User talk:Joseph2302

PLEASE READ

If I have nominated your article for deletion (WP:AFD or WP:CSD), removed your content or reverted your change and you would like to know why,
please review the following Wikipedia policies and guidelines, among others that may be mentioned in a message I left on your Talk page:

• WP:ADVERT (Promotional Content)
• WP:N (General Notability)
• WP:BIO (Person Notability)
• WP:ORG (Company or Group Notability)

• WP:MUSIC (Musician or Band Notability)
• WP:V (Verifiability)
• WP:RS (Reliable Sources)
• WP:COPY (Copyright)

If none of these pages addresses your concerns,
you can leave me a note.
If you do, please sign and date your post by typing four tildes: ~~~~.

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

If you fail to do these things, you won't necessarily get a proper reply.

If you've come to this page because you got a notification saying I'm patrolling your page, then it just means that I've checked your new page meets Wikipedia standards. If it didn't, then I will have tagged the problems on the article itself.

19:32:00, 27 March 2016 review of submission by Toreeva

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Toreeva (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Natalia Toreeva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, thanks for the Easter "gift" I got from you today. I don't understand why you rejected my input and use the same words as the prev. review person - exact words. From the prev. notes I did added many References, which in my opinion should satisfy you. But now, what is wrong now? I checked for the example another Russian artist, A. Belkin, who has only the couple of sentences, and his References section has 3 or 4 References which I could not even open, but still his input "pass" your acceptance. I don't even try to compare the artists, just checking the correct built structure of the input you could accept. My main point of making my input is our artists asked me to make my input into our Unofficial Russian art, which is unknown from outside of Russia. And because of my input into the sections of the Petersburg groups, included "School of Sidlin", "Sterligov group", "Arefief", and "Others", people asked me to make my input into "Natalia Toreeva", so people know that it is the reliable person, who has the good knowledge, and not just knowledge, but because she was a part of the art movement of 1970s. So I added there the "School of Sidlin". "Sterligov, "Arefief", and other sections there. My main point is about the "School of Sidlin", where Natalia Toreeva was the member of the group. Now only 4 students left alive, and only one person is alive in the "Ariefiev" group. I knew them all, but the time is ticking.. And because the "School of Sidlin" is very important from the art history point of view, since the teacher (O. Sidlin) was the student himself of the K. Malevich, etc. And this is the part of history now. And since I knew another artists and their importance, I wrote about them too. Those info is very important, since for example, our "School of Sidlin" included in the St. Petersburg Encyclopedia, where all students of this group are included there. Is it not notable to be included in the St. Petersburg encyclopedia? (A.Belkin, or Alek Rapoport were not part of any group movement, but still they are included in your wiki encycl.). Also, I included in my input that many of Natalia Toreeva's works were accepted by the different museums to their permanent collection. Is it not notable from your point of view? What is more important for the artist than to be accepted in the museums? And for the Spertus museum, for example, the famous American art collector (Norton Dodge), who had the best knowledge of the Russian art, was invited by the museum, to help them in the selection process. He gave me his published book with his note, that it is too late to include Natalia into his book. I also divided the input into 2 parts, since Natalia Toreeva was living in Russia, and than moved to USA, so, it is 2 parts of the life of real person. Also, Natalia Toreeva was accepted being in USA, as the member of the Artist Union of Russia (very important) and the member of the Writers Group in Illinois, USA. And for the artist it's important, as Natalia Toreeva was included in the Best 10,000 artists in the world by the Russian Art Union. Is it not notable again? Yes, I'm not compare Natalia Toreeva with Picasso, but she has her own role in the history, and as well as the part of the "School of Sidlin" art movement. If you can make the editing, and delete whatever you feel is extra written for this effort, them please help to do it. Why my input is accepted in the Unofficial art in Russia, but rejected here? I disagree with your opinion about the rejection of my input, because it would be loss not only for Natalia Toreeva name, but for the history of Russian art as well. Toreeva (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

First of all, writing autobiographies or writing with a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged.

Also, although I did use the same template to reject, I also gave comments. There is no evidence they meet any of the criteria for notability of creative professionals:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must #have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

And lots of the sources presented aren't reliable. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Joseph, I don't know how to convince you, since I don't think you see in my input what you mentioned in your response. You mentioned museums, exhibitions, books, etc. I have included the exhibitions Natalia Toreeva participated. I have the museums section, where her art works were accepted into their permanent collections, and I named those museums. And in the Publication section, I included the books where her work was published. For example, she created 3 children's books (wrote the manuscripts and illustrated), that were taking in the International Books Fair, and also accepted by the museum into their perm. collection. In other published books she participated with her design and illustrations. You also mentioned works on the films. She worked on the "Lenfilm" film studio (her filmography also included), and the film where she worked as an artist, was on the International film festival in USA. Don't you think your request for needed input is there? And 23 References I think are the good input for the verification of the info. Again, when I compare the pages of other artists, I don't understand why you declined my submission? I am not trying to crit. their work, I am happy for them, I just trying to logically look why their inputs were accepted. For example, A. Belkin, has only 6 lines of the text, and 9 references, where 4 does not open at all. Artist, Afrika, has only 15 lines of text, and 5 references. Igor Polyakov page has only 4 lines of text and not Ref. at all. So, is it possible, if my text is too long? Then please, if possible, can you edit/suggest where to clean up the text. I would appreciate for your help. Thanks!Toreeva (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because some other crap exists on Wikipedia doesn't mean we should be accepting more. It's not about other articles, rather showing that yours passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which I don't believe it does.

Also, are you the subject of the article?if you are, you're strongly discouraged from creating an autobiography, and if you're not, then your username misleading, and should be changed at WP:CHU. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Joseph, Thanks for your reply. I don't want to write the Bio since my main goal is to write about the art groups of 1970s, I was part of, and I knew almost all artist of that time, and specifically about the "School of Sidlin", which is the part of the art history now. I started to write about the St. Petersburg art groups in another article, very objectively, and without the problem, but I have the problem with this article. I am planning to write the separate articles about other artists, but don't understand and did not expect to receive these kind of rejections on this article. I will try to improve this article though hoping on your help on suggestions/editing or other reviewers as well. My addition question, besides how I can improve this article, should I include that Natalia Toreeva had her 5 patents when she worked as the computer scientist, or is it outside of the description part her as an artist? Thank you.Toreeva (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

If the fact she had 5 patents is reliably sourced, then it can be added.

Also, I've asked at the Teahouse if other experienced editors can look at the article, and give additional guidance. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Joseph! The patents are real, and I will add it to the text, but I can't discuss about it in deep since they are the patents. Also, I have the newspapers where the articles about Natalia Toreeva's art discussed, and also another newspapers and journal, where her drawings are included by the poet in his poems, and they are printed in the newspapers, New Your. They are also real newspapers, but they are from 1990s, so how I can include them to the article? I can include the printed books, but the newspapers? Should I make a copy and send you, or how I can prove that the sources are real, but I can't show it? I can include the name of newspapers/journal and the date of publishing and the issues number, but is it enough? Also, in the filmography, I mentioned about the film, where Natalia Toreeva was working. The director, Alexei German, was the number 1 in filmography of that time, and the scenarist was the number one writer in USSR (K. Simonov). The film was in USA for the show. Is it the things you want to be included in the article to prove notability, then I can include K. Simonov's name? The films are easy to verify, because the name in the titles, but the newspapers? I remember I was invited to the Teahouse when I started make my inputs, but I was so busy. So, if someone from your Teahouse can help with the editing, or deleting the extra text/info, or help with the structure itself, it will be appreciated. Any suggestions? Thank you!Toreeva (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DYK for Gehan Mendis

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

19:31:25, 5 April 2016 review of submission by Andy at InfraUSA

• Andy at InfraUSA (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Steven C F Anderson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, thanks for the review! Disappointed to hear my article was rejected again, but I will soldier on! I am confused about a few things with my rejection, maybe you can help?

First, notability. I see there are many articles on Wikipedia with questionable notability and few references (retired mobile apps, 80s garage bands, my own father has a page for his appearance on a cancelled TV show!). This makes it difficult for me to gauge what is considered notable and what is not. I just find it hard to believe that Steven C.F. Anderson who has won awards for his work with UNICEF and Globalvision should be considered less notable than these other articles. It feels unfair.

Second, bias. I have been very open about my involvement with InfrastructureUSA. Does my involvement with the organization make this article unpublishable regardless of content?

I apologize if this came across as terse or frustrated, I just have great respect for this man and the work he has done around the world for human rights. Any guidance would be much appreciated. -Andy— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy at InfraUSA (talk • contribs)

Hi @Andy at InfraUSA: The main thing we're looking for is independent reliable sources that cover them in depth.

Looking at your submission:

1. No mention of him at all: [1],[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]
2. Written by a company/organisation that he works/volunteers for (and so not independent): [10], [11]
3. Couldn't access: [12] (blocked as "dangerous" by my firewall)
4. Not a reliable source: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] (videos aren't reliable sources, and neither is IMDb)
5. Passing mention: [18], [19], [20]
6. Decent, independent sources: [21], [22], [23], [24]

So that leaves just 4 decent sources about him, which I don't believe shows significant coverage, as required by WP:GNG. If his work is covered in other sources e.g. books/newspapers/independent websites, then they should be added.

To address your other questions:

1. Just because other stuff exists on Wikipedia, that doesn't mean anything should. Things that no longer exist may still be notable if they generated coverage when they did exist.
2. Wikipedia shouldn't be biased against you as a conflict of interest editor, as Wikipedia policy states that editors with COI are allowed to edit. In fact, making your affiliation obvious and also using the articles for creation process is exactly the recommended steps for COI editors on Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: Thank you for the quick and detailed reply! I will do my best to fix these issues. -Andy

Thank you so much!!!

Thank you for your help!

I will do what you suggested and look into removing some of the links (was sent a note that I needed to do that) once I disclose, will this remove the flag on the page that says there is a close connection to the subject? I have actually never met the subject in person, but is friend of a friend who needed help with this. They have PLENTY of incredible writer friends, but wanted an unbiased point of view, as ironic as that sounds, at this point! Anyway, I absolutely want to be as honest, neutral and integral as possible and not cause any problems for the subject. This was my first article, and I'm afraid I'm a bit confused.

Thank you, thank you!

MelissBelle (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Right now however you need to find more reliable sources to show why she's notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

About my editing as a paid editor for Free port of Ventspils

Hello Joseph, I received the concern about me being a paid editor. I am not, I am doing an internship which I am not being paid for, it's for the learning purposes to raise my skills in business management. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventspils brīvostas pārvalde (talk • contribs) 06:10, 6 April 2016‎

(talk page watcher) Ah! So you're a self-confessed "unpaid editor for Free port of Ventspils"??? I think you should probably read our conflict of interest policy first. It's very informative. Indeed, doesn't Joseph2302 mention it in big letters at the top of this page...? Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, even if you're not paid, you still have a conflict of interest. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, Ventspils brīvostas pārvalde, interns are considered the same as employees and so count as "paid" editors. The reason is that interns usually receive an ultimate benefit from there services, even if they do not get a salary, and interns are subject to much the same sorts of pressures as employees. DES ^(talk) 13:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC) @Ventspils brīvostas pārvalde: DES ^(talk) 13:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Ahh I get it. They asked me to do this considering I'd be the neutral person, because no one else is likely to update the article otherwise. Well what do you recommend? I realize the article should be only informative and I'm doing my best not to inflict a conflict of interest. Ventspils brīvostas pārvalde (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Omega Crosby (rapper)

Can you please be more specific on what is needed on the Wikipedia page for "Omega Crosby. He is in the google knowledge graph and my team has been trying to get this article approved for this artist and the label going on a year now. It's pushing back our schedule. I've seen multiple articles on artist and youtubers who are involved in music and have not charted (Big Fase 100, Pryde, J. Stalin, etc.). He has been nominated for awards in his community as well as receiving over a million views on his YouTube videos and plays through soundcloud and music streaming services. Please be more specific on what is needed, becauseat this point it is getting difficult, tedious and frustrating for our consultants to complete this task and have it marked as approved for the label.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikaveli777 (talk • contribs)

@Mikaveli777: Just because Google has created a knowledge graph for him doesn't mean that he needs to have a Wikipedia article. There's no evidence that he passes WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG.

Also, the above comment suggests you are engaging in paid editing, which must be disclosed per Wikipedia's Terms of Use. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Your Edit to Draft:National Register of Public Service Interpreters

Dear Joseph,

(1) Did you review the previous comments of 15th March before making your very dramatic edit?

(2) If the above editing is accepted, is the article now suitable for publication, having responded at length to all the previous comments?

Stephen

SHBishop (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)SHBishop

I don't see where you've "responded at length to all the previous comments"- the only comments I can see on Draft talk:National Register of Public Service Interpreters are about removing copyvios from @Wiae:.

Also my "dramatic edit" was actually removing a long quote, which I believe violated WP:COPYQUOTE. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Sierra Academy of Aeronautics

You tagged Sierra Academy of Aeronautics for proposed deletion. I have found a number of sources and added them to the article. I think this is now out of the PROD zone, although an AfD might still choose to delete it. I strongly suspect that there are more sources out there -- all of mine were taken from the first few pages of a single basic Google search. This is just FYI. DES ^(talk) 13:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@DESiegel: That's fine, thank you for notifying me. I'm not going to nominate it for AfD. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)