Hi, there is no need to delete a redirect to create an article from it. For example at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lottie_Williams&redirect=no However if you do have an AFC or draft to move over the top then I can delete it. Otherwise just edit the page linked to change it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lottie_Williams&redirect=no. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett - Thanks! Wanted to make sure I was following correct procedure. I'll create Lottie's article tomorrow. Onel5969 (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:04:52, 15 January 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Awgrasso


Hi Onel5969,

Thank you very much for your helpful editorial recommendations for my bio on Harold Weintraub, which was my first biographical submission (my only other article was about a stereo amplifier!) I have very studiously made the changes you suggested, in order to attain a more encyclopedic and neutral tone, removing "peacock" terms, changing format of some of the included items in the InfoBox, changing the use of honorifics in the article text to conform to Wikipedia's guidelines, trying to improve the headings, etc.

There is no doubt that my article, as it had been initially submitted, was too glowing in its praise of the subject. That was undoubtedly a reflection of my own respect for him, and of the praise that was heaped upon him by others after he died. However, it is important for me to bring to your attention that Dr. Harold Weintraub truly WAS greatly loved and respected, and that is part of his legacy which needs to be somehow expressed in his bio.

Please take a second and have a look at one of the obituaries (perhaps Marc Kirschner's) and you will see that Weintraub was an exceptional human being, and a couple of superlatives regarding his personal attributes are certainly not bias. They would simply be reflecting the truth. In recent times, no other scientist has received 3 highly laudatory (and almost maudlin, in retrospect) obituaries from top colleagues in his field. And visitors to the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle have mentioned in their blogs that the institution was still recovering from his death 3 years later. That was how much impact he had on the people, and the place:

http://www.ipscell.com/2012/06/how-ips-cells-germinated-in-part-in-seattle-in-the-1980s/

I believe the readership of Wikipedia would appreciate learning about the life of Harold Weintraub. If the article (as it stands now) continues to have problems fulfilling Wikipedia's requirements, please let me know what else I need to change, and I will do so immediately.

Thanks again, Awgrasso

Awgrasso (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Awgrasso! I can tell you have a deep respect for your subject. I went and began to edit the article a bit, which is still way too heavily slanted. Most likely almost the entire "Personal characteristics" section should be deleted. In addition, the final paragraph of the research achievement section most likely should be cut as well. Onel5969 (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


OK, I can see what you're saying. I will go back and make the changes you suggested.

Thanks, Awgrasso — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awgrasso (talk • contribs) 20:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:29:17, 16 January 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Mlemos


Hello Onel5969, I resubmitted a draft for the page Draft:PHPClasses_repository but it seems it was not accepted for including copyrighted material.

I have no clue what was copyrighted there because it was created only by myself. Maybe I missed something evident.

Sorry for my lack of experience on this subject but it seems the page was deleted already because I did not see the message sent to me fast enough.

I wonder if you can restore the page and let me know what I need to do to fix the copyright issue and any issues that it may still include if I am still missing anything.

Thanks in advance for your time and patience.


Mlemos (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mlemos — Sorry for the delay in replying. Since it was deleted I had to get an admin involved. They have restored the page. What happened, simply, is that I screwed up. The page got deleted because it looked like it had been largely copied from THIS SITE. However, I missed the fact that it was that site which had copied from Wikipedia. It's back up now. Sorry for the confusion. About the article, it has an NPOV issue, phrases like "users get inspired", etc. need to be rewritten from a neutral point of view. The article should tell us about the site, not promote it, so sales/advertising lingo should be avoided. Just facts. Also, facts need to be backed up by references. You have quite a few raw links in the article. I removed one and made it into a citation, to show you how to do that. Finally, all the citations should be formatted correctly, as per the example I gave you, or you can choose a different format from WP:CIT. I've declined the article for the moment, due to the NPOV issue, but I think with a little work, you can get the article published, although I think it might have a notability issue. I'll help any way I can. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask. Onel5969 (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patrizia Genovesi

Dear Onel5969, Thank you for your review of my article about Patrizia Genovesi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Patrizia_Genovesi. I have revised the article by trying to incorporate of all of your suggestions. Look forward to new review outcome. Best regards, Fabiobat (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bowls I & II articles

Hi brother, thanks for your kindness. The proposed alternative "known retractively" is not bad. I'll make the changes in a few minutes. Thanks.

18:32:47, 16 January 2015 review of submission by Alex e e alex


Hi Onel5969, thanks for the feedback. I was wondering which part read like an essay, since most of it came straight out of the cited references. Would you mind clarifying a little? This is my first article. :) Thanks again!

Alex e e alex (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review and feedback of Bob Littlefield

Thank you for your feedback on this article.

I believe that I have exercised appropriate care with the creation of the article, as I do with all my edits and new content.

By the Notability criteria you cited, specifically that pertaining to "Polticians," Bob Littlefield clearly meets the requirements for a "major local political figure." Perhaps you missed that paragraph in the Notability criteria?

The Arizona Republic (online at AZCentral.com) is the newspaper of record for the State of Arizona. If perhaps your issue is with whether Bob Littlefield has "received significant press coverage," you can satisfy yourself with a simple Google search for "site:azcentral.com "Bob Littlefield." I just did so, and got over 3,500 hits, from this one source alone. CORRECTION: 1700 hits, I forgot to close the quotation marks.

Having said all that, if you still believe there is some other reason why Bob Littlefield is not notable, I will gladly receive your advice!

Otherwise, I would appreciate it if you would rescind your review and accept the article. I've put a lot of work into writing and revising it according to the input of others reviewers; who I might add, did not express issue with notability.

Politicians[edit] Further information: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Politicians Shortcuts: WP:POLITICIAN WP:NPOL

Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDWashington (talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JohnDWashington - Perhaps you missed reading my comment, which clearly states that Littlefield is notable. On the AfC program, the "notability" decline button is right above the "ilc" decline button, which is the one I should have (and thought I had) clicked — my apologies. My comment gives examples of the three main issues with the article. Those would need to be addressed before the article would get moved to the mainspace. That's my opinion, another editor might see it differently, but I think I tend to be one of the more lenient editors. Hope this helps.Onel5969 (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Onel5969 - you have me at a disadvantage. I'm looking at your comment right now and it says exactly the opposite of what you say above. Furthermore, there are no "three main issues" listed. Please advise.JohnDWashington (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JohnDWashington - Here's my comment: "Clearly notable, but the article suffers from several issues. First, it needs to be written in an encyclopedic style, phrases like "widened the rift between Littlefield and Lane. Littlefield and council allies Tony Nelssen and Guy Phillips frequently sparred with Lane" need to be rewritten. Second, the article has many grammatical errors, such as "the only person elected to three terms on city council". Third, since this is a blp, there is a high degree of citation which is needed. Pretty much any fact that you assert, needs to be cited, such as the National Merit Scholar, 2010 election results, etc."
Not sure how that "says exactly the opposite of what you say above." I stated in my comment above that he was notable, and I state in the comment when I declined the article that he was notable. Not sure how that's exactly the opposite. Seems pretty much exactly the same to me. My comment above then explained that I meant to decline it for inline citations, not for notability. In my comment on the article, I follow that by giving three issues. Perhaps my labeling them "first, second & third" might have been confusing. Onel5969 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I was looking for your comments on my talk page below where your original comment appeared. I just realized you were referring to the article page. I believe my phraseology is an accurate reflection of conversations which I both observed personally, and more importantly are supported by the sources cited. I corrected the syntax on the "three-terms" and I will look at additional citations for the facts asserted.JohnDWashington (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted the information in the introduction and personal life section for which there were no source citations. I believe the remainder of the material to have adequate source citations. I await your review.JohnDWashington (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JohnDWashington - Looks good, resubmit it. Onel5969 (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review and feedback of API Chaining

Hi, Did you read my talk page and the ongoing issues that occurred with 'API chaining that led to this resubmission? That editors of wikipedia effectively hounded me, removed all my content even though I am a respected conference speaker (of which materials you rejected), my content is being considered for a book, large enterprises are using my work, I just gave another talk in which the entire Netflix API Team was at, etc. Conference materials ARE peer reviewed as previously stated. I am not going to rehash this debate that I had 6 months ago with wikipedia editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.239.4.142 (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Not sure if you will read this, but no I didn't read the talk page of an ip editor. It certainly doesn't come close to meeting the guidelines under WP:GNG, so the next thing would be to look at the specific guidelines for software. The guidelines at WP:NSOFT are pretty specific, and this software does not meet any of them. The first reference is not independent, the second is simply a link to a list. The third, while significant, does not go to meeting any of the four criteria. Of particular interest is this guideline: "The software is the subject of multiple printed third party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers." This third reference seems to be authored by the person responsible for this software, and therefore would not qualify towards notability. So, of the three sources, there is not a single one which goes to notability. Onel5969 (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conference materials that are peer reviewed meet peer review guidelines. Have had this ENTIRE discussion. Have went through entire process and had all my articles removed due to biased authors and finally after being attacked repeatedly McMatter had them restore and say resubmit; they DO meet guidelines but may not have enough material yet or may need merged. Read ALL material before rejecting. There are PAGES of material in this before you start this entire topic up again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orubel (talk • contribs) 20:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orubel - I'm alerting McMatter to this discussion here, due to the fact that you've had dealings with him before on this issue. I never questioned whether or not the single reference you have for your article is peer reviewed. But that does not go to the issue of notability by which I declined your article. I'm not quite sure you grasp what is trying to be described to you. Now that I know that you are the article's author (which I did not see when your initial comment was through an ip address), let me just say that although you have an interest in the subject, I do not feel that the article suffers from a POV issue. It simply does not seem to meet any of the four criteria, with the current references, of WP:NSOFT, as I noted above. In addition, you seem to distort McMatter's position, but perhaps I'm misreading his comments. To tell you the truth, I'm more than willing to help other editors when they want help, but you are simply arguing. I'm only responding here as a last resort to attempt to get you to understand the process. But after this, I'm pretty much done with this article. Onel5969 (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article Review  : Draft:Ed_DeCosta

@Onel5969: Regardless the result of the review, I wanted to thank you for taking the time to check my article and for providing useful points to improve the article. I constantly visited the pages Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:VRS to recheck my work. Rest assured I will improve this article because I firmly believe on the subject I am interested on putting on here. Aside from the points you stated, would you be so kind as to state anything more that would help me? Thank you so much.Pmanz2014 (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pmanz2014 - No worries. Never be afraid to ask questions. The article is actually well structured, (the Education section needs to go away and the information in it moved up to the beginning before the first career section - and get citations for those details) although there is nothing about his early life (not a big thing - sometimes we can't find that information). I'd get rid of all the citations in the lead, and move them down into the body of the article when you deal with those points in the main article. Headings need to use sentence capitalization (I went and changed one as an example). The coaching profession section is unclear as to when that started. What I might do is simply leave out the first subsection title "Life before coaching", then have sub-sections for "Coaching", "Author", etc. When you move the stuff in the current Education section, you could have your final section simply titled, "Personal life", and talk about his wife and kids, and anything else current about him which is interesting and/or pertinent. Make sure it's cited. Where you have several citations, cut it down to 2 (certainly no more than 3, but only in very few instances) - choose the best cites, and get rid of the rest. For example, for the sentence, "DeCosta was appointed as vice president of business development at KeyLogic Systems", I'd simply use footnote 22 in that location (I couldn't open #21, but 22 is good enough). Then I'd use #20 to document some of the stuff in the personal section. Also, you really only use italics for major creative works (films, tv shows, albums, etc.) don't italicize names or company names. Anyway, I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969 Thank you, I truly connected with a whole bunch of wiki editors to check my work every so often. I do not know Mr. DeCosta personally but see his work as something quite outstanding so I follow his work closely and with the articles and interviews I found, I felt he should be on wiki. Should I instead re-create the article under Category:Writer stubs, Category:Business biography stubs, Category:Business organization stubs or Category:Private equity biography stubs then? Pmanz2014 (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pmanz2014 - First, when you write on an editor's talkpage, you don't have to use the ul template (or "pinging", as it is sometimes called, when you use the tping template). Those are to alert an editor that a discussion is taking place which they might be interested in. Whenever you write on an editors talkpage, they are automatically alerted, so it's redundant. I use it when I respond, to let you know that I have responded.
Regarding the article, "stub" status is simply how deeply the article goes into a subject, it has nothing to do with notability. The subject of your article, if you could come up with 2 - 3 other mainstream sources which speak about him (at length, not mere mentions), he would be notable. I did a brief internet search, and couldn't find any pertinent references in the first 100 or so entries.Onel5969 (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

04:19:38, 18 January 2015 review of submission by Awgrasso


Regarding my article on Harold Weintraub, I have made all of the required changes to the document. Thanks for your help,

Adam

Awgrasso (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Awgrasso - Nice job. Resubmit it, and let me know when you do. Onel5969 (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Carolina Neurath

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

04:39:21, 20 January 2015 review of submission by Cascade1988


I would very much appreciate an explanation in more detail regarding your reason for declining my submission, specifically, the part about notability. I have asked for explanations from others and never got a response. My original intent was to write a more basic article, which could be expanded as time goes on by folks who have more knowledge about the history of the mall. I have attempted to add more detail, but am at a point where I have nothing else I can add to the article. Cascade1988 (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Cascade1988[reply]

Cascade1988 (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cascade1988! Sure thing. If you go to WP:CORP, you'll see that the first thing stated is "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." In your article you have 5 sources. The first 2 are only brief mentions of the subject. The third is not independent. The last two are the types of sources that work, although one is pretty light on the subject, but they are both from local sources. So the sources don't rise to the level of "significant coverage". I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Yevadu turned a GA today which also is my third successive GA and the second in this month, and you significantly helped to reach this stage with your copy-editing. Thanks a lot for your help bro!!!! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Pavanjandhyala! Congrats on the GA success! Onel5969 (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chennai Express Copyedit

I nominated the article for a GA. Although it doesn't need much work, it'll greatly benefit if you could just copy-edit it a bit. I was referred to you by Ssven2, who would be reviewing the article. Thanks in advance! EthicallyYours! 17:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ethically Yours! Sure. It'll take me a day or two, but I'll start on it today. Onel5969 (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22:20:49, 20 January 2015 review of submission by Dolemite007


Hello. Thank you for your evaluation of the article I submitted. I took your concerns and criticisms to heart and tried to edit it according to the suggestions you made. What I did was go back in and strip out anything that may be misconstrued as "advertising" or "promotional." Then I re-worded a few things and combined a few paragraphs...it's not radially different, but it's now been basically cut down to a very direct, to-the-point article.

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

I would appreciate it if you could take a look and make any further suggestions as to how I could improve it. Thank you for your time.

Dolemite007 (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23:21:22, 20 January 2015 review of submission by Awgrasso


Thanks! The article is currently listed as resubmitted and under review - I don't think I can resubmitted, as it now stands. Appreciate your help in the editing process.

Adam


Awgrasso (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onel5969&oldid=643522069"