Jump to content

User talk:Onel5969

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user is a WikiGnome.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pastoweb (talk | contribs) at 07:10, 6 February 2015 (→‎07:06:17, 6 February 2015 review of submission by Pastoweb). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onel5969&oldid=645862105"