User talk:Onel5969

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

When leaving a comment/question please remember to "sign", using the four tildas (~~~~); also, if the question/comment is in reference to an article, please leave a link to the article. Failure to do either of those two things might mean that you won't get a response. I get a pretty high volume of activity on my talk page, so anything which can expedite the process is greatly appreciated.

Please click here to leave me a new message. Please leave your username, and a link to the article it refers to, if you have a question.

Edit count

• edit count

Wiki mark-up link

Hi! You might find these handy:

• Simple guide to Wikipedia mark-up
  • Advanced guide to Wiki mark-up

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

How to cope as an contributing editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your time. I appreciate your insight!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clumsiness

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for Correcting me Sir

Dear One15969,

I have made the corrections to the Draft:Purplehed_Records

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

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

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

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

Rigobert Roger Andely

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Onel,

Thanks for your review of my article draft : Rupak Kulkarni

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

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

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

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

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

Question regarding "edit" tab/feature to edit articles

Hi Onel5969,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Thanks Pachisu124!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

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

Thanks

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

Romeo Mancini

Hi Onel5969,

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

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

Hi Onel,

Yes I Have understood, I think I had worked on that, that phrase you mentioned has disappeard a long while ago. I think I have changed a lot on the tone. Why did you mentioned me a phrase that is not anymore in the draft? Could you please have a look now since I think I have reworked on the phrases that sounded like a story and not an article tone? What I am not sure about, and if u are referring to this as well is about the painting description. But I guess for artists this is present in each wikipedia article. Could you please have a look now? Anna Lisa33 (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Geanna Merola

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey,

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

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

Albert

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

What should I fix?

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

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