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
No edit summary
Msmith626 (talk | contribs)
19 edits
Line 1,041: Line 1,041:


: {{ul|Msmith626}} - no worries. Article looks much better. Resubmit it and let me know, so I can move it to the mainspace. Nice work! [[User:Onel5969|Onel5969]] ([[User talk:Onel5969#top|talk]]) 13:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
: {{ul|Msmith626}} - no worries. Article looks much better. Resubmit it and let me know, so I can move it to the mainspace. Nice work! [[User:Onel5969|Onel5969]] ([[User talk:Onel5969#top|talk]]) 13:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

: {{ul|Onel5969}} - Thank you! I've resubmitted the article. [[User:Msmith626|Msmith626]] ([[User talk:Msmith626|talk]]) 19:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


== Help with publishing rejected article ==
== Help with publishing rejected article ==

Revision as of 19:14, 18 February 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

Hi! You might find these handy:

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

Flag icons

Hi there. I haven't looked at the proposal, but thank you in advance for your hard work. I've never done a proposal myself, but in the past whenever I've had technical questions like this, I've simply asked at the help desk (village pump?) and have found the answers quick and helpful. I suspect someone will give a step by step. I think someone unconnected to the discussion needs to lead it though. Let me know how it goes, and thanks again. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Magnolia677. I put it up on the Village Pump. Will let you know how it turns out. Onel5969 (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

02:08:24, 2 February 2015 review of submission by JonnyLDN

Thanks for reviewing. The subject in question was a a notable figure in Guatemala politics/economics at the time but unfortunately, aside from his published books, it is very difficult to cite online sources as the period that he was alive/active (late 70s/early80s) was pre-internet and press coverage from the time has not been documented online. Do you have any recommendations? Thanks, JonnyJonnyLDN (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JonnyLDN (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While online documentation is easier to verify, documentation does not have to be online. If you use magazine/newspaper/book sources, please use formats as in WP:CIT. Let me know when you do, and I'll be more than happy to take a look at it. Onel5969 (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rams

When the Rams were in Los Angeles and Anaheim, they were the Los Angeles Rams. That may be a bit difficult for you to understand, but unless you have a good reason for reverting my edits I must ask you to refrain from doing so. Los Angeles Rams redirects to History of the Los Angeles Rams, which is 100% in compliance with Wikipedia's NFL guidelines. --CASportsFan (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First off, might I suggest you read WP:CIVIL. I have no issue with you changing the wikilink to History of the Los Angeles Rams, but if that's what you intend, might I also suggest that's what you do. Rather than editing it to a redirect, which is not in keeping with proper Wiki editing. Onel5969 (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:20, 31 January 2015 review of submission by Timoluege


Hi there! First, please let me say that I very much appreciate the time you took to to review the submission. I'll be happy to correct the issues. The paraphrase issue you mentioned is understood, but I'm not clear about your comments about NPOV. Would you mind giving me one or two examples from the article where you see that issue so that it will be easier for me to correct? At the moment I'm a bit flummoxed because there was nobody who was really against the peace treaty so it's difficult to find an opposing point of view. Or are you more referring to words like "spearheaded" or sentences like "This led to a system that would entrench and enrich the 'in-group' of the day, and establish barriers to access for the 'out-groups'." It's really not clear to me. Thanks! (Timoluege (talk) 08:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Timoluege - you hit the nail on the head. Sentences like those, and "The accord served as a firm political commitment ...", and "The British colonial influence left two painful legacies ..." frame the subject from a certain perspective. The article is very close, nice job so far. Onel5969 (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Onel5969! Appreciate the clarification! (Timoluege (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

11:13:30, 2 February 2015 review of submission by MuayThaiInfo


Hi, I'm wondering what is needed to get this page up and running. Mr. Farnam Mirzai is considered to be one of the greatest trainers in SE Asia and is currently working with s fighters in the biggest organizations.

I've seen other fighters with less experience and less influence with wikipedia pages so I don't understand why Farnam was rejected.

I have cleaned up the page a little bit and added some information but if there is anything else needed could you please advise me because I don't know what it is that you need.

Thank you,


MuayThaiInfo (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MuayThaiInfo - that may be true, but the references don't show his significance. The first is an interview, which means that it's a primary source... Wikipedia likes secondary, independent sources. The second is to a wikipage, which isn't a valid reference at all. The third is to YouTube, which is not a reliable source. The fourth is merely mentioning him, while the fifth mentions him only tangentially, it's really about another fighter, which is the same for the sixth. The seventh is an ad, which is completely unreliable. Take a look at WP:RS to see what classifies as a reliable and independent article. Your first reference, would qualify if it was an article, not an interview. #'s 4, 5 and 6 would qualify, but they don't talk about the subject in a significant way. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:56:44, 2 February 2015 review of submission by Photoloop


Photoloop (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Onel5969, Thank you for reviewing my first submission. I understand that you want to see more references. The problem with more references is that they were before the internet and Maryland state archives are not electronic or on the web. I will be calling the Maryland State Archives today or tomorrow, to see what I can find. Ambassador Kapneck was the first State Trade Ambassador, as far as I know, so this is important, and he is also the longest-service Trade Ambassador. The big problem with references is that he has been very quiet, not giving interviews over the years, he said it was because when he speaks, it is as though the Governor was speaking, so he almost never speaks to the press. Obviously, there were appointments and reappointments over the years. This is why I will call the State Archives.

Even if I am able to find those, they will be printed documents. Please can you give me some advice on how I can handle the references that Wikipedia needs, to tell this story? There are a few more stories and references to those, such as the time that Princess Anne came to the US with Prince Charles and met Mr. Kapneck. There were print stories about that, and Google has those :

Princess Escapes Newsmen

[1]

  1. ^ http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=348&dat=19700719&id=E9kvAAAAIBAJ&sjid=sjEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6050,2383279


Photoloop (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photoloop - Hi. Sources do not have to be web searchable. Check out WP:RS for what qualifies as an independent reliable source. You can find out about referencing also at WP:REFB, and about how to format citations at WP:CIT. BTW, for notability purposes, interviews are not appropriate, as they are primary sources. I hope this helps. Don't hesitate to ask any other questions you may have. Onel5969 (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:15:44, 2 February 2015 review of submission by Dimatree1978


Hi. I'm the author of the article Natalia Iyudin. The article has been flagged for speedy deletion by you because of an alleged copyright infringement. That is incorrect. Your Hollywood pro used the unpublished version on my Wikipedia article with my permission. I wrote them both and am the copyright holder. There was NO copyright infringement. Please do not delete the article but take steps to rectify this.

Dimatree1978 (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dimatree1978 - Thanks for that information. Please put the information on the talk page of the article by clicking "Contest this speedy deletion". I am unsure of the exact process for a case like this. Because the info appears in another source, and doesn't cite Wikipedia as its source (IMDB doesn't reference any sources), I don't know if just simply taking your word is correct. I'm sure there's a process for it, I just don't know it. But if you put this information on the article's talk page, someone who has more knowledge than I can take care of it. Onel5969 (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:43:28, 2 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by 107.107.62.183


Hi, thanks for the info. Unfortunaly, the page is blanked now because of the copyright notice. I can't contest it; the page is gone. What do I do now?


107.107.62.183 (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dimatree1978 - Just because it's blanked, doesn't mean it's gone. Click on the link which I suggested above, and explain it. But do it soon. I've left a comment there, so that an admin will know that you are going to comment. Onel5969 (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

09:28:31, 3 February 2015 review of submission by MuayThaiInfo


Hi again, I couldn't figure out how to reply to your answer so I just wrote a new one and pasted your answer. If there is another way of doing thing then please inform me so I can do it correctly in the future

"Hi MuayThaiInfo - that may be true, but the references don't show his significance. The first is an interview, which means that it's a primary source... Wikipedia likes secondary, independent sources. The second is to a wikipage, which isn't a valid reference at all. The third is to YouTube, which is not a reliable source. The fourth is merely mentioning him, while the fifth mentions him only tangentially, it's really about another fighter, which is the same for the sixth. The seventh is an ad, which is completely unreliable. Take a look at WP:RS to see what classifies as a reliable and independent article. Your first reference, would qualify if it was an article, not an interview. #'s 4, 5 and 6 would qualify, but they don't talk about the subject in a significant way. I hope this helps"

First of all I think I have to mention that in the fight game (excluding Olympic sports and Boxing) most information is shared via interviews and often through facebook (events, seminars, ranking etc) and since I knew that you do not take facebook as a source I didn't add those. I think I might have named links incorrectly which might have been a bit confusing but I'm going to try to sort it out.

Link 2. You mention that a wikipage isn't a valid reference at all which I find odd since this is Wikipedia but there is no international keeper of fight records for Muay Thai and Kickboxing. Wikipedia is used for that and Farnams opponent (Shane Campbell) already had a wikipage which also mentions Farnman so I thought would be legit.

Link 3. Could you please advise how to offer video proof without using youtube? I used this link because it clearly shows the TV channel logo and you can hear the commentators but if there is another way please inform me.

Link 4. This link is in Swedish but it is all about Farnam and mentions him as one of the best and most merited fighters from Sweden.

Link 5-6 (now 6-7). Both articles are about other teams/fighters with Farnam mentioned as a trainer. This is in the "Training and Coaching" section so I find it very valid. It's no longer about Farnam as a fighter but him as a coach.

Link 7 (now 8). I might have labeled it wrong calling it "Tv-spot". This is not an ad. It is a pre-fight Tv show. It's like a documentary following the fighters similar to UFC road to the octagon.

I had a couple of links that I didn't know where to add but I have now added one (Now Link 5) which is an article about foreign fighters and trainers in China with Farnam being the subject for foreign trainer.

I also have access to newspaper with articles about Farnam in Thai but I would have to scan and upload them to some website and I don't know if that would be accepted as a source.

Thank you again for taking your time, I hope I was able to provide enough explanation to why there are mainly interview sources.

MuayThaiInfo (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naayak

Would you like to give Naayak a thorough copy edit, as it awaits a GAR soon. If interested, please let me know. But one thing, the female leads Kajal Aggarwal and Amala Paul are referred by their mononyms Kajal and Amala respectively and thus please keep that in mind if you want to give it a c/e. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pavanjandhyala - Sure thing. It'll take a few days. Hopefully shorter than the last one! Onel5969 (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When are you going to begin the process bro? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pavanjandhyala - Finally finished the c/e. Sorry it took so long. Onel5969 (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks bro. You did it on my request and that itself is something big. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pombo Musical

Hi Onel, I'm Luis Nuñez. Can you help me with my request of the Guild of Copy Editors ----> Pombo Musical. You helped me with Lágrimas Cálidas, is that my english isn't very very well, hope that you could help me, thank you for your attention, hope you are OK. Greetings from Colombia. Luis Nuñez (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luisnh1210 - Sure thing. Will let you know when it is completed. Onel5969 (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Luisnh1210 – I was wondering if you still needed a c/e on this article. My last c/e took me much longer than anticipated. Let me know. Onel5969 (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Onel5969 – Sure, Onel. No problem, If you can this week do it. Thanks :) Luisnh1210 20:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 01:55:14, 4 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by OpenMind


Dear Onel5969,

Thank you for reviewing this Wikipedia entry. Over the past week I have diligently reviewed the notability and referencing guidelines, and have significantly updated the entry so that it features much more robust references and citations.

When you have a moment I would very much appreciate you taking a look at the new version which has the following new improvements:

1) Public endorsements by extremely notable and world-renowned individuals - Robert Downey Jr. (newly cited in The Times of India as well as GoGoMix) and Sting (newly cited at The Omega Institute for Holistic Studies and in the online outlet The Meta Arts Magazine).

2) New public endorsements by notable peers in the field - Rob Brezsny (cited in The Village Voice) and April Kent (cited in a Penguin Group published book).

3) New interviews a) with a notable peer - founder of All Music Guide, Michael Erlewine - and b) in the online outlet The Meta Arts Magazine.

4) New citations from educational institutions - The Omega Institute for Holistic Studies and The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

5) Robust and new citations from notable major media outlets - The Los Angeles Times, Esquire, O, The Oprah Magazine, The Times of India, The News and Observer, and The Village Voice.

I truly appreciate your wikipedia wisdom and expertise on this, and thank you in advance for your time and consideration.

Best, OpenMind 01:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi OpenMind - It's almost there. I made some slight format corrections, and added a tag where a citation is definitely needed. Celebrity endorsements are worthless (unless they are speaking about something they are well-known for: like Sting on music or aids in Africa), I would cut them. I think the other additions prove his notability. Nice job. If you resubmit it, I'll move it to the mainspace, just let me know when you do. Onel5969 (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Onel5969 - Wow, you move fast! Thank you so much for being a fantastic editor - pushing me to do my best, and making the article stronger because of it. I've cut the celebrity endorsements (although that's painful, I like them!) and added the citations as requested. I also revamped the other book citations so that they are all in the same "cite book" format. Please let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to adjust. I think it looks really good and solid. Once I get the go-ahead from you, I'll happily resubmit it. Thanks again so much Onel5969! OpenMind 16:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi OpenMind - Looks okay. Resubmit it and let me know and I'll approve it. Also, just so you know, I "ping" you when I respond to a message you leave me on my talk page, so that you'll know I've responded (if you haven't checked "watch this page"). But there's no reason for you to ping an editor on their own talk page, because they are automatically alerted. Onel5969 (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Onel5969 - Excellent. I just resubmitted the article, and thank you once again for your editorial support and expertise. Best, OpenMind 00:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Onel5969 - Thanks again for your help. I had one last question. At the bottom of the page is listed the following - Warning: Default sort key "Forrest, Steven" overrides earlier default sort key "Forrest, Steven (astrologer)". Do we need to do something to remove that warning? OpenMind 14:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OpenMind (talk • contribs)
Also meant to add that there was an incorrect indirect for Steven Forrest (from a band called Placebo) that I requested be deleted via RfD. If I search wikipedia for Steven Forrest only the redirct page comes up. Perhaps a disambiguation page is needed? OpenMind 14:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OpenMind (talk • contribs)

Hi OpenMind - there were two persondata templates at the bottom of the page. I removed one, so the warning is now gone. Regarding the redirect, you did absolutely the correct thing. If the redirect is deleted, you should rename your page simply Steven Forrest, as he would be the only article by that name. I'll keep an eye on it. A Dab (disambiguation) isn't really appropriate in this instance, since there are really no other entries for Steven Forrest. If that band member had his own page, and if he was truly not a major star (e.g. Paul McCartney), than the proper moves would be to rename that person's page, Steven Forrest (musician), leave your page alone, and create a dab. I hope this all makes sense to you. Onel5969 (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

03:14:19, 4 February 2015 review of submission by Jordan28jordan1


Dear Wiki Reviewer,

I have added five sources and clarified details on further sources.

I wonder, is the fact that she has written and published close to 20 volumes of scholarship and poetry from major publishers in Japan and the U.S. not enough to justify her presence on Wikipedia? She has an extensive page in the Japanese wiki as well.

Should I be documenting the books that she has published in more detail? Surely, wiki wouldn't be challenging the existence of these volumes, or so I would imagine.

Given her contributions to literature and academia on a global scale (as recognized by multiple international awards from major institutions), I believe she should be given further consideration. If my documentation is inadequate, I can continue working to show this.

Any further advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks so much for your time, Jordan

Jordan28jordan1 (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jordan28jordan1 - In answer to your first question, in a word - no. Just because someone has a body of work, does not make that work notable, especially in today's age of self-publication and boutique publishers. This is a blp (biography of a living person), and so a high degree of support is needed for any assertion made in the article. With the current references, this a borderline case of notability, but I would probably approve it. However, since it is a blp, it needs much more documentation, for instance, each of the awards needs a citation, as well as the other facts in that section. The Biography section needs many more citations. The 2 works sections, should provide a link (does this person have a webpage which lists them? - that would do). You don't need to cite each individual book, but since you don't have the isbn numbers, you should prove they exist. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

04:57:05, 4 February 2015 review of submission by CapitalStylist


Hi there! And thanks for reviewing my article on Spey. I am a stylist and personal shopper in DC, and this is my first Wikipedia article. Excited to get started! I corrected the issues pointed out in the review and wanted any feedback you may have on improving the article further. The company is new so there is not a lot out there, but I was able to find some pretty good sources. Any other tips? I think some imagery would help. CapitalStylist (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CapitalStylist (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CapitalStylist - Nice job on getting rid of the copyvio issue. Yes, images are always nice, if they add to the article. The issue you will most likely run into is, again, copyright. All pics have to be free to use and edit commercially. WP:FIT is a good place to start to figure out how to find suitable images. Once you find them, you save them to your drive, then use the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, which has a link on the left tab of your screen, to upload them.
The article, however, currently suffers from two issues: [[WP:NCORP|Notability and sounding like an advertisement. Both of those issues will prevent the article from making it to the mainspace. The advert issue means that the article appears to be selling the company, rather than simply providing information about it. A perfect example of this is the Military section. The first sentence, gives information, the second offers a selling point based on that information. That is easily corrected through editing. The notability issue might be more difficult, especially since the company is so young. While your article is well cited for the underlying facts, not a single one of those citations goes towards establishing the notability of the company. The first line in guideline for corporate notability reads: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." So, any source which has ties to the company (e.g. spey.com) is allright to substantiate a claim in the article, but cannot be used to prove notability, since it is not independent. Interviews with principles of the article (the CEO, etc), are primary sources, not second, and therefore have the same issue. This leaves 2 citations. The Washingtonian cite is user submitted, therefore not reliable. The K-Street article reads like a press release, and since it included promotional sale data, it has to be considered suspect.
You need to find articles about Spey in independent sources, which are not interviews, press releases, or user blogs. I've been a bit lengthy here, but I hope you find it helpful. Onel5969 (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:11, 24 January 2015‎ review of submission by Drgonzo 1972

Hello--

Thanks for reviewing my article; could you explain what you mean by "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article"? I didn't get a reply from the first two reviewers that rejected the submission, and when I ask for advice from the forums the response is basically "I don't know why the last reviewer felt that way, I certainly don't see an issue with the tone or style of your submission; you should just resubmit and let another reviewer look at it, then you should be fine."

But since this is now the third time I've gotten that same statement, verbatim, I'd like to request a little more info, please. Also, there seems to be some issue with my sources not being independent, reliable, or published; can you give more info on that? Of the 17 different references included in the submission, none are from Doppler Studios (the subject of the article) or any entity associated with them; several are from sources that have been established for longer than Wikipedia has been around (news organizations like CNN, and many print publications); all have been published. I wonder if because so many of them refer to Doppler Studios in their headlines, that someone is mistaking those for articles written or published by Doppler Studios?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks much!

--Stephen Drgonzo 1972 (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drgonzo 1972 - There are two issues, which are similar, but not exactly the same. The first is advertising. Articles are meant to be informative, relaying information which can be corroborated through independent sources. Information contained in the article should be relevant to understanding the subject of the article. When information is presented in a promotional way, or compares it to competitors in a positive light, that counts as advertising. I don't think your article suffers on that score. However, the section "Studio and Technical Specs" is definitely promotional, since it's unimportant to anyone who is not shopping for as studio, as well as using promotional words like "extensive", and then pointing the reader to the subject's website. Entire section needs to be deleted. The second issue is what you are speaking about above. This is much more subjective, in my opinion, but there are certain things in your article which stand out. First, is the inclusion of the Spec section I mentioned above. Second, are sentences like, "You can hear Neil describe his background and relate some stories from throughout his career in a radio interview conducted by Scott Glazer for Backstage Atlanta here ...". Articles should never ask questions, or attempt to talk to the reader. The extensive "notes/trivia" section needs to be pared down, where possible those facts should be incorporated into the body of the article. For example, the facts regarding Ossie Davis, Jimmy Carter, Katrina, etc... all the stuff that happened in those years could be written as a prose paragraph and included in the "history" section. The first two trivia facts should be deleted. They are germane to the people involved, not to Doppler. The lengthy lists of projects, clients, etc. are simply too much. I'd combine those 3 sections, and give 2-3 examples for each category (e.g. Doppler has been the site of music production as diverse as Kenny Rogers, to Katy Perry, to Boyz to Men - I simply picked 3, but you get the idea). Well, I hope this makes sense, and helps. By the way, sorry you didn't get a response when you've asked this question before. An editor who is willing to learn, and wants to understand, should always get a response. If you want me to take another look at it after you've worked on it, let me know. Good luck. Onel5969 (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Onel5969 - Thanks for all of your comments and suggestions, they are greatly appreciated. I've updated the article with most of the suggested changes, except I decided to combine the remaining points from the "facts/trivia" section with the further paired-down lists of music, ADR, and other clientele, into a single "notable sessions" section. You're exactly right about the "You can hear Neil describe..." line, I don't know how I and previous reviewers let that stay in for so long. Also, I did delete the "studio specs" section, but just so you know why I had it in there in the first place (sorry for a long anecdote, but...): when I was around 10 or 11 and fascinated with recording studios, the only place to research anything was at the library (very pre-Internet)--and the best resources were the encyclopedias. I would spend hours poring over any entries for the legendary studios I was so enamored with, like Abbey Road, AIR Studios, Record Plant, Sun Studios, Muscle Shoals...and the coolest thing was always when I found loads of technical specs like room sizes/dimensions, gear lists, etc. Usually that was standard fare in encyclopedia entries, so that was what I was giong for; that comprehensive collection of info that you could only find in an encyclopedia. But I have removed the section now, and I do appreciate your feedback. Drgonzo 1972 (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Thank you for your assistance with my first article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Edwards_Center_Inc. you declined it but have offered me exact directions on how to improve it for resubmission. Your help is so appreciated! Bascovdr (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bascovdr, and thanks. Took another look at it. Nice job. Moved it to the mainspace. Keep up the good editing! Onel5969 (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-review request

Hi, I've updated references for: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:International_Piano_Competition_for_Outstanding_Amateurs

There are now 6 references from different sources (magazines and websites)

Please review! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furtwangler2015 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Furtwangler2015 - Better job on the citations. I approved it, but would still like to see more independent citations. I also edited one of the sections, to give you an idea of getting rid of non-encyclopedic language, as well as formatting issues. Sometimes redlinks are okay, but in this instance, I think I would get rid of all of them, except for the two in the "Level" section. Also, when you leave a message for another editor, don't forget to "sign" it, by adding four tildas at the end. Happy editing. Onel5969 (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:39:15, 5 February 2015 review of submission by KetubahMaven


Thank You for your advice on re-writing the article on Mickie Caspi. I have edited it following your guidelines and would like to have it reviewed. Do I need to resubmit or can you do it from this notice?

KetubahMaven (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KetubahMaven - I've done some editing work on the article. Since it's a blp, there are some citations which are still needed before we can move it to the mainspace. First, every fact asserted in the early life paragraph needs a citation. If they all come from a single source, then it's fine to put it at the end, but each of those statements needs to cited. I've added citation tags in a couple more places. Couple of other things. If you can get citations for those items, I'll move it to the mainspace. Let me know. Onel5969 (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Onel5969 - I was not able to use access the 'talk' link, so I am adding a message here: I've had added citations as per your recommendations. Please let me know if you need anything else to approve the article. Also, should there be external links or is it okay to leave that blank? KetubahMaven (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC) KetubahMaven[reply]

19:35:37, 5 February 2015 review of submission by Danielletbd


Danielletbd (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the sources that I believed to be invalid and all of the ones remaining adhere to the guidelines listed on your website. I need someone who has looked at this over and decided it doesn't fit to explain why and which specific links are problematic.

Leah Totton

Hello, Onel5969,
I politely request a rereview of your decline, as well as a much more detailed explanation. You assessed the topic as not meeting notability. I am slightly perturbed by this because I have read the guidelines very carefully, and this analysis does not seem to correspond at all to the very clear definition within Wikipedia guidelines. It appears that the topic has received dozens of mentions in edited media, which treat of the topic very substantially (not brief mention etc). Some of these references are already within the citation list (per guidelines, not all have to be). You have specifically asked for additional wp:rs. I gently challenge you on this, not in behalf of the article, but as inconsistent with written policy. You also contend that the topic is being worded as an advert. This is a subjective assessment, and I respect your opinion, but I would therefore ask for a more complete explanation of what exactly you find WP:npov or inappropriate wp:tone, or that you would continue to contend after reassessing now as "reading with unencyclopedic tone and like as advertisement" (or equivalent). This article has been subject to this type of contention repeatedly, and I am determined to work collaboratively on specifics to resolve the concern(s). Again, this is not in behalf of the topic, but a challenge as to whether this decline is guideline based. To do this, I am therefore politely requesting exact information, rather than broad characterization without any detail. Last, I would ask that you restore the redaction added by DGG to the erroneous contentions within his initial decline comment. DGG graciously admitted that the comments were wrong (see the edit history), and struck through the comment. Perhaps inadvertently, you reverted his strike through: did you do so by mistake? FeatherPluma (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FeatherPluma - First, I have no clue why DGG's comment was "unstruck". I simply declined the article. I've "pinged" him here, since I never futz with another editor's comments, I'm sure he'll take care of it. Regarding notability, the first cite is simply her bio from The Apprentice, and is very skimpy at that. The second is simply verification of her being a doctor. 3-6 & 10 are citations which deal with a single event, and are not in-depth articles about the subject. #7 is a good citation. #8 is a dead link. #9 is from an obscure source. Not sure what 11 & 12 are. So, out of the 12, you basically have 2 good citations (all the ones which are about a single event count as 1, and #7). That does not meet the notability requirement as per the guidelines. While there are multiple sources, they are not significant coverage, due to the limited scope of the articles. Statements like, "Her participation in the show, the business she set up, her advocacy of improved quality and integrity in the cosmetic treatment industry, and her personal life have been followed in the media", "... won a £250,000 prize for business acumen ...", and the details of the clinic are promotional in nature. The non-encyclopedic tone would be also be characterized by those statements, as well as the "However...". The declination specifically follows the guidelines. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is not irremediable. What you need are references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements

Hello, Onel5969,

I think it might be helpful if we make sure we are using the same guideline, so here is guideline language of the "basic criteria" whereby a topic is "presumptively" (per guideline) notable as a wp:blp: QUOTING --

"Basic criteria"
"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other."
Do you have a specific reason to either disagree with the guideline, or a specific reason that the topic of the Draft wp:blp does not meet wp:n? I would appreciate you clearing up my confusion. As you can easily see, the topic received attention from The Telegraph, The Mail, The Irish Times, the BBC, The Express, and multiple trade sources (the last isn't relevant re notability). I also disagree - this topic has not received single event coverage. Media coverage has extended over 6 months by one benchmark, and over a year by another, as it has covered both 1. winning the competition (for business acumen) and 2. setting up the clinic in the face of opposition and 3. advocating for better standards in the UK cosmetic industry. I do understand notability comes first, but I notice that you are not explaining your other contentions - "unencyclopedic tone" and "advertising". FeatherPluma (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a debate. I don't disagree with the guideline, I'm following it. I explained it quite clearly. I also clearly explained tone and advertising as well, which you seem to be ignoring. So, I'm pretty much done with attempting to explain it to you. Take care. Onel5969 (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know it isn't a debate. It's a genuine attempt to see what you are thinking, so that I can collaboratively resolve the issue. In my opinion, you have not specified your advertising concern whatsoever, but have made a generalization. Please point to the exact problem. I will be pleased to change anything that you can point to. As to wp:n, I also diagree, and I have explained why. I am not stupid, and I'm sorry if I am being a pain to youyou need to explain your viewpoint more clearly please. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do not need to explain it more clearly. I've already explained it quite clearly, quite specifically, and gave examples. There is no issue to resolve. Happy editing. Onel5969 (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It's clear, for you. Can I therefore take it that the topic is irremediable? I am sorry if you think I am pushing, but I am merely trying to really grasp things, and collect examples of how Wikipedia behaves. My purpose is to see if I can help with the article. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FeatherPluma, the topic is in my opinion not irremediable. the subject is probably notable, so it's a matter of tone. (You will understand that we have had considerable difficult with attempted advertising by plastic surgeons and others in related specialties, and we are therefore carefully on the watch to prevent more of it.) I suggest the following:

  1. Ref . 11 does not state that the firm's consultant surgeon is a former BAAPS advisor. It is also unclear from the article whether the appointment was made before or after the criticism from the Society. (& the use of "however" implies that there is a contradiction,and also implies that this refutes the criticism. This should be avoided
  2. Section 3 is promotional. Even the sentence on her not treating teen agers is relevant only if she is unique in that regard. Whom she dated is not encyclopedic content; it would only be appropriate if she were a media figure, and including it makes her seem like one, and thus makes the article look like advertising. .
  3. User her name as little as practical -- "She" is a good substitute.

Be aware that when we approve an article at AfC, we do this on the basis that it is likely to be kept at AfD. This article will very possibly be challenged there, and you would therefore be well advised to make it as strong as possible. Only the community can decide, and the community is sometimes unpredictable. They've kept worse, and thrown out better. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DGG,

  1. As you suggested, I removed, "however". The sources state he is a BAAPS advisor (e.g. present ref #14, explicitly: "BAAPS Consultant Plastic Surgeon Mr Taimur Shoaib as head of training"). The recruitment date and whether it was a response to criticism is not completely clear from the sources. As written, it did not necessarily imply any particular chronology or causal linkage, but I understand that rewording avoids ambiguity, and your suggestion is an improvement.
  2. The sources support the statement about not treating teenagers. The sources are unambivalent that this is widely/routinely performed elsewhere, which is essentially the benchmark you mention. The sources are unambivalent that she spoke out strongly against it, and the sources place her opinion in adjacency to stating the prevailing practise.
  3. Participation on the show, subsequent TV appearance (will add reference when I relocate it), a Derry city gala dinner with the Tánaiste (within reference list already), ongoing media coverage etc etc indicate that your depiction as a "media figure" is in fact most probably apt. And here we run into esthetics, and weighting considerations. I am neutral about now adding that label. While it would be reasonable at a fact level to do so, it is esthetically uncompelling in my opinion. Expressly depicting the topic as a media figure is mildly problematic, as overt language to underpin that precise element is not manifestly prominent within sources. It is situationally implied by the media attention. I am (obviously) not opposed to any edits by anyone to resolve the issue. There is no reasonable expectation within Wikipedia that responsibility devolves to a contributing editor to definitively reconcile every aspect within Draft space. In my opinion, this mild (not egregious) esthetic and weighting concern may indeed be valid but should (not "could") occur after mainspace accessibility to the broader editor pool that is active within that space.
  4. We agree that whom she dated is not of any weighty importance. At some point the mundane descends into irrelevancy. In carefully considering previously this proposed content, in this case the on-off-on dating has received repeated media attention. At least 6 additional full articles in the "standard edited press" center upon it. These were not added due to over-referencing concerns. The media coverage mentions the effect of career pressures for both (minor?) media figures versus their romantic inclination. This career pressure component is not presently within the proposed article text, as it was judged as undue weight. Somebody could disagree, and it could be added to the article text based on sources. The present mention that the two media figures have dated is brief, non-judgmental, supported by sources, and is perhaps reasonable given Wikipedia's explicit definition of "substantial", which is unreservedly not "weighty importance" (qualitative; and mainly judgment based) but is "not just passing mention" (quantitative). It is possible that a middle road on this aspect touches on it but doesn't belabor it. It is possible that exclusion would be contrary to the policy of touching upon all significant aspects. Again, "significant" could be discussed and resolved in mainspace - there is no gross error of fact in the wp:blp, and I'd suggest that ultimately it can encyclopedically be decided by others in either direction.
  5. As far as pronoun and proper name, I respect your input, and you will not be surprised that advice from different quarters is at odds.
  6. Reading your comments here and elsewhere, I sincerely thank you for your input.
  7. Once I add the TV appearance reference, I will step away from this Draft. I think that fresh eyes and minds would be better. FeatherPluma (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
question does ""BAAPS Consultant Plastic Surgeon Mr Taimur Shoaib" mean that he is their consultant, or that he holds the UK medical position of Consultant, which is more or less the equivalent of the Board Qualified specialist.? That's what I think the phrase "Consultant Plastic Surgeon" would usually mean. DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, DGG, The sourcing references within the Draft state he is on the Specialist Register, so the answer for both possible meanings for "consultant" (GMC and the clinic) is yes. That is why "consultant" is wikilinked within the Draft. For a brief summary confirmation, see reference #21, which is explicit. Thanks. FeatherPluma (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the article now in mainspace. I tagged it for press-release, & removed a trivial point, which strikes me as straining after every possible reference. I may remove a few more such, but I've seen worse in mainspace, and I am now going back to my long list of them. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC) .[reply]

07:06:17, 6 February 2015 review of submission by Pastoweb

Hi Onel5969, thanks for taking the time to review the Forma lms draft page. I don't understand the reason, since the sources indicated seem to be all clearly notable and independent: if winning an international award at is 14th edition, being classified as second best worldwide by one of the most notable sector analysts, being considered in european researches among similar solutions, being listed in independent international directories, being reviewed by the first national webzine are not considered significant, notable and independent sources...what else?

Also, consider that forma lms is not a company or organization, but a free open source software product: does this guideline apply anyway?

Pastoweb (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pastoweb - the co/org was the wrong category, I have changed it to the generic lack of notability. You missed a key word in the notability section, "significant". In addition, you have not a single in-line citation. Your first external link is a blog - not reliable. Your 2nd is a simple list; 3rd is not an independent source; 4, 5 are simple reviews, not in-depth coverage; some of the others don't even seem to mention the subject. Onel5969 (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:53:48, 6 February 2015 review of submission by Py bb


Hi there,

Thanks for reviewing my article. I wrote this article myself and the information if factual and not copied from another source. I'm not sure how to edit the page so that the content is no longer copyrighted. It is an article about an individual and therefore the information about him is available on many different websites, but none of it was copyrighted.

Thank you!

Py bb (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Py bb - You may have written it, but take a look at the link on the draft page... it appears to that much of the article is cut and paste from that source. I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Your first article on how to format an article. And also WP:PARAPHRASE and WP:COPYVIO about suggestions on how not to infringe on someone else's copyrighted work. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 13:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enthiran

Hey bro, would you like to copyedit this article? You can start on it after Naayak. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 18:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssven2 - not a problem, although there is another (shorter) article that I promised to c/e after Naayak (which is taking me FOREVER!). Onel5969 (talk) 13:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No probs. Actually, not wanting to press you away from your current copyediting projects, User:Lstanley1979 did the job. I am planning to take Enthiran to FA, so you can give the article a good and thorough c/e after it passes its GA review, which I will inform you about. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 13:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toledo

So much unnecessary work could be avoided if more of our editors would just put in an edit summary. There seems to be a rash of missing summaries lately, I wonder if something changed on WP. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kendall-K1 - Not sure. The Toledo article got changed a few days ago, and I researched it and Collins was merely hospitalized, so when it got changed again, with no edit summary, I simply reverted it again. Now that he's died, it is appropriate. But you're right, a simple edit summary would have made me look to verify before reverting. Onel5969 (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23:28:45, 7 February 2015 review of submission by 2601:E:1E80:D64:6092:8038:9959:9C9F


I ma not so much asking for a re-review, but am simply a little puzzled, as the entry for theis journal was oriented on entries for other economics journal that are already included in Wikipedia (such as the Journal of Economics Issues or the Economic Journal). Why the different standards for references?

Best wishes,


2601:E:1E80:D64:6092:8038:9959:9C9F (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - There are only two sources, one of which is from the subject of the article, so the criteria for notability has not been met. Onel5969 (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

03:27:14, 8 February 2015 review of submission by KetubahMaven


Hello Onel5969 - I was having trouble contacting you and tried to do so through your talk page. In any case, I have had added citations as per your recommendations. Please let me know if you need anything else to approve the article. Also, I added an external link to the official website - is that good or should the external links field be left blank?

I see that you grew up in Teaneck. There is a fascinating novel written by Alan Brennert called 'Palisades Park' - if you are a reader of historical novels, you might find it interesting. KetubahMaven (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)KetubahMaven KetubahMaven (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KetubahMaven - Nice job! Just moved it to the mainspace. In answer to your earlier question: no, you don't have to add external links, that's only there if there are appropriate links to add, but it is not a requirement. But a link to the website can go there, or there is a spot for it in the artist's infobox (I think). And thanks for the head's up on Brennert's book, I'll have to check it out. When I was growing up, Palisades Park was an amazing amusement park sitting on the cliffs of the Palisades, overlooking the Hudson River. Got demolished in the 1970s to put up condos. Onel5969 (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

02:40:18, 9 February 2015 review of submission by CalCorley


Dear reviewer: I will make another attempt, following the guidelines as best as I can understand them. In your most recent rejection, you questioned the notability of the subject (Edward Aust) - as will be seen (better highlighted perhaps) in my next iteration, this is a legal author whose writings continue to be used as references by the highest courts in Canada. Not sure within the law profession what more he would need to be notable. In any event, this has been a tremendous learning experience - and will give this one more attempt following guidelines to the letter. Many thanks, Cal

CalCorley (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CalCorley - That's great. For notability purposes, references need to be independent (not connected with the subject or with any organization the subject is linked to - e.g. it can't be from the subject's own webpage, or from a bio on a website of a company or organization the subject is affiliated with), and reliable (in other words, it can't be a blog or a website which allows user-submitted content that has no editorial supervision). Let me know when you've resubmitted it, and I'll take another look. Onel5969 (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

03:45:00, 9 February 2015 review of submission by Oliversmall


Oliversmall (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Hi, Could you please let me know what items read like a advertisement (sorry i am new to Wikipedia and still learning). my perception of the article is that it is written neutral. the headings and information were just all factual information. we are a family business and there havent been alot of articles written as yet, expect for the one article that i referenced i look forward to hearing from you and thank you for being patient with a new-comer to Wikipedia :) kind regards[reply]

Hi Oliversmall - It is in the way that the facts are presented, as well as which facts are presented. The lead reads promotionally. The Display homes and House design sections are completely promotional and should be removed. The Awards section is fine - it simply states the awards won by the company, which is a fact pertinent to an encyclopedia article; the client list should be trimmed to the top 3, written in prose, and should not have its own section, include it in a general section (History? Overview?) after the lead, and it needs an inline citation(s). There are two other issues, the one is the lack of articles about the company. That's a key to proving notability. There might not be enough at this point in time, and you might wait until there are several more independent articles from secondary sources (not press releases, not interviews, etc.). The final issue is a conflict of interest. Articles, for the most part, should be written by independent parties, not someone connected with the subject. This doesn't preclude you from writing the article, but you do need to disclose the fact that you are connected (which I will not on the draft). I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:15:54, 9 February 2015 review of submission by BC1278


I think I managed to get rid of all peacocky language and anything that smacked of not being neutral. Could you take a look? Was there anything else specific you had in mind?

BC1278 (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BC1278 – nice job. I tweaked it a bit, then moved it to the mainspace. Happy editing! Onel5969 (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:44:54, 9 February 2015 review of submission by Lcamus


I would like to ask the reviewer for this article to assist me via live chat to make this draft acceptable. Thank you.

Lcamus (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lcamus - Hi. That's kinda of difficult, since I am on and off Wiki very irregularly. The copyright issue is in the section Friday Harbour, which was virtually cut and paste. That needs to be corrected. The article also comes off as a promotional piece, so all the promotional and subjective terms need to be edited out (e.g. "deliver lasting value", "set aside for future generations", "much needed", "in order to continue to grow as a home building company they needed to set their sights on land ownership", etc.) Finally, the sources do not meet the notability critera as per WP:NCORP. Check out the notability requirements, and check out WP:RS for what constitutes an independent reliable source. I hope this helps, and I'll be more than happy to take future looks at the article as you work on it. Onel5969 (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:28:55, 9 February 2015 review of submission by Dolemite007


Hello...Dolemite007 here once again. Based on our previous conversation about your suggested changes to the Wiki article I submitted (you said that, based on my changes, the intro and history sections were now good, but the info section still needed work), I went back and made a few more changes to make the article not seem like "advertising" or "promotional" as you said. Still not sure if I have it quite right, so I'd appreciate it if you'd take another quick look when you have a spare second and offer any other advice or criticisms that you might have. Thanks, and I very much appreciate the assistance!

Page in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Best_Rate_Referrals

Thanks!

-Chris

Dolemite007 (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dolemite007 - There's a difference in providing encyclopedic information, versus information of a promotional nature which is meant to attract clients/customers. As an example, the section "Info", was almost entirely promotional in nature, geared toward information which prospective clients would be interested in, rather than someone who simply wanted to know what the company did. The same would be for the discussion of tripling of revenues, although admittedly, that's a borderline call, since the growth of the company is a pertinent fact, but the way it's presented is promotional in tone. That's difficult to explain, but it might be better to say it in a more factual tone. The informal "nearly tripled", makes it sound like a sound byte for a commercial. You might try something like, "The company has seen steady growth. Since its inception in [date], the company has grown from X in revenues to Y in revenues".
But once you get the advertising issue taken care of, there is also a notability issue. The MNN cite is a primary source (an interview), and therefore does not help regarding notability; the MPN is a very brief article; the Inc. is a simple business profile; and the MPM citation is another interview. Currently these 5 references don't come close to meeting the notability criteria as set forth in WP:NCORP. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I need your expertise on an issue

Hello.... I'm coming to you for your opinion because of the amazing advise that you provided in past. I've think I've solve the Hostyle Gospel citing problem, so thanks for the advise. The issue I am having right now is with an article that I wrote a week ago. I feel another person took my article and got credit for it. I received an email earlier this morning informing me that the Canon (rapper) was created. I looked for the credit on my Wiki User wall, by only saw a message from the user who claim my article. The Canon (rapper) was created in the past, however Wikipedia took the article down because of poor sources. After noticing there wasn't an article for Canon, I took the liberty to rewrite the article and cite my finding how Wikipedia instructed us to do so. This may seem patty, but I am having a hard time getting articles accepted Wikipedia. My Hostyle Gospel article is currently being view and if that article doesn't get accepted, I don't know what Wikipedia will do with me. Could you please help me get credit for all the hard work I've done. Thank You Graceking123 (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graceking123 - Hmmm... it does seem you're correct. Let me ask a couple of admins into this issue, and let's see what, if anything, can be done. DGG and Fuhghettaboutit - the above editor had a page in AfC, which you can see HERE, on January 23. Another editor, The Cross Bearer edited the draft on February 9, then decided to bypass the AfC process, and simply cut and paste Graceking's work, and created the article, which you can see HERE. Is there a policy regarding this type of activity/behavior? Is there anything which can be done? Secondly, the editor's article, Draft:Hostyle Gospel, in my opinion, while borderline, is cited enough to move to the mainspace, but Hostyle Gospel is create-protected, so I cannot move it there. Thanks for anything you can do. Onel5969 (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I created it because it was in fact notable and was BOLD in doing that deed, Sorry.The Cross Bearer (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW FYI, it would not let me move the article to the non draft page.The Cross Bearer (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I included you in the discussion, The Cross Bearer - wanted to hear your side. It seems like the issue has been resolved. Happy editing. Onel5969 (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
God Yes!The Cross Bearer (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) @Hostyle Gospel: This is called a cut and paste move. It is improper and was a copyright violation as done. I could say more but it's all taken care of as I've performed a history merge. I will inform The Cross Bearer using the template {{uw-c&pmove}} ... actually I don't need to, as he or she just posted to my talk page, was obviously unaware of the problem, and is probably aware of this thread now (and if not I'll ping now → @The Cross Bearer:). For future reference, if you come upon a cut and paste move, you can request repair at WP:SPLICE. Best regards to all--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Obviously I wrote this before seeing your posts above:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Fuhghettaboutit - I knew that either you or DGG would know exactly how to fix it. Thanks for the info, now if it comes up again, I'll know where to go so I don't have to bother you. Onel5969 (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The Cross Bearer has given you a brownie! Brownies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a brownie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. †
However, Graceking123 and {U|The Cross Bearer}} and everyone, it's a basic principle that nobody owns an article--or a draft either. Though of course we want to give credit for work, and we need to incorporate the complete article history to main copyright attribution, there is no reason why one person cannot finish the draft another person has started. Generally we don;t because we have more than enough work to do with the articles we're working on ourselves, but it does happen. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cross Bearer - No hard feelings. I think I want the same thing that you do which is a nice article written about Canon(Rapper). Also thank you Onel5969 for being the mediator.Graceking123 (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Graceking123 No offence taken. Love, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Gentleness....to you and all!The Cross Bearer (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fijian flag designer

There is a mistake regarding your reversion. According to Radio Australia, Tessa Mackenzie design the flag of Fiji back in 1970. 174.91.70.223 (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was no mistake in my reversion. The edit was made without the citation, and with no explanation. Onel5969 (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Agnew - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Agnew

Hi. You recently approved my article on Daniel Agnew for publication. I appreciate that, especially given that it's my first attempt at a Wikipedia article.

I note that you classified it as a "Stub" level article. Could you give me some insight as to how I can improve the article, with the hope of it being classified at a higher level?

My thanks in advance. Buckmor54 (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buckmor54 - first of all, congrats on your first article! Second, my apologies, I should have classed it as a start, rather than stub, and have corrected that. You can click on the quality scale link on the article's talk page to get descriptions of what the classes mean. Even has as a start article, it is missing some items, like an infobox. You can find the information for infoboxes HERE. You can pick and choose which items you include, but should always have the basics (name, birth info, death info, occupation, etc.), but include substantial details, like marriages, etc.
Next, you should look at MOS:LAYOUT, for a general idea on how to format your article. And since this particular article is a bio, WP:MOSBIO and WP:BTIP are two other good sources. In general, you would have to include more detail to move the article up to a C level. For example, you say he became an expert on land titles, you might include any prominent cases which led to this distinction. Same with any contributions he made during the 1836 convention. Expansion on how he helped to organize the Republican party. Does this help? I'll be happy to take a look at it from time to time after you've worked on it. Onel5969 (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:07:41, 11 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Nimantharaj


I have no idea what sections of my article "Chandima Gomes" viloates encyclopedia terms and also the meaning of "peacock terms". I am a journalist student and would like to get this article pass (this is on my mentor) before starting a new one one. Can you please high light what sections do I need to change.

Nimantharaj (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nimantharaj - on your draft page, there is a link to what is meant by peacock terms. You should also check out the link regarding formal encyclopedic tone... being a journalism major, you might want to go with the News Style, but it also discusses what is meant by tone. Wikipedia:Your first article is also a good reference, and you should check out WP:REFB to learn how to use and format references. Hope this helps.Onel5969 (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Thank you so much for your feedback on my article. I just have a few clarifying questions about your comments. I believe that I have fixed the formatting issues but I wasn't sure what you meant by notability criteria.

I was also wondering why there is a COPYVIO with the two websites below?:

http://sfs.georgetown.edu/Steven-Radelet#_ga=1.106184839.528172177.1414326796 https://ghd.georgetown.edu/Student-Profiles

Thank you!

Best,

gknoth (user) --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Global_Human_Development_Program

Hi Gknoth - First regarding notability. Almost every source used in the article is not independent (i.e. they are connected to Georgetown U.). The FPA is simply a list, and does not go to notability. The only two which do go to notability are the Foreign Policy articles, and one of those is a simply list mention. Wikipedia would require quite a few more sources from independent, reliable sources (e.g. Washington Post, WSJ, Fox, CBS, Time, etc.). There are still some formatting issues, I did a brief edit to show you an example, but also, external links (like in the Summer program section), should go in the "External links" section. The faculty section should be drastically reduced to one or two lines about each member (basically, just their credentials), the wikilink will take the interested reader to the member's page where they can learn more. If they don't have their own wikipage, again, you can put the external link in the proper section. The raw links in the faculty section should be removed. The article still has the flavor of a promotional piece. I've briefly gone through and made some changes to give you an idea of what is meant by advertising or puffery. I'd delete the entire "Student life" section. Total promotion.
Regarding copyvio - if you reduce the faculty descriptions to a line or two, you'll get rid of the Steve R issue, since his description is cut and paste from the underlying source, same with the Global source. Anyway, I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:26:58, 11 February 2015 review of submission by Carlossilva1971


You declined the Draft:Carlos_Spartacus . What do you understand about Brazilian Metal (i.e. metal music from the country named Brazil) to say the subject was not notable??? There's a lot of references, please specify which kind of references is needed. I had seen a lot of subjects much less "notable" that are still online.

Carlossilva1971 (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carlossilva1971 - Articles need to be from independent, reliable sources, and need to have significant coverage of the subject. They also have to be from secondary sources (so interviews don't count). Using those parameters, not a single one of your references qualifies. The closest would be the Jake Manson citation, but that is a pretty obscure source. Onel5969 (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ale Resnik article

Hi,

Thank you for the "keep" recommendation for Ale Resnik The second reviewer has withdrawn his objections, although the article deletion warning box remains on the article. I wonder if you know if there's a way to hasten an admin's review, so the issue will be closed? I'd much rather not keep monitoring the situation so closely. I read about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Speedy_keep Wikipedia:Speedy_keep and suggested to the second reviewer that he do this, since he withdrew his objection, but he hasn't responded since yesterday. Thank you for any suggestions. BC1278 (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

Hi BC1278 - No, the admin will get around to it. Don't worry, since the editor who requested it has withdrawn their objection, can't see it being a problem. If it's still there in a day or two, hit me up, and I'll see if I can get an admin to take a look at it. Onel5969 (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question re: MP Edits

Hi, I'm working on this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mary%27s_Pence

I see it has copyright issues and Neutral Point of View issues. I understand that with the copyright issues I can rewrite the section in my own words and cite. Do you have suggestions for editing to create a neutral point of view.

Thank you, Gracegarv — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gracegarv (talk • contribs) 15:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gracegarv - the article has a very heavy NPOV issue. Avoid making conjectures and subjective or broad-sweeping statements, like "Mary's Pence envisions a world where empowered women and their communities flourish in solidarity and justice", "The women were frustrated...", "led by women that seeks to create ", "Mary’s Pence grantees empower women ". Also avoid peacock terms and phrases like "a unique model", " concrete life skills ", "Small, committed groups ", "The extraordinary contributions ". These are just some examples. Stick to facts, and present them in an objective fashion. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum online citations

I submitted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Barry_J._Beitzel but it was not accepted. The reason given was "the content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations."

The article I created, however, does not contain direct quotations, nor am I aware of any material that is/will be challenged or contentious. Can you please point me to the specific section(s) of the article that require editing?

Thank you, Payaso97 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Payaso97 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Payaso97 - Certainly. This is a BLP, so almost any fact in the article might be subject to challenge. The fact that the article does not have a single independent reliable source also hurts quite a bit. It could have been declined for lack of notability. In fact, looking at the article, it would definitely get declined for that, since he doesn't meet the criteria for a regular bio, or for a an academic. Onel5969 (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added links for the awards his publications earned. Not sure what else I can do.

Payaso97 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Payaso97 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That edit

What was wrong with the edit I made to Fictional Wolves? (SilvazeWisher (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Hi SilvazeWisher - Sonic the Hedgehog is neither a comic or manga. Onel5969 (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dyncall

Onel5969,
I don't understand your decline, as it does not offer any specific reason other than the blanket-statement of notability. Dyncall is powering well-known Perl6's virtual machines, and comparable projects like libffi have a wiki page, also. Compared to the latter it even is the only library out there with native windows support and thus notable by itself. The reference-list has been kept intentionally short to not copy and paste what's on the official website itself, as this wouldn't be the nature of an encyclopedia. Please re-review or give real reasons for improvement, so the article can be redrafted. Thanks

Hi. On the notice that it was declined, there are links to notability and the golden rule. In a nutshell, ALL of the references are from the company itself, meaning not a single one is from an independent reliable source as per WP:RS. You might want to take a look at references for beginners. You are correct about copy and paste, that would be a WP:COPYVIO. I hope this helps, don't hesitate to ask any other questions you may have. Onel5969 (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a company, so please also look at the project closely before declining it. But I understand, I'm sure it's not easy to moderate all the drafts. Thanks for the the input, I'll check your pointers.

Larry Nucci

Hi Onel5969,

Thanks for the helpful comments about my page on Larry Nucci. I made some changes in line with what you suggested -- added external sources to make his notability more apparent, and changed some of the language and references.

Here's a link to the page -- I'd love to know if this looks a bit better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Larry_Nucci

Thanks very much, Robyn Robynkristine (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robynkristine - Since you've resubmitted it, I'll let another editor take a swipe at it. To be honest, there are still several issues with it that you might work on, before someone else takes a look at it. First, and most importantly, the two references cited still don't raise the subject to meet the criteria guidelines (and one of them is by the subject). Second, being a blp, the article needs a lot more inline citations. There are little things as well, such as formatting section headings and removing the non-existent image. Good luck. Onel5969 (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22:27:19, 12 February 2015 review of submission by Fresnowalldog


Fresnowalldog (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC) I would like to know why my site doesn't be part of Wikipedia? I just found out Wiki Commons put it on their site https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Largest_Painted_Mural_Stamp.jpg could you explain please? FranCisco Vargas Fresnowalldog (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fresnowalldog - Sure. Contributions to commons have absolutely no notability requirement. Wikipedia does. Your article has zero references. Onel5969 (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Review on declined Article

Dear sir or madam, You revised an article of mine a few days ago. I was wondering if I fixed the citation issue. I was unsure by your message, but I think that was the only issue with the article? If not can you please clarify? The article link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bryan_College_of_Health_Sciences. Thanks TinyMAK5 (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TinyMAK5 - Unfortunately, no. All of your references are from the subject's own website, so they are not independent. Take a look at WP:REFB, for help with references, and more specifically, look at WP:GNG for what denotes general notability requirements. Sources need to be from independent, reliable sources. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Largest Painted Mural Stamp

I just found out that Wiki Commons added my mural stamp to their site https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Largest_Painted_Mural_Stamp.jpg could you explain why Wikipedia doesn't let it be on your site? Or is there something else you need from me? FranCisco Vargas Fresnowalldog (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23:14:49, 12 February 2015 review of submission by Tbergquist


After the first rejection, two additional outside references were added (now #1 and #2) and a new section on Architecture added. The first link is to the Oregon State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) database of historical buildings in Oregon. If one clicks on the "Inventory Form" one will find a four page report describing the building and its significance - some comments include "Outstanding decorative features include sandstone entry façade, eave cornice, brackets & dentils." Later in the report it says "It is a good example of Italian Renaissance style building with detailed stonework on the front façade, rare in Eugene." The second link is to a 39-page National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Multiple Property Document Form for the Eugene West University Neighborhood. Page 23 discusses the Administration building and notes its significance for listing: "These buildings are potentially significant under criteria c for their architectural distinction, criterion a for association with historical events and criterion b for important persons." The Oregon SHPO lists the building as both significant and eligible for listing on the NRHP. I am sure that if it was listed then Wikipedia would consider it "notable." Not considering the building "notable" according to Wikipedia criteria simply because the university chooses not to list it due to financial issues that would be a hardship for a small private educational institution is, I believe, penalizing. The building is a landmark in Eugene, Oregon, the oldest building on the campus (107 years old), and still in active use today as an administrative facility and for classrooms. Permission to use the photo was submitted to Wikimedia on January 7, 2015. Please reconsider your rejection of this fine structure. Tbergquist (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tbergquist - Take a look at WP:GNG. The citations listed do not meet the criteria for notability. An article from the university would not help towards notability. Onel5969 (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Attarintiki Daredi

Can you perform a copyedit on the Piracy section of this article which is currently being reviewed for a GA status Please? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pavanjandhyala - Done. I think. See my note in the edit summary. Good luck on the GA. Onel5969 (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you also do a c/e for the Box Office section? Thanks. Oh and BTW, Enthiran passed its GA review straight without any comments from the reviewer, Dr. Blofeld. I have opened a peer review to the article. After the PR is completed, (which I will inform you about), can you give the article a goo c/e? It would be really great if a c/e is done before the article's FAC. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 14:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:49:27, 13 February 2015 review of submission by Greenleaf2014


Thank you for reviewing my Maps of Meaning entry. I am a newbie, and was hoping you could give some specific advise on how I could improve this?

Thanks again.

Greenleaf2014 (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Greenleaf2014 - Well, you've written quite a long article, which contains quite a bit of Original Research (see WP:NOR). If you go to the link on your article page on essays, you'll get an idea of what Wikipedia is talking about. A good resource for first time editors is Wikipedia:Your first article, and since this is a book, another good place is Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article. Generally, you should avoid making conclusions, and including uncited opinions or viewpoints. Also, you started off formatting citations, then simply stopped. Take a look at WP:REFB regarding references. I know this looks brief, but what I just gave you is quite a bit. Don't be afraid to ask other questions. Onel5969 (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:03:53, 13 February 2015 review of submission by Peachywink


Hi! So I didn't get my page approved which is okay. I just want to know what needed to change? I know it's not the links all of them came from accepted sources according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources and I created my list based off of what I saw was standard in american music artist pages such as Lady GaGa and Katy Perry. I had my draft looked at by Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture and posted request for reviews on the Got7 talk page. Since I 'm a new editor and this is my first article I just need some feedback as to what should be changed? Do I simply need to state things about their accomplishments in my prose? Thank you! Peachywink (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC) Peachywink (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peachywink! There are different types of references. Some, like YouTube (and Facebook, twitter, etc.) are unreliable, since they have no editorial oversight. You can include them, but if challenged, they won't stand up. Then there are primary and secondary sources. Wikipedia likes secondary sources, see WP:PSTS. Primary sources would include any links to sites which have any connection to the subject of the article (e.g. their website, blog, interviews, press releases). You can use primary sources, but never to prove notability. Their use is for underlying facts (e.g. X was born on January 1, 1980).
Now, let's take a look at your sources. First, 6 of your 16 are from YouTube (1-4, 15, 16). Another 7 are from a single source, MWAVE (5-7, 9, 12-14). Some of these don't even mention the subject (like 5, 6); 7, 12, 13 and 14 are brief mentions, and 9 is a very short piece. The other 3 sources are: NewsNate (8) not an in-depth article, as are the m.star article (10), the dramafever (11).
In short, your article doesn't have a single significant secondary source about the article's subject. While none of your sources are invalid, none of them meet the notability criteria for music. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thank you for that clarification sorry if I seemed cocky, it's just there really isn't a standard for refernceing videographies and I was making up what I thought were good standards by looking at american music artist since almost all k-pop artist filmography and videographie have mostly poor or missing refernces ex: Exo filmography, Beast filmography. Unfortunately the american artist sources aren't ones I can use k-pop artist and they also use bad references too such myspace (reference 3 on Katy Perry's videography). Anyways I thought the artist's company's official you tube channel would be good but what can I use instead of that, is their official website a good source for the music videos? I'm sorry I know it's not proving notability but i literally have NO articles that are good examples for Korean video references, and it seems to me that Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture is overwhelmed by the vast number of problems with these articles so I haven't gotten much feedback from there but will try again. Whatever help or direction you can point me in will be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Peachywink (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Onel5969, so I went and asked on Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture about better sources and such and got two responses. The first explained the difficulty in obtaining such references since Korean media doesn't report as much on those things. The second however said something a bit hard for me to understand and I wanted to check with you. "notability applies to the article topic, not all article content. If you can demonstrate that the discography of Got7 is notable, which, if Got7 has a Wikipedia article and is notable (mentioned in third-party, reliable sources), should not be a problem," I don't know if that's right nor do I know if Got7 article meets that standard since again...it is a k-pop article and we have some problems with those references but i do know the discography section has full references...I think. Anyways right or wrong I have been working on the references for my article and wanted to know how I was doing. I think the MV are well covered now but wanted to check first since I do plan to resubmit.Peachywink (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Peachywink - I think you've got it covered. Someone else might disagree, but why don't you resubmit, and I'll move it to the mainspace. Nice job, good effort and follow-through. Onel5969 (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I resubmitted and just wanted to come and say thank you for the help and speedy feedback. Peachywink (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Waugh

You declined my submission: Thomas Waugh

Your red edits are in sources for lacks of dates and titles. These are sources to which I have noted URL access, or, are physical clippings to which I have personal access.

Please revise your edits. My submission is thorough, relevant, and will be well received.

Best,

Braden

PS - Perhaps you should look him up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradenscott3721 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Bradenscott3721, I hit the wrong button when I declined the article. I have corrected it. Onel5969 (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The copyright notice that just went up is a source that is already in the list of citations, with authors name in the text. One of the editors in Art Threat is also a co-editor of one of Thomas Waugh's books.

Your notes on relying on quotations is understood, however, these sources are rare, notable, and qualitatively more useful in a realm where wikipedia is not respected as a meritable source. If changes must be made, may I include the full quotations with more filler-type text around them? Do you prefer an anonymous essay, or an accolade of achievements for the subject in question?

Thank you,

Braden

Bradenscott3721 - First of all, it's not me, but consensus of Wiki editors over the years. Second, the two links I gave above are really what Wikipedia seems to be looking for. Definitely keep the citations (or simply use them as basic references), but summarize what they say in your own words. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


ahah, ok, thanks. Sorry for the tone, long day of work and so much time went into consolidating this...

Will revise.

Bradenscott3721 - No worries, happy editing! Onel5969 (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation on draft article

Hi,

I created the DigitalNZ user set for Tyree Studio using the article I had created so effectively I own the copyright. I have deleted the DigitalNZ user set so now there is no conflicting copyright. I am hoping you are able to approve my article for creation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tyree_Studio

Thanks

Speggle22 (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Speggle22[reply]

Hi Speggle22 - Wikipedia has a specific course of action for copyrighted material, in order to prove that the person who says they are the copyright holder is the actual copyright holder. I've approved your article, but you might want to tweak the 2nd paragraph (and the 3rd as well), which bears a striking resemblance to the verbiage from THIS SITE. Onel5969 (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Phantasmic_Ghost_Hunters

Wondering why is was rejected. Verifiable? it's a show that is broadcasted out of Pittsburgh on Channel 2, Syndicated on Apple TV, Google.TV and the Roku. Do you mean I just need references? What needs to be done to get this listed.

Yes, you need references. Check the links provided in the box regarding reliable sources, guideline on notability and golden rule. And please don't resubmit until these issues are resolved. Onel5969 (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

You wrote (comment on my article, reason for rejection), "Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research." I am a little puzzled by what constitutes a "secondary source." In the case of Claude Montal, the published sources include two biographies published during his lifetime, several lengthy newspaper articles also published during his lifetime, together with many reports of his work by various societies, published as journals. Those are my major sources, and I can cite more of them if that would help. Do you consider them "secondary" sources?" They are certainly reliable.

More modern (20th/21st century) sources are pretty slim, sketchy, and unreliable - which is a lack I am trying to remedy by submitting this article. I am definitely an "original researcher," having pored through all sorts of original documentation as well (Montal's patents, an inventory of his possessions taken at his death, etc.) I have written a series of six articles concerning his life, which were published in the Piano Technicians Journal in 2012-13. And I have written the article on Montal for the Groves Dictionary of Musical Instruments. Do those constitute "secondary, reliable sources?" Should I cite them? (I have been reluctant to, as I am the author).

As for style, I can certainly make it read less like an essay, give it more of the style of a neutral point of view, if that is what is required. I can also provide many more references (all published materials) if that is desirable. But I am a little at a loss as to how to proceed, in case most of my article is considered "original research," and in case the sources I am relying on are considered "primary" sources. Fssturm (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fssturm - It's not your sources, it's the tone of the article. It could just as well have been declined for an WP:NPOV issue. Encyclopedia articles don't draw conclusions, don't state opinions. Statements like " a progressive institution that took the education of the blind seriously, trying to give them skills and knowledge to become contributing members of society and to live relatively normal lives.", "Montal was an apt student", "He aspired to be one of the foremost piano manufacturers of his day, and over the next two decades he made considerable progress toward that goal", all need to be rewritten in a formal, neutral tone. I would also include more references for other facts in the article, like his patents, his erroneous creditation, his piano exhibitions, etc.
Regarding your own work, no, they don't count if YOU add them WP:COI. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article quite thoroughly, in line with all your comments. I submitted it in that revised form this evening, and another reviewer, Kikichugirl, reviewed it and rejected with precisely the same (presumably boilerplate) commentary. I wonder if you might help - advise me on how well you think I did, and what was left undone. Fssturm (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fssturm - You have definitely made major improvements on the article, but I agree with Kikichugirl's assessment, it still reads like an essay. I'll be glad to help you with it, but most likely won't get to it for a day or two. What I'll do is the edit the first paragraph or two, to give you an idea of what the issue is. I'll also do some formatting edits. If I don't get to it by Wednesday, give me a nudge to remind me. Okay? Onel5969 (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I got some advice that, I think, put me on the right track. "Look at some other samples of biographies. Your first sentence is not a good way to open an encyclopedia article." So I have made major revisions, and will continue to hone it. Fssturm (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Property, Malibu artists colony article

Hi Onel5969, you left a comment that the article in my sandbox could not be accepted because it was unclear what it was about. Since then, I've added a new lead paragraph, and a new reference to the end of the article. See User:Pcaabplroa/sandbox. Do you think my article will be accepted if I resubmit it now? Thanks --Pcaabplroa (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pcaabplroa - Makes much more sense now. And I would agree that it is notable, and the references look solid. One thing before I move it to the mainspace — look at WP:REFB, and redo your references. Get rid of the lengthy quotes. If you can re-write that information in your own words (not paraphrasing), and include it in the body of the article, that would be good. If not, simply delete them. Once you do that, resubmit and let me know. Onel5969 (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Onel5969, I've redone the references as you suggested. Am I ready to resubmit this article? --Pcaabplroa (talk) 09:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pcaabplroa - Hi! First, just a head's up: when you're commenting on an editor's talk page, there is no need for you to "ping" (add the user's template), since an editor is automatically alerted when someone writes on their talk page. There's nothing wrong with you doing it, it's just unnecessary. I "ping" you, to let you know that I've responded to you, in case you haven't marked my talk page for watching.
Second. Nice job! Resubmit, and I'll move it to the mainspace. Onel5969 (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your help! I've resubmitted the article. --Pcaabplroa (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Phantasmic_Ghost_Hunters#References

Ok, I am now understanding references means magazine articles and newspaper articles. However what about Radio show spots and Newsletters? Do those count? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.49.221 (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Not Newsletters, as their reliability is suspect. Regarding radio spots, it depends. Most spots can be used to verify facts, but not to substantiate notability. Onel5969 (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:00:58, 14 February 2015 review of submission by Subhavasan


Hello, I've certainly used the "About Kanniks" page as a reference for the article but I've tried to avoid copy/paste. Also, that page is more of a press release type from which info can be used and is not copyrighted material per se. In any case, can you please cite the examples of violation? i.e. where do you see an exact copy? I've tried submitting this article multiple times and each time, it comes back as rejected. I need more clarity to help resolve this. Thank you in advance.

Subhavasan (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Subhavasan! Sorry it took a bit to reply, but I had to ask a question regarding your press release comment. Here's what I learned: "Public availability is not the same as public domain. Although the writers of a press release may allow others to copy it, this permission likely does not extend to modifying it or using it outside a journalistic context." Which means that if used, it should still be inside quotations, with proper attribution. Right now, after your edits, the only section which still shows a copyvio issue is the Collaborations section, which has been partly copied verbatim from THIS SITE, which clearly is copyrighted material. I also went back through history, and don't see where it was declined, prior to my action, so I can't figure out why other editors might have declined it. As it stands now, it would be declined again for the copyright issue, but other than that, would probably be approved. It has some formatting issues: (section headings, italics and quote marks for major works and songs, citations after punctuation - not before), a slight NPOV issue (although I've definitely seen worse), and some awkward grammar. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

02:13:43, 15 February 2015 review of submission by JOOZLy


Could you please have another look at this page as it does not violate copyright - all sources as cited from a secondary source.

JOOZLy (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JOOZLy - citing from a secondary source does not give one license to simply plagiarize from that source. Just checked it again and it is still a copyvio issue. Also, don't remove the declined template. After you make your corrections, hit the resubmit button on that template. Onel5969 (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mayabazar

Thanks for the c/e on Piracy section of Attarintiki Daredi. It helped a lot. Can you conduct a thorough c/e on Mayabazar? It is a smaller one with just 39 citations and is of nearly 41 kb. If you are interested, please do let me know when the process is completed so that i can nominate it for a GAR. Thank you. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Won't be able to start it until tomorrow though, will let you know when it's done. Onel5969 (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hazelmere, Alberta

I have deleted the redirect to allow a move from AfC per your request. —Verrai 18:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skip Kelly

OTRS permission has been received and banner added to talk page. You can finish this one off now. Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bjorklund21 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bjorklund21. Since you had some involvement with the Bjorklund21 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Ricky81682 (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:32:08, 16 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Sconaomi


Hi.

I've just had a proposed article, 'IBM MQ Light', returned to me on the basis that it reads like an advertisement. It's the first time that I've written an article, and it's disappointing that despite my attempts that I have received this reply. Could you please highlight exactly what the problems were, so that I can attempt to fix it? Thank you.

Sconaomi (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sconaomi - sorry you were disappointed. Your article attempts to sell a product, rather than simply giving information about its subject. Phrases like "IBM MQ Light aims to provide developers with easy-to-use tooling to create scalable applications on Premise, or in the Cloud on IBM Bluemix, so that they can prototype and deploy applications quickly", and sections which simply list options (as if it were a sales brochure), should be deleted. Beyond the advertising issue, your article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. See WP:GNG and the Golden Rule to get an understanding of what is meant by notability, and how to reference to show that notability. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I have removed the 'Options' section, and am currently trying to work out how to fix the first section. When writing this, I did research how others had written their articles in the hope that I would not have these problems. I'm sure that I saw the phrase, 'X product aims to...', and hoped it was okay to use (Kafka page?). I'm guessing that the other problem is that I need to link to other web sources? Being a relatively new product, there is not too much out there at the moment that is non-IBM. Is that going to be a problem?
Thanks.
P.s Is there an easy way to link my replies to you to the existing message thread? I was looking for a 'reply' button, but couldn't see one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sconaomi (talk • contribs) 16:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sconaomi - To answer your last question first, no. At least not that I know of. It's the second sentence of the lead which is the problem. It's selling me the product, rather than just telling me about the subject of the article. The entire article might be a case of a corporate WP:TOOSOON. I did a websearch on it, and the quality references are virtually non-existent. HERE'S ONE, although it's a fringe site, but it might help you with figuring out how to word things differently. THIS would be another nice article. You simply have to keep digging. As it stands now, there is no notability established. Onel5969 (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Thanks for letting me know here [[1]] as it indeed wasn't correct formatted English. The thing is, it also ain't correct yet right now I think. Would you mind correcting the phrase under the image so that it is in correct English? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.165.160.85 (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flamant page

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your review of my page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Flamant

As I have been trying to get this page online for over a year I would like to ask some more feedback.

I chatted with several reviewers in the chatbox, they agreed my sources were legit.

About the content they were less consistent. One said I should leave out info, another said I should add more history info.

As I don't have enough references for a long history I chose to keep it short and well referenced.

I don't understand your remark about the sources.

Every single one of the used sources is a respected medium.

The Ny times, De Standaard, le Soir, Cote Maison are all high profile and quality publications.

Even the website of the Belgian Monarchy is used as a source, which is about as formal and respected as it gets.

I guess I can indeed still tweak in the tone of voice and make it more formal.

But when it comes to sources I believe this is already astounding.

Or do you mean I should reference paper publications? In that case you won't be able to check the references? I figured the article would benefit from using web references from quality newspaper's and magazine's websites.

Thank you for your feedback.

Best regards,

ReubenLefevere (my username)

ReubenLefevere (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ReubenLefevere - I'm not questioning your sources. Quite frankly, I didn't even review your sources. Before I get to that point, I look at whether an article has an NPOV issue (which yours doesn't), is written like an advertisement (which yours isn't), and is in a formal, encyclopedic tone. This last category is where your article has an issue. The lead is fine, but the History and Products sections read more like a conversational tone, rather than an article. I think the company meets the notability requirements (although I haven't looked too in-depth at the foreign language references - some of them seem to be press releases, which don't go to notability). I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:10:46, 16 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Cmewshaw


Hi there, first off, I appreciate your reviewing my submission, but I do have some questions. The main reason cited for the articles dismissal was that the sources fail to adequately show the subjects notability. The sources were national publications (MTV, Rolling Stone), local publications (Oak City Hustle), and international website interviews, as well as record label websites. I read and then re-read the suggested article "guidelines on notability of music-related topics" and found that the subject met at least six of the first twelve listed criteria, of which the requirement is stated to be one. Please let me know where I went wrong as based on the reason listed for dismissal, I am very confused. I am confident that the information and cross wiki-linked articles illustrate substantial notability. Thank you for your time.

Cmewshaw (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cmewshaw, hi! - There's a difference between verifiability and notability. Your sources are great for verifying the facts of the article, but they do not go towards establishing the notability of the subject. I take a look at the 12 criteria in WP:NMUSIC, and here's what I see: 1 - no - all of the references are either primary references (interviews, bio pages on related sites like mtv), or are trivial (like the Rolling Stone piece); 2 - Nope, hasn't charted; 3 - Nope, no gold records; 4 - Nope, no non-trivial coverage; 5 - Nope, not on a major label; 6 - Nope (he's a solo artist, according to the article); 7 - Nope; 8 - Nope, no major awards; 9 - Nope, no major competition accomplishments; 10 - Nope, no indication this is true; 11 - Nope, again no indication of this; 12 - and again, nope.
References for notability must be from secondary sources (no interviews, no press releases, nothing from sites affiliated with the subject (like bios on label webpages)), and must be reliable (no blogs, etc.). Also they must be non-trivial, they just can't allude to the subject or mention the subject in passing, they have to be in-depth about the subject. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Everist Draft

Thanks for your recent review of my (first) article on Mark Everist. I was hopeful that you might be able to help me improve the article so that it can be published. Your justification for rejecting the submission reads: 'This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia'. Other articles on similar musicologists have much less regarding referencing, for example please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Parker and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Taruskin These articles were both published without significant references either. I have, however, referenced the largest and most authoritative music encyclopaedia in the english language, Grove Music Online (OUP). This is a source that all music academics frequently use. The information is verifiable (assuming you have a subscription or access to a local library that has a copy of this multi-volume source). What I find particularly interesting about the review is that an OUP source is not 'verifiable' and moreover, that Oxford University Press finds 'Mark Everist' worthy of a subject entry in the largest english-language music encyclopaedia but apparently Wikipedia does not. I would be most grateful to you if you had further suggestions of what may be done to improve this article. If Oxford Uni Press encyclopaedia is not a reputable and satisfactory source, could you then please point me in the right direction? Also, it seems interesting that similarly acclaimed musicologists have had articles published with much less citation. Many thanks. SPG2015 (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPG2015 - You're right, I would not have accepted either of those articles either. Guidelines are quite clear, and neither one of those live up to those guidelines. I've tagged both of them. It's not that Wikipedia doesn't find this subject "worthy", it's that the current sources in the article do not establish the subject's notability. You have two independent sources. That is almost never enough to establish notability. Please look at WP:GNG and WP:RS as to what establishes notability, and what qualifies as reliable sources in order to establish that notability. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

kjh5359, Civil Eats article resubmitted

Hi! Thanks so much for your feedback on my article (this is my first time writing one, so your note was much appreciated). I *think* I corrected the copyvio issue in the Founding section, and I just re-submitted it for review. If you could take a look at it when you get the chance and let me know if I corrected the problem, that would be awesome! Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjh5359 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kjh5359 - Yup, that does it. I'm moving it to mainspace. Needs a bit of work to remove WP:PEACOCK terms. I'll do a brief edit to show you what I mean. Nice job. Onel5969 (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disapproval of article

Hello,

I have recently submitted an article on a Romanian company, Avangate, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Avangate. From what I understand from your comment the resources we provided are not reliable and are internally produced. I must say that all the resources we have included are from verified and trustworthy external publications that are unrelated to Avangate. Could you please explain more on this subject? Secondly, would you be so kind as to give me an example of an "advertising" sentence or paragraph and also how it should be reformulated in order to sound more neutral? We are open even to the possibility of someone else writing the article, as we want it to be approved. If you could make a suggestion on how we could ask someone to write it for us that would be excellent.

Thank you very much for your time and I look forward to your answer. Have a nice week,

Laura Gheorghe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laura gh25 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Laura gh25 - That's not at all what I'm saying. Your article reads like an advertisement for the software. It's is selling us the product, rather than simply telling us about it. When I review an article, I first look to see if it's a copyright violation (yours isn't). Then I read the article to see if it is an advertisement, suffers from an NPOV issue, or reads like an essay. If it gets by those issues, then I look at the citations and notability of the subject. Your article could be a promotional brochure for the software. Using terms like "helps Software, SaaS, and Online Services companies manage", "The company’s services include", "accepting 20 payment methods", "deal to increase product development", etc. are all written to entice customers/investors. In other words, they are of interest to consumers. Encyclopedia articles need to be informative, but not sales tools. I hope this helps, since sometimes it's difficult to write about exactly what is wrong with an article. Onel5969 (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:17:20, 17 February 2015 review of submission by Sebh007


Hi Onel5969. Thank you for taking the time to review my submission. I understand your problem, I think, as far as notability is concerned, and I hope I have addressed it by adding in a load more external references. I'm not sure that I have added them in the best format, but hopefully they will at least go some way to addressing your notability issue. If I need to change the format, particularly of the bunch at the top, then please put me right. Thanks a lot. Sebh007 (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sebh007 - First, you should rarely, if ever, have more than 3 citations for any one fact. If you have additional information, you can simply put the references after the "reflist" template. Second, I didn't go through all of the additional citations, but the vast majority of them seem to be in the class of press releases - in other words, they are creations of the organization itself which it is disseminating to the public - in this case "calls for entries" (btw, several of the links are dead links). There is a difference between verifiability and notability. Your references definitely show that the competition exists (verifiability), but they don't show the event's notability. That would come from "significant" coverage from at least several reliable, independent sources. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conscience: Taxes for Peace not War

Hi there,

You reviewed my submission for the page "Conscience: Taxes for Peace not War" but deemed it too similar to the document here: http://www.brad.ac.uk/library/media/library/specialcollections/documents/CwlPTCCLDApr2010.pdf

I have since gotten permission for use of the document from the Bradford archive and I contacted the successor organisation to the Peace Tax Campaign who sent an email using the template in order to remove any doubt about copyright usage rights.

The article has not been released yet (I know there is a backlog).

Would I still need to edit the article even with the release from the archive and Conscience?

If so, would you be kind enough to highlight what I should change as I do not wish to rewrite the entire article.

Your help would be much appreciated here.

Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Conscience:_Taxes_for_Peace_not_War

ZRay22 ZRay22 (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ZRay22 - It is going to take a bit more editing before moving into the mainspace. While you took care of the main copyvio issue, there are still others. The Peace Tax Bill section is too close to THIS SITE. The article also suffers from an WP:NPOV issue - statements like "Conscience believes..." are advocacy statements, rather than informative. If you take care of those two issues, let me know here, and I'll take a look at it again. Nice job on the WP:OTRS, by the way. Onel5969 (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Roger Parker

Thanks for your posting on the article re: notability and the need for more references.

I'm in the process of making some additions and making the article rather more substantial. Since you live in the US (as I do as well, but I am a Brit and am currently in London) you may not be so familiar with Parker as I because I've been to some of his lectures (inc. his Belisario study afternoon in 2012) and also because I write a lot on WP about Italian opera of the 19th century.

His American counterpart is Philip Gossett who is about 10 years older than Parker. Maybe you could look at that article and, if you have any pointers on how to improve the Parker one, I'd appreciate it. However, as a member of WP:OPERA, I do intend to seek input there as well. One link between both of these men has been these work on the critical editions of important 19th C operas - Gossett's for Verdi, Parker's primarily for Donizetti. All the best, Viva-Verdi (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC) (from Santa Fe, NM)[reply]

Hi Viva-Verdi - The main difference between Gossett and Parker is that the award Gossett won is much more prestigious (or at least appears to be). Let me just say that I don't know much about opera, so I'm just basing it on the articles themselves. Gossett has all the same types of references as Parker, but then he has two very strong citations (the first 2). Those are the two factors which make me not question Gossett, but question Parker (although I'd still like to see a couple more strong citations for Gossett). If you could come up with 2 or 3 strong articles (not interviews) about Parker, that would help. They should be from well-known national publications. To be honest, I missed two things in the Parker article, for which I'm going to remove the notability tag: the Guggenheim fellowship and his fellowship at the British Academy. Those two things alone make him meet wiki notability criteria. As you flesh it out, just make sure to cite claims. The problem with both of these folks is that most of the world doesn't care about the thing they do best, so there is very little press. Not saying that's right, but that's the way it is. Good luck with the edit. Onel5969 (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:41:37, 17 February 2015 review of submission by 101.63.95.17


101.63.95.17 (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Please note that all the links to servers other than that of the journal are independent reputed websites, the contents of which we have no influence on.[reply]

14:55:43, 17 February 2015 review of submission by 101.63.95.17


101.63.95.17 (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC) You are also free to delete any part of the content which you feel as appearing like pure advertisement, after due verification.[reply]

Gordon Singleton

Hello,

Here is the article to be published https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gordon_Singleton

I have edited he article down in size leaving most of the important information.

Gordon Singleton is my son-in-law. He had a tremendous career as a racing cyclist. I'm having difficulty creating the citations WIKI requires. I'm 84 years old and computers are not my cup of tea.

There are many references to Gordon all over WIKI, here are few links to substantiate the article. 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_record_progression_track_cycling_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_flying_500_m_time_trial

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_record_progression_track_cycling_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_flying_200_m_time_trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_record_progression_track_cycling_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_1_km_time_trial

Scroll down to the year 1980, you will see his name for the 500m - 200m - and one kilometer. He is also listed in French language https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Singleton

Any help you can give to publish this article would be helpful, I would like to surprise my son in law

Thank you, Mary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary Godak (talk • contribs) 19:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Godak - I'll see what I can do, but won't be able to get it done for a day or two. We'll also need to let other editors know that you have a potential conflict of interest, since you are close to the subject of the article. Doesn't mean you can't write it, just means we have to be careful to keep the tone neutral and factual. He seems notable, so I'll do whatever I can to help you get the article ready. If you don't see me working on the article by Thursday, send me a gentle reminder - I get distracted. Onel5969 (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

02:51:57, 18 February 2015 review of submission by Msmith626


Hi Onel5969,

Thank you so much for taking the time to review the article I created. I revised the article and removed the peacock terms, and I also updated the wording of the article to be more of a formal/encyclopedic tone. I removed any first-person and second-person pronouns that I found.

I was hoping when you have a moment you could take another look at the article. This is also my first time writing an article for Wikipedia, so any other tips/advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks again for your time.


--Marc Msmith626 (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Msmith626 - no worries. Article looks much better. Resubmit it and let me know, so I can move it to the mainspace. Nice work! Onel5969 (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Onel5969 - Thank you! I've resubmitted the article. Msmith626 (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help with publishing rejected article

Hi There,

Thank you so much for taking the time to review my submission. I would appreciate some help moving it from the rejected category into a published article. Here is a link to the Draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Luke_Harmon-Vellotti

I thought that I had added enough reliable and verified third party sources for my article to be published. If you please point me in the right direction here I would be grateful. When you have a moment, please let me know what type of sources did not count that I referenced, and also what I should source instead. I have plenty of resources as far as independent verification that I could add to my submission. Also, how would I add my subject into a particular category? I believe that there is a category just for International Chess Masters, as far as, notable subjects.

Thanks again, My user name is Sunshine Wizard Sunshinewizard (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sunshinewizard. While the sources you list prove that this young man exists, and that he is a good chess player, none of them show his notability. There is a difference between verifiability and notability. All of your references are of the former kind. We need some independent articles about why he is notable. If the veracity of the article is unquestioned, he is notable, but we need proof of that. Also, since this is a blp, it needs inline citations (e.g. when you say he's the highest ranked player in ID, that sentence should have a citation, backing that claim up). I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There,

Thank you for your prompt response. I will make the citation as you recommended. However, I am not sure why all of these published articles from several verified and different newspapers do not count as legitimate sources (see below). Perhaps I put them in the wrong place.

External Links[edit] Davis, Noah "What Makes You So Smart, Teenage International Chess Master?" - "Pacific Standard". Retrieved March 19, 2014. Jerauld, Brian "Harmon-Vellotti Tops Shetty to Take Lead at U.S. Juniors" - "Chess Club and Scholastic Center of Saint Louis". Retrieved June 17, 2013. Niro, Frank "Just a Matter of Time for Luke Harmon-Vellotti" - "Northwest Chess". Retrieved August 2013. Hanken, Jerry "The Littlest Warrior" - "Chess Life for Kids". Retrieved August 2008. Prentice, George "14 and 18-Year-Old Brothers will be UCLA Roommates, begin Freshman Year this Fall" - "Boise Weekly". Retrieved July 24, 2013. Roberts, Bill "For Boise 14-Year-Old, it’s Time for College" - "The Idaho Statesman". Retrieved June 23, 2013. Cashell, Yancey "Chess Champ, 14, Looks to Revitalize Game at UCLA" - "The Daily Bruin". Retrieved July 22, 2013. Reyes, Norma "With young chess star Luke Harmon-Vellotti, UCLA students revive Chess Club" - "Chess Daily News". Retrieved May 2014.

Also, a good chess player and an Internationally titled player such as IM Luke Harmon-Vellotti is very different. In fact, Wikipedia has it's own category for them since it is such a rare achievement, especially for a young player. See FIDE titles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIDE_titles#International_Master_.28IM.29. I did independently source this on the original submission here: https://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=2030012. IM Harmon-Vellotti title is also noted at this link, which is the sole worldwide governing body for granting international chess titles. The governing body cite also notes IM Harmon-Vellotti is the #3 ranked U18 player in the US, the #4 ranked player in both Americas, and the #47 ranked U18 player in the world. Here is the list from Wiki that notes all of the other International Masters in the world with listed pages. Many of them have the singular achievement of having attained this title, even with no other notable accomplishments since it is so difficult to attain. As noted on Wiki: An International Master is usually in the top 0.25% of all tournament players at the time he or she receives the title.[7] The November 2010 FIDE rating list records 3036 players holding the IM title.

He is also the youngest ever recipient of the prestigious merit Stamps Foundation Scholarship, which is also on Wiki here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamps_Family_Charitable_Foundation. He is also one of the youngest students ever to attend the University of Los Angeles, CA as he was granted admission as a full-time student at the age of 14, which is already sourced here in the video links: Kendall, Rebecca "14-year-old math, chess prodigy enrolls at UCLA" - "University of California, Los Angeles Newsroom". Retrieved September 15, 2013. Cruz, Nancy "Fourteen Year Old UCLA Student and Chess Champion" - "KTLA 5 News Team". Retrieved October 13, 2013. Hamilton, Dan "State's Best" - "FOX 12 News". Retrieved July 5, 2008. Branson, Serene "Top-Ranked Chess Player, 14, Starts Classes At UCLA" - "KCAL9 News". Retrieved September 24, 2013.

I would like to do the citations and proper external sourcing at the same time prior to resubmission, so I would appreciate your clarification and direction here, Thank you, Sunshine WizardSunshinewizard (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

07:11:31, 18 February 2015 review of submission by Ayanwrites


Ayanwrites (talk) 07:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The website (http://www.panchjanyasolutions.in/our-books/upper-cut-a-change-india-initiative/authors/ayan-pal/) is the profile page of Ayan Pal as one of the authors of Upper Cut. The website has also been cited in the article as a reference. However, if required, the profile of Ayan Pal may be removed/modified from the source (http://www.panchjanyasolutions.in/our-books/upper-cut-a-change-india-initiative/authors/ayan-pal/) upon your suggestion. To add to the matter, both the profiles are written by the same person (Ayan Pal), which might be the reason for the reviewer to adjudge it as a copyright infringement. Looking forward to your help.

Hi Ayanwrites - Yes, that's what needs to happen, the article must be in your own words, not cut and paste, or even a close paraphrase of an outside source. Onel5969 (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A question re edit reversion

If you please, why did you delete my edit on Schizoaffective disorder? I only ask because, as a sufferer, I was quite pleased to hear it mentioned in a popular setting. Colgraff (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Colgraff.[reply]

Hi Colgraff - Simply because it was uncited. If you put it back and include a citation, I'd also drop the "!" - non-encyclopedic. Onel5969 (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

09:51:33, 18 February 2015 review of submission by 2.227.212.23


Hello, I know personally the Editor that put the Amazon description, he says that he will change the amazon wrote, 'cause he taked my text while I was preparing this page (in the promotional tour in the states whit the autor). I want you to ask if is it possible to submit to you directly (faster than the last time) when amazon text will change Thank you

2.227.212.23 (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re-submitting page

Hi, my username is SpazioAlCielo and i'm the author of a page submitted in the last days. The page is about "Emiliano Reali", an Italian writer. You correctly unaccepted the page, because the Amazon page (that take the text from the "beta" of my wiki page, has not been changed before as they tell me). I want to inform you that I've contacted the author of the amazon page and he changed it. So now there's no more copyright problem (it's ironic if you think that amazon take my beta version ad for this reason you have to reject the page :-) ) I hope that there are no more problems for the page and that all links are correct (it's my second page, and the first was made long long time ago). Thank you for the attention and for your work — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpazioAlCielo (talk • contribs) 12:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IBM MQ Light

Thanks again for your feedback. I have added some links and re-written the first section. Hopefully the article will make it through review this time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sconaomi (talk • contribs) 13:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question re: protocol for resubmitting a page

Hi -- my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Forbidden_Room_(2015_film) was declined due to lack of disparate sources, and now that more sources have appeared I plan to update and resubmit it. I'm just wondering if, when I resubmit, I should delete the comments and the submission declined code. I assume so, but I want to check before I do anything. JonathanGBall (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John M. Falcone Article created

Onel5969,

Thanks for taking the time to review my submitted article about City of Poughkeepsie police officer John M. Falcone who was killed in the line of duty in 2011.

I reviewed your comments and clearly saw my mistake. I have since edited the sections of the article in which you commented on. I want to resubmit the article for review if I can.

Thanks again for your expertise and knowledge and I appreciated your comments/feedback.

BTW, today happens to be the four-year anniversary of the police officer's death. His death affected a lot of people in our community, including myself. I wanted to write this article to honor the sacrifice he made.

Be well and take care.

Jeff Lambert (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:24:55, 18 February 2015 review of submission by 109.155.155.131


Before beginning to edit the article I'd be grateful for more detailed information on why it was refused. I used facts (i.e. what is the organisation, what does it do/has it done, which artists have done projects with it and when, and where a reputable newspaper or magazine had reported on the element of the work used this as the secondary source.

With thanks for your help in this matter.

Lesley Booth

109.155.155.131 (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:45:11, 18 February 2015 review of submission by Fresnowalldog


Fresnowalldog (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Hello I'm trying to find out why my page doesn't get published in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Largest_Painted_Mural_Stamp I noticed WikiCommons posted it https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Largest_Painted_Mural_Stamp.jpg what is it that you need from me to have it on Wikipedia? FranCisco Vargas heycisco@sbcglobal.net[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onel5969&oldid=647748772"