User talk:StraussInTheHouse

Draft:Shankarrao_Vyas

Hi, I have made some changes to the new article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shankarrao_Vyas.

I have added inline references, and removed all the information that isn't easily verifiable from reliable sources. Please let me know if this looks good.

Anjiy (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Anjiy thanks for your message. It's improved, perhaps ensure you place all the references inline it's not strictly required as Vyas is not alive or recently deceased but it would add clarity for the reader. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 11:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Strauss. I have now added a couple of lines about Vyas's work, using one of the references. I have also removed other references that did not add any new information, and would be viewed as less "reliable". Is the article now likely to be accepted if I submit it? Anjiy (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Anjiy: not sure, terms like "foremost" will need references or cutting. SITH (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I can see how that can be a problem. I just removed the adjective for now. 06:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjiy (talk • contribs)

regarding article publishing

Hi sir, i am new editor to wikipedia. i would like to publish an article about my favourite school located near my hometown . after typing some information about that school, acceptance for that article is not issued for me please guide me to publish my first article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subramanianrangasamy (talk • contribs) 09:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Subramanianrangasamy, I assume you're referring to Draft:Veveaham Prime Academy. I declined that and tagged it for deletion as advertising. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, please feel free to try again but don't submit an advert or it'll be deleted again. SITH (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

youve been deleting the article that i took hours to create

it is properly referenced and needed for other to look for info — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingoflunacy (talk • contribs) 09:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kingofluncay, per WP:BLAR any user can, in good faith, blank and redirect an article if it isn't notable in itself. I don't believe it is, feel free to undo it, but I will attempt to gain consensus for a redirect at AFD unless you can source it to show it passes WP:NMUS. SITH (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Feedback on text not understood

Hi, first of all thank you for reviewing my submission on the relational frame theory. I saw feedback you've given that the text had to much original research. I don't understand this feedback very well. In my point of view there is no new data involved in the text. I did use some examples, because my experience is that the technical terms of the theory are not understood easily. These examples are one on one related to the theory as referenced however. Therefore I don't consider the examples original research. I could be wrong of course.

Could you please give me examples of my text in which I use original research, and what makes them original research?

RvR86 (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi RvR86, please can you provide me with a diff, I don't appear to have edited the article you're referring to? Many thanks, SITH (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi SITH, it was send from my sandbox envoriment to you to review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RvR86/sandbox I'm quite new to all of this to be honest. RvR86 (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi RvR86, the issue is with using phrases like "To go further with the examples above" "Take these two sentences for example:" without citations. It means we can't verify the content, so we must assume that the examples have come from the writer of the article. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi SITH, functionally the examples are the same as the statements wich are refferd to: the statement "Given the relation A to B, the relation B to A can be derived" I have referenced and is functionally the same as: "Joyce is standing in front of Peter. The relation trained is stimulus A in front of stimulus B. One can derive that Peter is behind Joyce. The derived relation is stimulus B is behind stimulus A." There is a direct relation between the examples and the statements which are referenced.I don't understand why it's necessary to reference examples when there is a direct relation between the example and the referenced statement as that they are functionally the same.RvR86 (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

in appreciation for your generosity in revisiting the discussion. Your first comment helped me to see the page as you did, and improve it. It was a pleasure to work with you. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi E.M.Gregory, a pleasure working with you too, I'm always happy to change my mind when needed! Best, SITH (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Changed ref tags

Hi, I've seen you do this at a few caste-related articles. I understand that you are strictly speaking correct but, in every case I have seen, the source that had been added was inappropriate and had to be removed. This is a common problem with the topic area, and one of the reasons why there is a special sanctions regime in place. Just a heads-up. - Sitush (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that Gyan is not a RS. ∯WBG^converse 11:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, that was one of 6,000-odd edits I was doing as part of a project to keep maintenance categories up to date. If something invokes a citation template, it shouldn't have the unreferenced template, however, looking at the source in this instance, I agree it is not reliable and should be removed, thus leaving the article without sources so you were right to reinstate the tag. Any of my edits made with the tag "AWB" are extremely unlikely to be making a comment on the veracity of sources and is just likely to be semi-automated maintenance. Insofar as content disputes, I tend not to take sides in articles under sanctions (I presume you're referring to WP:ARBIPA), it's just better to follow what ArbCom has decided IMO! Many thanks, SITH (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's one of the reasons why I think AWB should be renamed ABT - A Bad Thing. And definitely a bad thing for sanctioned topic areas. The edits can end up doing more harm than good, especially because they make for misleading watchlists. - Sitush (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I ♥ AWB. SITH (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Cervecería Dos Aves page

Hello. Please help me understand what parts of the page need references, and I will add them. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fkameko (talk • contribs)

Anxiously awaiting your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fkameko (talk • contribs)

Hi Fkameko, the brands section was entirely unreferenced. SITH (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Writing regarding my declined submission "Koreans in Turkey"

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Brazilians
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Koreans_In_Turkey

Both pages have 3 sentences each, an infobox and one source.

Koreans in Turkey has a source from an official government, whilst the other none does not.

I'm wondering, what makes "Turkish Brazilians" eligible for the public, whilst "Koreans in Turkey" is declined?

The initial reason was "..do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject"

1. This is also the case for "Turkish Brazilians" 2. The only source needed in this context(population) is primarily the only authentic source which is official government documents. 3. What is a secondary source in this example? Journal and articles about Koreans in Turkey?

Thanks in advance for the help and understanding. Illustrator91 (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Illustrator91 please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. The former doesn't meet the same guidelines and has thus been nominated for deletion. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for the ref. Very interesting read considering how much there is that shouldn't be there. Illustrator91 (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Request on 18:13:37, 5 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by BARRY BARON

• BARRY BARON (talk · contribs)
  • User:BARRY BARON/sandbox2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Under the title Saint Matthew And The Angel Redux I take an exception with one of the verification processes. Wikipedia review editors complain about verifiability with a major journal, news agency etc. Someone want to explain to me that a news story documentary produced in 1986 was or was not created by a major news organization? I cited the year, the title, the investigative reporter and probably one of the most recognized news broadcast personalities, still alive and broadcasting today. The newsgroup is NBC (National Broadcasting Company). You couldn't go much higher in an authoritative news source in the United States. NBC is a national entity and one of the oldest. The broadcast story video (and its location) was posted and viewable for verification as to the claim, justifying the claimed authenticity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gc_LgPlwyg&t=199s Does someone want to explain to me how NBC, who reaches tens of millions of daily viewers nationally is not an official source? Again, the video is the source produced by a major national media company. The source video verifies the claim within the context of the story. What else do you need? This has a monumental impact on the art world because of the subject matter. It changes everything that was wrongfully interpreted about an irreplaceable major work of art since 1945. I think I know what I am talking about. I am also an editor of a small media journal BARRY BARON (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

BARRY BARON (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• @BARRY BARON: the issue was the way you'd referenced. You used some inline citations, some bare URLs, some inline external links and some link lists. I never questioned the veracity of your sources, just the aptitude you had presented them with, which is why I suggest you read WP:REFB and H:CITE1. SITH (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
• Note: removed ref tags, not on talk page. SITH (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

User:BARRY BARON - You haven't answered the questions that I asked on the sandbox talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Move review for Talk:CCTV New Year's Gala#Requested move 29 December 2018

The requested move of the article "CCTV New Year's Gala" released on 29 December 2018 was closed too speedily. There is no enough discussion to the requested move. In addition, many page-moved discussion released near 29 December 2018 are relisted in recent days, like "Talk:Auschwitz concentration camp#Requested move 29 December 2018", in order to attract other users to make their comments there. So can you reopen and relist the page-moved discussion of the article "CCTV New Year's Gala" in order to get enough discussion? Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.113.78.173 (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm struggling to see a concrete reason to relist this, however I am open to feedback, so I'm pinging Andrewa and Dekimasu, two uninvolved administrators who are experienced at requested moves to give me a review on whether the close was valid or not. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I would have closed the discussion with the same result, and I almost wrote a preemptive endorsement of the close; it's usually not very productive to relist discussions to find consensus after there is any evidence of canvassing. I'd expect the closure to be endorsed if the issue goes to move review, although arguably it may have been better to allow an administrator to close since this might have involved disallowing or disregarding certain !votes. Dekimasuよ! 18:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I agree it's a good close, with the same reservation that in difficult closes such as this we do currently prefer admin closes. But I'll qualify that in two ways... firstly a page mover, like any closer, is expected to disallow !votes that do not represent valid contributions to the consensus building process, and secondly, IMHO it would actually be better to prefer that these difficult ones were done by page movers, as they are RM specialists and on average do a better job at them than we admins. But that last is a radical opinion I admit, and does not itself have consensus support at this stage. Andrewa (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Why, Andrewa! That IS a radical take that I've never read before, probably because it's true but nobody wanted to say it. Fact is, there are some admins who are so much better at closing discussions, RM or otherwise, than some page movers, and there are some page movers and even non-admin, non-page-mover editors who are so much better than some admins, dependent in good deal upon the experience level. So for whatever it's worth, if 2 can constitute a consensus, then you've got it, budd! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  17:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Paine. One problem is that while page movers do a very good job on average, their instructions seem to leave something to be desired (they are relatively new after all) and this leads to some glitches. See wt:page mover#Talk page redirects (warning... long convoluted discussion). So there's some work to do before proposing this IMO. Andrewa (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Apologies to SITH for leaving Earth and taking this thread to Venus. It does appear that there is good reason to suspect that the closing instructions could be made clearer. In my opinion, all that is needed is written at WP:RMCI#Fixing redirects, and any editor that does not fix a broken, red-linked talk page after a page move violates that particular instruction. Maybe that is the instruction that needs to be made clearer? Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  02:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem! I did write something on this on my old account (Wikipedia:Simple RM closing instructions). RMs are unlike AfDs in that there are often alternative proposals so a script to close and move, especially as there’s a lot of post-move cleanup, really are best done manually. SITH (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

To editor Andrewa: I have made the clarification to the clean up instructions at WP:RMCI#Fixing redirects.Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  18:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both for your input. SITH (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• However, I disagree with the opinions proposed by the two administrators. Although it is reported that there is convassing in the page-moved discission by someone who opposed the page-moved proposal, and the supporters don't give further reasons, I still think it is unfair, unjust and unreasonable to close the page-moved discussion I mentioned so speedily by only hearing the report made by the opposer of the page-moved proposal. The behaviour done by the supporters is individual, and other users isn't likely to do it again. I still think we should reopen and relist the page-moved discussion I mentioned in order to attract other users to make their comments there. Otherwise, it is unfair, unjust and unreasonable to the users who never comment there, and it isn't good to make better consensus. Please welcome more administrators who don't involve the page-moved discussion I mentioned and this move review to discuss whether we should reopen and relist the page-moved discussion I mentioned. Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.113.78.173 (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't feel a relist is justified. You can lodge an appeal at WP:MOVEREVIEW. SITH (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the next step, 123.113.78.173 having now discussed the close with the closer, as described as step 1 at Wikipedia:Move review#Steps to list a new review request. Andrewa (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Kelly Hyman Draft

Thank you for your comments, I have edited to include footnotes and removed the inline citations. I have more references from old newspapers to add but the current references, I hope, should suffice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kelly_Hyman Appreciate the quick feedback and have a great day.Josephintechnicolor (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Josephintechnicolor, thanks for your message. I've filled out the bare references, but I will review it once I've done some more in the queue. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the Article Submission declined

What on earth this Draft:Amiya_Patnaik seems to be based on advertisement material,was completely baseless.Late Mr. Patnaik was a very different kind of Filmmaker whose films are National award winner and State film award winner.on one side,Where Upcoming film articles are created but on another side,you can't give permission to an article of notable filmmaker about whom people wanted to know and thats why i am really dissapointed.Please reconsider yourself.Thanks for your cooperation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riskyishwar (talk • contribs) 01:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Riskyishwar - Parts of this query are incomprehensible. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

+ 1, Riskyishwar: please make your argument based on the applicable policy (NPOV). SITH (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I do understand,What i have written is completly Unbiased and on a Good research.Based on the policy (NPOV).I have added some changes to the article and resubmitted it.Plese check,Thanks a lot.--Ishwar^TalkY 11:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

If you think it's ready for re-submission, go for it, but I'd strongly advise you to take the feedback on board before doing so. I tend not to review drafts on request because it will lead to a bazillion talk page messages plus it's unfair to others who are waiting in the queue. I don't know if that's the case with User:Robert McClenon but I would have thought this is a policy (not in the Wikipedia sense, just in general nomenclature) practised by most AFC reviewers. SITH (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. I would very strongly suggest that, before resubmitting a draft, you review, understand, and act on the reviewer comments. Resubmitting a draft without addressing the previous reviewer comments is likely to result in the draft being nominated for deletion. If you do not understand the reviewer comments, either ask the reviewer or ask for advice at the Teahouse rather than resubmitting. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, if you are having difficulty in discussing your drafts in English, it would be a good idea to consider contributing to the Wikipedia in your first language. Not every reviewer can guess what you are trying to say if your post is incomprehensible due to a grammar or syntax issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I got this.Resubmitting was a huge mistake without informing StraussInTheHouse.I am completely ready to take the consequences.You guys are very good on communicating and I don't have that skill.Thanks for your help.Ishwar^TalkY 12:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

StraussInTheHouse Please help me.As a human being i made a mistake,Please forgive me for First and Last time.I will not repeat that action again.Take a look on the article has some changes made by me and give a feedback whether it still violates the policy (NPOV) or not.Ishwar^TalkY 13:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Riskyishwar: no need to apologise or ask for forgiveness. I note you resubmitted it and another reviewer, declines it on the same grounds. I’m pinging said reviewer, Whispering, to see if there’s anything to add to what I and Robert have already said. SITH (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@StraussInTheHouse: I need to learn from you guys as you are very experienced.Thanks again.Ishwar^TalkY 15:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry got caught up in a meeting. Said article is still rather promotional with sentences like but always had a passion for movie making as a example. Whispering^(t) 15:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Whispering: I have removed those sentences.Please overlook and give your valuable feedback.Thanks.Ishwar^TalkY 00:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

New Zealand Tree Crops Association - references

Stickshark (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I know understand the issue, have made changes and resubmitted. Thanks for your feedback.

Stickshark (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Article was declined because article had not references. "Author has added (reference?) inline and has left a section empty, assuming premature submission"

However when I look at the article, I can see 24 references:

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

I do understand the importance of high quality references, so limited the details on the page to information dug out of off line material.

Clearly being a newbie I have done something wrong so that the 24 references don't show up for others ???

help please

Thanks David

Stickshark (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Stickshark, thanks for your message. The (reference?) I was referring to is in the sentence "Almonds had been grown successfully in NZ (reference?) however due to New Zealand's climatic conditions almonds". I assumed you had left it as a meta-comment to further develop the draft, in addition to the now-removed empty section. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	He is doing a good job by helping out users like me who have less knowledge about wikipedia .Thanks alot IshwarTalkY 15:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Riskyishwar, no problem! Many thanks, SITH (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Review of Draft:Harold Macy Award

Thank you for your comments. As you probably know this is the first time that I have submitted article. I believe the article has improved since the first iteration. This last submission included changes made to the text to reflect the national nature of the award and adding links to recipients with Wikipedia pages. As I made these changes I took note of how some other Wikipedia Food Technology award pages were structured. The pages I looked at included (to name a few) the Babcock-Hart Award (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babcock-Hart_Award), the Elizabeth Fleming Stier Award (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Fleming_Stier_Award), and the William V. Cruess Award (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_V._Cruess_Award). As the draft is now the number of references exceed other food technology award articles, and for the most part all the references do is point out that the person was the recipient of the award. I looked for additional references, but considering the nature of awards references outside of those listed by the predominate professional society (Institute of Food Technologists) are very few. As you noted the ones I did fine with personal webpages. Considering the preexisting Wikipedia articles of awards of the same nature as this one is there a way to have this draft reconsidered for acceptance? Jlarkin0 (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Jlarkin0, unfortunately no, other stuff existing is not a valid reason to include other things, but you can nominate such things for deletion. SITH (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Request on 18:21:01, 7 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Galndixie

• Galndixie (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:James Jones White (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

galndixie (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I wrote (or tried to write) the James Jones White article, this is my first. Should I have put each paragraph in a separate heading? Can you tell me what furthers sources I need to include? I used a book written about him by a reliable author, and legal public records displayed on ancestry.com and findagrave. I would like to get this published, and any help you could offer me would be greatly appreciated. Cindy--galndixie (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Galndixie, the main issue is the several paragraph quote, it’s probably best to remove that first. 22:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

SITH, thanks so much for your reply. That several paragraph quote is the resolution from the Board of Trustees of W&L University. Removing it would take away from the article, I think, since it tells so much of the history, character and professional life of the man. Can it not be left in, and what would be the reasoning for deleting it? I've seen other articles with similar entries included. Cindy --galndixie (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Galndixie, the main issue with several-paragraph quotes is it opens Wikipedia up to potential copyright lawsuits and as we're a volunteer-run community, we can't risk it, so unless the text is released under a free license such as GNU, we have a no-tolerance policy for copied content. If you see examples, please notify an administrator and they will be able to perform a revision deletion. SITH (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Article: Classics Department at King's

Dear SITH,

Thank you for the input you provided on my draft article on the Department of Classics at King's College London. I'd like to respectfully draw your attention to the following points and am happily open to any feedback:

I. The submission was declined due to a perceived overlap with the main university article for King's College London. I have searched through this article and was unable to find any references to the academic division in question. Indeed, the word 'classics' itself only shows up twice in the entire existing article, both in the same paragraph under a sub heading titled 'Rankings and reputation' which does not contain any information pertaining to the department, its history or its activities.

II. The only section in which I was able to find any overlap between the submission and the main university article was a small sub heading titled 'Foundation', which I included to lay some explanatory background information for the article before delving into any department-specific history. There is a possibility this section was misinterpreted as an overlap running through the entire article. Subsequent sections such as the Koraes Chair, Second World War, Modern Era, Location, Traditions and People all feature new information not currently listed anywhere on Wikipedia. These include architectural and geographical markers for the department, as well as noteworthy ties to other historical places or ideas with already existing articles (such as the Roman Baths on Strand Lane, prominent individual academics and authors from the 1800s onwards, a general context for the existence and continued endowment of the Koraes Chair, and so on). It is my confident judgement that all of this is department-specific information that is markedly unsuitable for the main university article (which appears if anything to make a point of not touching on the specifics of any individual faculty or department too much).

III. Judging by precedents set by separate articles on the Dickson Poon School of Law, Department of Philosophy, Department of War Studies, Digital Classicist and other prominent and old divisions within King's College (and the wider University of London when considering UCL departments and centres too), I believe the Classics Department has sufficient content by way of history and significance to warrant the creation of its own separate article in line with these other divisions.

IV. I have, in any case, also slightly modified the Foundation section to tailor it more specifically to the history of the Classics Department.

Please let me know if you would be happy to reconsider the submission!

Kind regards,

Wellingtonensis (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Wellingtonensis, I’m always happy to re-review drafts, however I, as with the majority of reviewers, tend not to do it straight after a message on my talk page (because of the amount of drafts I review it would mean I’d get lots of messages and it would be unfair on those who didn’t leave a message). I agree that the precedent for potential notability is there, it just needs solidifying to ensure it won’t get deleted. A reviewer’s job (aside from the obvious filtering through copyright violations etc) at AFC is to ensure that no users will be disappointed with the prospect of their article getting deleted, so something that might survive in the main space will often get rejected until we’re sure it will be able to be kept if challenged. The templates could be modified to show this, and we always appreciate feedback. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

DJ Ferret "notability"

With regard to the DJ Ferret article that you rejected for lack of notability, the cited appearances on Fox News and The Colbert Report would appear to satisfy Wikipedia's published criteria for notability, specifically: "12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." Additional TV appearances can be cited if necessary but they seemed redundant at the time of writing. Further, the cited Billboard Magazine article would support "7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability."

Please advise. Thank you. 2601:47:4000:CA0F:2109:6B39:D814:BBFA (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, cite absolutely everything you can to cement notability that meets WP:RS. SITH (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Added CNN, Philadelphia Inquirer, CBS, CNBC, ABC, Consumerist, and others to support both criteria 12 and 7. Does this suffice? 2601:47:4000:CA0F:2109:6B39:D814:BBFA (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Quick look: looks better, I see you've already submitted it so a reviewer (maybe me, maybe not) will give you feedback. SITH (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Designer Castles...

Don't worry about deleting this, Based on other discussions, I know have my doubts as well. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00, ah shoot I didn't know you were the author. If you think it could be improved by all means, I'm always open to changing my mind. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm saying it could be deleted, as it's only got a single source, and compared to some other software titles like Podd etc it doesn't have wide coverage.

You might also want to review the following :

• Let's Pretend (TV series)
• Great Rebuilding
• Celebratory lighting
• Ronan Deazley
• Section 42

as to their "notability" as topics..ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Dude I'm not going on a rampage, don't worry. AFAIK, (1) could be notable per WP:NTV, it just needs sourcing, (2) is fine, (3) is notable but could probably be merged into something and I'll look at the other two in a bit. Take care, SITH (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Also The British Encyclopedia, and something that's remained un-expanded in over a decade Docking sleeve . ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Volapük Wikipedia

Greetings! On Draft talk:Volapük Wikipedia, you wrote: "[...] it's clear that the Wikipedia namespace is the wrong place for it". Would you care to explain what you mean by that? In my book, draftspace is meant for articles that aren't ready for inclusion in mainspace, but to be quite frank, I can't see how that would be the case here, especially comparing it to the 124 articles that are currently in Category:Wikipedias by language. Best, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 00:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

IJzeren Jan, if it goes anywhere it should be the mainspace. The draft space is the next best thing because we can improve it and submit it, meaning it might have a shot in he mainspace. It’s a temporary move and a relatively common procedure called incubation. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Understood, thank you very much! Cheers, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 09:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:The Twilight Zone (1959 TV series) (season 1)#Requested move 6 January 2019

After closing, you forgot to move these... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

IJBall, d’oh, thanks for letting me know, done now. Best, SITH (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/The Run (film) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Please Help me on correct citation

Hi my friend. I saw your valuable contribution to Zhang Zhenghua article. May you help me to complete this article and correct existing reference problems? Please tell my why you said that those references weren't enough? Best Regards.  MrInfo2012  Talk  12:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

MrInfo2012, the issue with the references for the article were a mixture of affiliatedness, reliability and the significance of the coverage they gave. I analysed each source at the AFD. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Raltsevich

Hello, Would you please be so kind, to read the first footnote ("also for the subsequent content" http://www.russiadb.com ), because it includes the reference for the whole article. You can find with the same content at German, Belorusian, Russian So I don't understand, why it cannot be accepted also in English. BR CRB — Preceding unsigned comment added by CRB (talk • contribs) 13:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

CRB, the version I reviewed did not meet the minimum standard for inline citations for biographies. Please see the linked policies for more information. SITH (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

In the meantime I changed it and put the same source in some more footnotesCRB (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

SITH (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for your response. I'll create the product page instead of this. I am glad to know that you alrwady checked and it passes WPGNG. Julia Hudson 1 (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem. (For the archive, this is in relation to the review of Draft:Ashley Black). SITH (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Related to page Draft:Madhu Guruswamy

Thank you for your review my page Draft:Madhu Guruswamy. I have made the sugested changes. Please let me know do i need to make any other changes . Playlikeastar (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Playlikeastar, I see you have already re-submitted it, so I or another reviewer will have a look in due course. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Deprodding of Designer Castles

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Designer Castles, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Pavlor (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Deprodding of Nadine Deleury

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Nadine Deleury, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! I think since Nadine was covered in "one of the three major opera publications in the English-speaking world", among other things, she is notable. I added some content to her article to try to improve it. LovelyLillith (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Ellen Reid (American Composer)

Hi there,

You rejected my attempt to create a new, separate page for the AMERICAN composer Ellen Reid. She is a different human being than the entry for Ellen Reid the Canadian musician. https://ellenreidmusic.com/#about

Please take two minutes to read about her in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington Post. She is a rising star in the opera world and it's crazy she doesn't have a Wikipedia page. Thank you!

https://www.wsj.com/articles/portraits-of-pain-at-the-prototype-festival-11547070607 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/03/arts/music/classical-music-in-nyc-this-week.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/music/at-the-prototype-festival-opera-for-our-dark-time/2019/01/07/d9c0d2f2-12b1-11e9-90a8-136fa44b80ba_story.html?utm_term=.fd67abd7c596 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LA-KNOWS-THINGS-2 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

LA-KNOWS-THINGS-2, Improved and accepted by Galobtter. SITH (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Pon Manickavel

Hi, Draft:Pon Manickavel This article submission has been rejected for lack of notability. I would like to get clarification on this. The article is about an IPS officer(India) and who is also well known for his activities related to idols rescue against idols smuggling. Almost every Indian magazine describes his activities. he is not known for single event and not low-profile individual as per WP:BLP1E. -Neechalkaran (talk) 11:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Neechalkaran, you're welcome to improve it and then resubmit it. I rejected it was that the WP:BLP1E concerns raised by Bkissin had repeatedly not been addressed after several resubmissions. SITH (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I am not the initial submitter/article creator. If you noticed the history, I had made vast improvement than earlier submission made by other user. I don't believe the concerns were not addressed. so I am looking for the gap and fill it. let me known on what aspect improving the article helps me to get accepted -Neechalkaran (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

About reviewing of Draft "Maskoor Ahmad Usmani"

Hi As per the suggestions provided by you for the draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Maskoor_Ahmad_Usmani I have tried to follow your instruction and Wikipedia guideline for further editing, After the draft was declined by you on 3rd January 2018. Any peacock terms, adjective or any word which seems to be promotion or advertisement of the subject has been omitted. The draft has been edited in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Kindly re-review the draft as soon as possible and guide If any further improvement is needed in the draft. Your suggestion means a lot for creating a good article.

Thanks --Marghoob2018 (talk)