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 SageheartBK (talk | contribs) at 05:46, 17 March 2015 (→‎Donald Doe Part Three: new section). 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

Wiki mark-up link

Hi! You might find these handy:

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

16:50:18, 27 February 2015 review of submission by Leeharrispomeroy


Leeharrispomeroy (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC) I am trying to resubmit an article on the architect, Lee Harris Pomeroy. the article is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lee_Harris_Pomeroy_(2). It has been rejected twice but I have revised it adding many links to Wikipedia sources and other articles. I am new to Wikipedia. Please help me to get this article accepted. thank you Joan Ratner jratner@lhparch.com[reply]

Hi Leeharrispomeroy - Please see WP:CIT on how to format references. Right now, your article technically has zero. What it does have are "raw links" in the body of the article, which is a no-no on Wikipedia. After you make the format corrections, let me know and I'll take a look at it. Right now, it's difficult to assess the article in its current shape. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Falk

Good morning! Thanks for helping me with the "Stephen Falk" page. How do I get it to link to the "You're the Worst" page and the "Orange is the New Black" page and the "Weeds" page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janeesussman (talk • contribs) 17:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Janeesussman - I see it was done by Veryproicelandic. So now you can see how it's done. Onel5969 (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User Rasane, Draft:T.B. Narasimhachar

Hello! I have rewritten my article on T.B. Narasimhachar to avoid copyright violations. Considering that most of his writings were done in pre-internet era, I'm wondering how you'd like me to establish "notability". I've provided as many online links as I could, in the reference section. There is quite a bit of buzz around his works, this being his birth centenary year. I hope you can approve it soon. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasane (talk • contribs) 19:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rasane - The copyright issue is much better. Citations to the subject's own writings don't show notability, as they are not independent. Sources need to be from secondary sources about the subject. They also don't have to be online, so if you find references to him in books by other authors, or in newspaper/magazine articles which are not online, you can certainly use them as sources. Right now, the article also has raw links in the body of the article, which are a no-no. You should turn them into references. Also, there is an NPOV issue as well. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:14:53, 27 February 2015 review of submission by Elemont.aide


I am requesting a re-review because I have edited the same problem multiple times. I keep getting told that I need to cite using footnotes, but somehow every reviewer has decided that a"Footnotes" section, and use of footnotes, don't count as footnotes.

I work for the Senator who is the subject of the article I am trying to publish, I am not just publishing this for kicks and giggles. I have been assigned this article creation by him and several other staffers, so it needs to be published ASAP. I'm not satisfied with the "cite using footnotes" line as a reason for decline because they are VERY OBVIOUSLY used in the article and I've read the recommended pages for using footnotes at least ten times. Trying to keep making these changes is beginning to waste a lot of valuable time. Elemont.aide (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elemont.aide (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elemont.aide, you and the other staffers should check out Wikipedia's guidelines on Conflict of Interest (WP:COI). You cannot create or edit an article about your employer, so it's inappropriate for that to be a task that's assigned to you.
Good luck.

Tung (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elemont.aide - Tung is partially correct. Your close association with the subject needs to be disclosed. I've added the tag to the article's talk page Onel5969 (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jimmy Jenkins

user name: matthew.novitzky article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jimmy_Jenkins

You recently rejected my submission. I was hoping to get a break down from you as to why it was rejected. I would appreciate it in as much detail asrwa possible. I am not debating your rejection, I only want this for my notes. Thank you and look forward to hearing for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew.novitzky (talk • contribs) 06:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matthew.novitzky - It just doesn't appear this person meets the notability requirements. They have founded two non-notable entities. That's their claim to fame. Without more in-depth coverage, I don't see an article here. Sorry. Onel5969 (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Animal Sanctuary Draft

Hi,

What do you need?

The OAS draft has 25 verifiable and RELIABLE sources that tell the OAS story.

"NOT" included in the draft is any personal attack of the director regarding him attacking a protestor or his criminal background.

There is no way to make this article into a story about a wonderful, warm and fuzzy animal sanctuary. That is NOT factual!!!

None of the draft is my opinion or expresses my opinion in any way.

The entire draft is 100% factual and only facts, with references to prove such without a shadow of a doubt!!

If you can be of any assistance, it will be greatly appreciated. :-)

Thank you very much for being part of Wiki, it is a very valuable asset!!!

Ron Smith

Rsmith127 (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rsmith127 - If you made the story it would fail based on an NPOV issue. That's not the problem. The issue is the article reads very informally. For example, the "Snaps" story doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. You actually do a very good job of NOT having an NPOV issue (one way or another) in the Neglect section, but the entire section is written as if you're telling your friends the story, not writing an article. For example, the first sentence, "In the fall of 2012, former volunteers who had worked at the sanctuary, alleged the dogs were suffering from neglect." is in a very informal tone. A better way (and this is just an example, one of many possible avenues) might be: "In ___________ 2012, allegations of neglect were made by former volunteers of the shelter." I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 13:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can this page be published?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Don_Pendleton_(artist)

User name oogatha

Don Pendleton won a Grammy in 2015. Does he meet notability guidelines now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oogatha (talk • contribs) 03:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oogatha - If he won a Grammy, that is definitely one of the criteria as per WP:NMUSIC. Add a reference, and he should be approved, based on that alone. However, there are other issues with the article. For example, the quotes section should go away; the references need to be properly formatted (see WP:CIT); and there are other, little, formatting issues (italicizing titles of films, section heading capitalization). Once you correct those things, resubmit. Onel5969 (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned comment about unknown article

Just curious, which two sources are the non-notable entities and why? Have a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:302:D90:CE39:CC1A:8B6F:9D28:8861 (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Olympic Animal Sanctuary

Your suggestions are very helpful. :-)

The Snaps article was included to show some of the success OAS had, my attempt at a NPOV. It will be removed.

I'll rewrite the article and formalize the tone.

IMO, the article reads similar to the "Bad Newz Kennels dog fighting investigation" article that is already published on Wiki...??

Unlike Bad Newz Kennels, there was never a real investigation of OAS and abuse charges were never filed. The owner simply succumbed to the protests and decided to close OAS on his own accord. No real story on that issue.

Thanks, Ron

Rsmith127 (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tradesy

Hi Onel5969,

Thank you so much for reading the wikipedia article I submitted. I know the first one which was written by our former writer was not from a neutral point of view, but we did make considerable changes for the current one making sure it's from a neutral point of view and with sources cited. You can see where the citations came from. I understand why the first article was rejected, however, this one seems to meet the guidelines. Were your concerns about any particular paragraph?

I'm a long time supporter of wikipedia and I love what it stands for, however, I would really appreciate additional feedback about what needs to change to meet the guidelines. Everything in this article is cited and from a neutral tone of voice.

Thank you for your feedback and your assistance.

ElizaSh (re: Tradesy article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElizaSh (talk • contribs) 02:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ElizaSh - phrases such as "platform enables users to to buy and sell", "Tradesy charges a 9% seller commission", "provides free shipping" are all advertising. In addition phrases like "DiNunzio envisioned an expansion of the peer-to-peer concept, from a weddings related marketplace to a broader, women’s clothing resale site." are definitely NPOV in nature. When the history section deals mostly with $$ raises, that doesn't help either. Right now, the subject only seems to be notable because they raised money.Onel5969 (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That's very helpful. I'll revise and try again. ElizaSh — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElizaSh (talk • contribs) 03:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

04:40:15, 2 March 2015 review of submission by 216.49.47.213


TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

When profiling me for its own website, PLAZA NOIR used my own personally written bio on its link. It is basically the same bio found on my OWN website <www.michaelstephans.com>, and in the Encyclopedia of Jazz (Lewis Porter, Ed.), and on the jazz website, <www.allaboutjazz.com> and on my author page at amazon.com.

This and other data was submitted on my behalf initially by Mr. Gene Perla MONTHS ago and has been refined several times according to guidelines established by Wikipedia. Please advise as to how this process might be expedited. It appears to be dragging on and on, e.g., One reviewer requests that a modification be made; the modification is completed -- only to have the draft rejected by another reviewer. THIS HAS BEEN A VERY DRAWN OUT, FRUSTRATING PROCESS!!! Please advise how AND WHAT EXACTLY to modify/update/correct/whatever, so we can get on with this, fix it, and get this entry up and running. We need YOUR HELP, PLEASE !!

Michael Stephans, Ph.D. stephans@michaelstephans.com bluejazz9@earthlink.net mstephan@bloomu.edu


216.49.47.213 (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael - Sorry you feel frustrated. I looked at the history of the draft, and I can only see where it's been declined once prior to my declining it a couple of weeks ago. Sometimes, as editors, if we get severely backlogged on reviewing drafts, we don't have time to list all the issues with an article. We should, that way a page author can deal with everything at once. So here are the issues with the article. First, there is a potential conflict of interest, this close relationship does not preclude your friend from writing the article, but does mean that editors will look closely at any potential neutral point of view issues. While your article does not necessarily have any NPOV issues, the overall informal tone of the article can make it appear so; this is the second issue with the article (and another that it would be declined for). Phrases like "and many others", "Stephans leads three distinct but interrelated lives", "played with personalities", give the article an informal, un-encyclopedic tone. The third issue is the same issue which was mentioned by the previous editor who gave a link to help with the formatting of citations, which still needs to be corrected. The fourth issue is formatting, please see WP:MOS for how to format album, book, song, and article names. The fifth issue is the copyvio one. If you want to donate the material, the process is detailed at WP:DCM. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jef Boeke

Hi,

This in reference to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jef_Boeke.

I have changed the copyrighted paragraph. Please take a look at it again.

FYI, I found that on another page on wikipedia. You might want to take a look at that page as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeast_artificial_chromosome#Full_chromosome — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howareyou120 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Howareyou120 - The second paragraph is still almost cut and paste from THIS SITE. Also, please see WP:CIT on how to format citations. Once you make those corrections, let me know and I'll approve it to the mainspace. In anticipation of that, I put the wikilink on the other page you referenced above. Onel5969 (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I've made changes again. Hope they article is ok now! If not, please point me to specific changes that are required.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howareyou120 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Howareyou120 - now all that's needed is to fix the formatting of the citations. Onel5969 (talk) 03:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again, I've edited the citations to fit Wikipedia's format. Take a look and let me know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howareyou120 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:06:49, 2 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Tcannonrb

Hi

Thanks for your review. Could you advise on how best to make changes so I can publish?

Would emailing permissions-en@wikimedia.org and granting permission to copy material (specifically the press release work)? We own the copyright. If so what should the email cover and is there specific wording?

I read that I should then place OTRS pending on the talk page?

Thanks Again

Tcannonrb (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tcannonrb - the process for donating copyrighted material can be found HERE. The references to the benefits of folks who use the survey should be deleted, as they are promotional in nature. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Onel5969 thanks for that - Is it all the references or specific ones? Also is that the main issue or is it a copyright issue? If so which bits? Trying to figure out the best course of action. Tcannonrb (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tcannonrb - The article also has a promotional tone to it. Articles should TELL us about the subject, not provide SALES information. The second and third paragraphs are clearly promotional in nature. Also an issue with the International Accommodation Quality Mark wording. Onel5969 (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969 I have made a number of changes to sourcing and wording. If you could look to see if this is better that would be great then I will resubmit. So you know I have also only kept the references of those who benefit where they have demonstrated how they use the survey operationally. I think I have removed the ones where it was used for an award win etc. (Tcannonrb (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Article Submission

Hey there, Onel5969, thanks for reviewing my article draft. I actually have a question regarding one of my submissions. I'm not quite sure about the notability of organizations (I did have some secondary sources?)? Do you mind taking the time to explain this to me as well as 'verifiability?' Site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Emerging_Strategy Thanks a lot! Debtang1019 (talk) 09:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Debtang1019 - most of the sources you have are for verifying purposes - meaning that they verify the underlying facts of the article. Notability are overall articles from secondary, reliable sources (that are not niche sources), showing that subject is notable). Onel5969 (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ruggero Vanni

Hello Onel5969,

Thank you for reviewing the page I submitted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ruggero_Vanni

I have been leaving in the States for 25 years but I got my degree in contemporary art history in Italy and I know that my written English is not perfect. Before resorting to take your time, I did try to understand where the problem with my footnotes resides, but I don't quite see where I failed to meet the proper criteria. I would greatly appreciate if you could guide me on how to address this problem. I really want to learn how to properly write my submissions because I intend to write entries on several accomplished artists. But before waisting more time of Wikipedia's editors, I would like to make sure I am on the right track.

Thank you,

ValeJaba Valejaba (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Falk orphan

Stephen Falk's page says it's in an orphan. What should I do with this? Please advise!! Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janeesussman (talk • contribs) 17:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Janeesussman - in the announcement box, there's a "find links tool". Click it, and it will bring up a list of potential articles which refer to Falk. Some will not refer to the Falk your article is on, but some will. Open the link to the new article, then edit that article, by putting double brackets around the first reference to Stephen Falk, like I've done here. After you do that for all the pertinent articles (you don't have to do it for all of them, but since this is the article you created, you may want to), you can remove the tag at the top of Falk's page. It's not that difficult. Onel5969 (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nsolcis

hi, my name is nsolcis you denied my request to add my article about Leba on wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:LeBA It seems your are requiring more links from notable print or websites? how many are needed?

thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsolcis (talk • contribs) 17:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nsolcis - there's no set number. Right now you only have one good citation for notability purposes: the South Bend article, and since more than half of it is an interview, even that is not great (interviews are primary sources, and notability references need to be secondary sources). The LA Mag citation is okay, but very brief. YouTube is not a trustworthy source, and the RS citation doesn't even mention the article's subject, in fact, it appears to contradict some of the information in the article, since it says the mural was solely done by someone else. The other two citations are simple listings, which are good to verify facts in the article, but not for notability purposes. Just my opinion, but I would say you should find at least 3 more good references. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of correction to wiki Non Evans

Correction of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_Evans by BancAtebion

Greetings. You recently rejected my submission to amend an incorrect Date Of Birth and its corroborating reference. What further evidence is required to allow reversion to the accurate data?

In anticipation of your feedback,

BancAtebion (newbie Contributor) BancAtebion (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BancAtebion, and welcome to Wikipedia! Just add a source. Right now, there is a source listed in the lead of the article (the first paragraph), which is a "dead link". But the fact that there was a link, makes me want to have a new source in order to change the date of birth. Happy editing. Onel5969 (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Onel5969, I am now more confused by the rejection as my submission included an update to the dead link which corroborated the correction. BancAtebion (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:58:51, 2 March 2015 review of submission by JPanic15


Hey there,

I just wanted to get a bit more info on what elements specifically you found lacking a formal tone in the Daniel Panetta article. I've made a couple adjustments to keep things concise, but I'd appreciate any additional feedback from yourself.

Regards,

-JPanic15

JPanic15 (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JPanic15 - I think the corrections you made, although slight, have gotten rid of the informal tone of the prior version. Nice work. I think, however, that you might need another couple of good references to show his notability. At least one of the CTV links is dead (as happens frequently with links to videos, that's why they are not used often). Onel5969 (talk) 14:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:49:33, 2 March 2015 review of submission by Bobowikibobo


Bobowikibobo (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your suggestions for improving this submission. The question that I have is how to show evidence of "notability." The subject of the article is an academic and author of books in his field. Should I add references and quotes from independent reviews of these works. About 20 published reviews of these works have appeared in scholarly publications, and a large number of citations of research reports have appeared. Should I add quotations from these sources in the different sections of the Wikipedia article?

Hi Bobowikibobo - regarding notability, take a look at WP:NACADEMICS on what would make an academic notability. The reviews are good things, and you can list them under references, like you currently have done for the 3 there. Quotes should only be used to make certain points. Also, please take a look at WP:MOS and MOS:LAYOUT for formatting tips (e.g., don't add bold or italics to section headings). Hope this helps Onel5969 (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Onel5969, I hope the quotes fit into the overall scheme of the article. I looked for passages that elaborated on ideas already mentioned. One of the references was critical of the research of the author, which I think makes the article more interesting for readers. Thanks for the format suggestion on bold and italics. ˜˜˜˜Bobowikibobo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobowikibobo (talk • contribs) 01:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My article "Saul Bron”

USERNAME: Ethersearch RE: My article "Saul Bron” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Bron

Dear Editor - Just wanted to let you know that I have done some clean-up, added inline references, and created a few back links. Hope it helps. Looking forward to your review but no rush, obviously.

Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethersearch (talk • contribs) 21:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Call Center Pros

Could you please have another look at this one - I've already added one {tl|backwardscopy]] on the talk page - I've now added another one. The original text comes from a deleted Wikipedia article (by the same author) at Call Center Pros - created 11:59, 2 January 2015 - well before any other web copies. Thanks. Ron. Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've now merged the histories of the two pages - hopefully that will help. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ronhjones - I understand the one reverse cw, but the press release was done on the same day as the original article (per the page history), and personally I don't see how a PR could be taken from Wikipedia. I mean, what company does that? Even if the article's cw issue is resolved, the article still has additional problems: reading like an advertisement, notability, and lack of inline citations. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Camellia Posoncuy's Article

Dear Sir,

I would just like to seek clarification as what you meant by citation by virtue of footnotes. I think I have already addressed this as all referenced statements are already using footnotes.

Please note that majority of the article is cited through an interview with Dr Posoncuy last year. Thank you!

LinK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Camellia_Posoncuy

aljolar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aljolar (talk • contribs) 06:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aljolar - please click on the link in the box on the draft to learn about in-line citations, and where they are necessary. If the only source for the claims in the article is an interview, that could prove problematic, since interviews are primary sources, and Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. Onel5969 (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:30:04, 3 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Naamam118


Hi, I am not sure which information you are referring to as copyright... Can you be more specific so I can rectify my listing?

Thanks Naama

Naamam118 (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you so much for your prompt review and feedback. Regarding your remarks on my listing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dynamic_Mindset_Advertising_(DMA)

You mentioned that it resembles http://www.theesa.com/article/women-comprise-nearly-half-gamer-population/ - however, please note that this article is used merely as a reference to the market size, where I brought the research results showing the large % of women gamers - and I did indeed cite theesa as a reference (see citation 3).

Can you please be more specific as to what I need to correct in order to improve this listing?

Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naamam118 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Naamam118 - The paragraph beginning with "The Market", seems to be almost completely cut and paste from that underlying source. That's the c/w issue. In addition, their is not enough context in this article to explain what the article is about if a reader is unfamiliar with the concepts being discussed. Finally, please see WP:CIT on how to format the references. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Onel5969 (talk) so much for your prompt reply. Corrected and re-submitted.


Naamam118 (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft article rejection

Hello - I've just seen that an article I submitted for review - Draft:Teenage_Time_Killers - has been rejected following your review, with the feedback that it is not written in the "encyclopedic" style that is expected. I was wondering if you could offer more specific feedback as to which parts you feel do not meet the guidance. The feedback seems very general and I would like to amend and resubmit, but would like more specifics in order to do so. Many thanks Burlington Bert (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Burlington Bert - First, use of peacock terms like "supergroup", "famed"; and terms like: "The list of guest artists then grew from there", give the article an informal feel. Coupled with the fact that a large part of the article is taken up by a quote and a list of performers, and the article and the article reads informally. Also, please see WP:CIT on how to properly format your citations. Onel5969 (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft article rejection

Hello - Thank you for reviewing my article - Draft:VBox_Home_TV_Gateway - I saw that you rejected it as it is not written in the encyclopedic. I was wondering if you could offer more specific feedback as to which parts you feel do not meet the guidance. The feedback seems very general and I would like to amend and resubmit, but would like more specifics in order to do so. Many thanks User:Rimavich (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Page Declined

Hi Onel5969,

I have seen that you guys again declined my page entry. May i know what things i should do in order to get this page published. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Goods_Order_Inventory_System_(2)

PS: I have already tried my best to remove whatsoever Advertising content from my perspective.

Please let me know what else i can do.

I look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Regards, Susheel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susheelseth25 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Susheelseth25 - The article needs to tell us about the company, not sell the company's products. Phrases like "which has grown to address inventory recording and management needs of business enterprises" are promotional in nature. When you take into account the brevity of the article, that one sentence gives it an overall advertising aspect. Onel5969 (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Morris Quinlan Experience

The Morris Quinlan Experience

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Morris_Quinlan_Experience — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoTheDobermann (talk • contribs) 14:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

You've just declined this article (3rd March 2015) on the grounds of not being sufficiently notable. However, I believe at least two of Wikipedia's notability guidelines are indeed met for this ensemble, as follows...

"1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1] This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following: Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3]


Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories."

Album reviews in The Times and Melody Maker, as well as the feature article in the Newcastle Journal were all independently written, and despite being unavailable online, are all verifiable.

"12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network."

Does not the group's live appearance as guests on Ned Sherrin's Loose Ends programme on BBC Radio 4 (Saturday 11th August 2001) count here? It was a segment of approaching 10 minutes duration, during which Sherrin gave a lengthy introduction to the band, and talked further about them after their live performance of one of their pieces, all in front of a live audience. Most notably, the segment was repeated on the Loose Ends Pick Of The Year show at the end of 2001.

The band can not yet claim 'rotation' play for any of their releases, but they are regulars on Bob Harris's BBC Radio 2 Sunday Show (considered to be a very influential rock music programme, if not the most influential currently on UK radio), and indeed a playlist search shows they have received more Bob Harris plays than even (for instance) Kate Bush!!!

That said their most recent singe release 'Scarborough Fair' received multiple plays on the Radio 2 network, not just from Bob Harris.

BBC Radio 4 and BBC Radio 2 are major national radio networks in the UK.

One of the band's members, Dave Maughan, is well known as a record producer, having recorded and produced Mercury Music Prize nominated Little Black Numbers album by Kathryn Williams, who herself has guested on an MQE released track. Would it be helpful to this article if Dave Maughan had a Wikipedia entry?

Hoping you can reconsider the article...

LeoTheDobermann (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bbentllc

Hi there, I really need some help. I have looked at other articles and ours has been declined https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Elizabeth_%27Lizzie%27_Sophia_Sider This is what you wrote to me This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms, that are designed to promote or show-off the subject. It seems pretty formal to me. Can you please be more specific? This is kind of frustrating as I am not a great writer and this is one of our clients and I would love to get this resolved. Any specific help at all would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your time. Bbentllc (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)bbentllc[reply]

Bbentllc - First of all, you have the trivia of her singing national anthems in the lead. Second, you have this long, completely uncited, section on musical beginnings, which is mostly again trivia. That entire section could be cut down to 3-4 lines. Comments about donations also don't belong in the article. Also make sure that facts like chart #'s, and views need citations. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:55:50, 3 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by PsychiatricRN



PsychiatricRN (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Thank you so much, Onel5969[reply]

I made some edits which I will resubmit. Can you give me a little more direction about the problem with my citations. Do I have too many or is it just the format?

Thank you so much. I really want to get this nurse on Wikipedia and am overwhelmed about the deficiencies but will try to fix ASAP. I also sent permission by the family to use her WWI photo to the wikipedia address for such matters. PsychiatricRN (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)PsychiatricRN[reply]

Hi PsychiatricRN - nice job. I moved it to the mainspace. Onel5969 (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:15:57, 3 March 2015 review of submission by Bcooper87


Thank you again for all your help. I have rewritten the article and removed the sentences you recommended. I have resubmitted the article. If you get a chance, can you take a quick look and let me know if I am on the right track.

Bcooper87 (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benefitalign

Hi, Please help me understand more about why the article was rejected. I have written information verified by third party publications like ABQ Business First news paper. Please let me know why the reference links articles were not considered to be verifiable sources. Also I would highly appreciate it if you could help me understand which part of the content - sentences or paragraphs - were considered to be promotional.

Thank You, Daks Dakshinat.maratt (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dakshinat.maratt - avoid promotional spin. Stuff that includes lists of products, product specs, and benefits to customers/consumers should be removed. Just facts about the company. Onel5969 (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

01:39:31, 4 March 2015 review of submission by Bobowikibobo


Bobowikibobo (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I’ve found a good solution to fix the defect in the submission. Among the many reviews of the author’s books and the hundreds of citations in journals, I found a representative sample of scholars and research scientists in the field who have evaluated the work of this project in professional peer-reviewed publications. In the article I inserted quotations from these authors: Alexis Kirke and Eduardo Miranda (Plymouth University) Jane Hill (University of Arizona) Yi Xu (University of Pittsburg) Mihye Han (University of New Mexico) Vasiliki Chondrogianni (Bangor University). I was careful to select quotes that would actually be interesting to the reader and had content directly related to the themes in the article. As soon as I proofread the article, I’ll resubmit. Thanks again for your help. ˜˜˜˜Bobowikibobo

02:37:01, 4 March 2015 review of submission by PsychiatricRN


PsychiatricRN (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC) Hi, I think I know what I need to do with the citations. I have to hyperlink the number to the reference, correct?[reply]

Thank you for your help. Is there anything else I need to change? I made some edits and I would like to add back the picture of Adele in WW I uniform. I sent an email giving permission to Wikipedia from the family of Adele.

PsychiatricRN (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)PsychiatricRN[reply]

My Adele Poston article

Hi, Thank you for reviewing my Adele Poston contribution back in January! I was happy to see you are a New Yorker! You probably moved to get away from the snow but it's really lovely snowing this evening!

Anyway, I made some of your suggested changes to the document, but was confused about the citations. I think I need to hyperlink every number to the citation, correct? Is the form okay just not the linking to the citations?

I would also like to add back the photo of Adele from WWI which someone removed. I sent an email from her living family who own the photo, with their permission, to Wikipedia email address. Is there anything else I need to do? Thanks so much.

This is my first attempt at putting something on Wikipedia and I'm a bit overwhelmed!

PsychiatricRN (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)PsychiatricRN[reply]

Hi Onel5969. I have taken care of formatting the citations, and the article is ready for review and (hopefully) publication. Draft:Adele Poston. Cheers, -- Diannaa (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa - the citations are fine. As I said above, I moved it to the mainspace. Regarding the photo, not until you have received permission and documented it, can you use it. Nice first effort. Onel5969 (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Acoustic liner

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

First and foremost thanks for reviewing my article.

I can understand your comment about terms like "basically" or "interesting evolution". On the other hand, I do not understand why while I cite a reference using something like "as shown by Jones et.el.[5]" is giving the feeling that this is an informal essay. This is the way I cite references on my scientific articles. Should I use a different way to cite an article on wikipedia?

Thanks for the clarification.

Best regards Dr.eng.dc (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.eng.dc - on Wikipedia, you simply state the fact, then give the reference to back it up. You don't even need to use any part of that. For instance, the sentence could simply read: "The acoustic liners' performance can be verified by means of ground tests on real scale engines", with the two reference notes at the end. Onel5969 (talk) 03:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)made[reply]

Ok, thank you. I have the modifications. Best regards Dr.eng.dc (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Zulficar Moussa

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Zulficar Moussa. You've reviewed this draft before. Thanks. APerson (talk!) 14:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interflora&oldid=prev&diff=649846513

Hi, is it wrong listing some of interflora competition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenvalds (talk • contribs) 15:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

APerson - No, it was more of the fact that you used the phrase, "The online flower industry has vastly grown in the past decade.", then listed the competitors, all without citations. Onel5969 (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adele Poston

Dear Onel5969, Thank you so much for your help! I am so excited and will look at how to make it a higher class article. Thank you for taking me under your wing. This has been an interesting learning process. I am very interested in WWI, too, and especially nursing in WWI. I am in process of clarifying copyright issues so her WWI photo can be uploaded.

Diannaa (editor) also helped me and I am grateful to both of you. I heard from the permission person and am investigating the photo copyright further. I hope to get her on a USPS postage stamp so these efforts are doubly important!!

Best wishes, Carolyn/ PsychiatricRN (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)PsychiatricRN[reply]

Good job, PsychiatricRN - keep on editing. Don't hesitate to aske questions. Onel5969 (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, One15969! I will definitely contact you again if I have questions. The photo appeared this afternoon (good news) so I just emailed the permission person to see what made the difference with that. I am assuming it is because of the date of the photo. Thanks for being such a huge help to all of us novice contributors! PsychiatricRN (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)PsychiatricRN[reply]

15:41:31, 4 March 2015 review of submission by Xpediabrown


Thanks Onel5969 for reviewing my article. It's my first attempt, so I obviously still have a lot to learn. Would you be able to give me some suggestions? Is the entire article too informal or are the bits about education too strong? I'm about to start editing but am afraid to make it worse. The page is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_School_FundXpediabrown (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xpediabrown (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xpediabrown - It's not far from being there, but as I said in my comment, your passion shows through. The big issue is the history section with all of its stories. That really needs to be cut significantly, and just state the facts. Onel5969 (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

finding an editor to write an article about Lee Harris Pomeroy.

It has been suggested by Justlettersandnumbers at Wikipedia that I may have a conflict of interest in writing this article. I am an employee of Lee Harris Pomeroy Architects. If that disqualifies me from submitting an unbiased article about a noteworthy architect, can you help me in finding an editor at Wikipedia who would be interested in taking on this subject? Thank you, Joan Ratner Director of Communications Lee Harris Pomeroy Architects jratner@lhparch.com 212 334 2600 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeharrispomeroy (talk • contribs) 17:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the references as you recommended. Please check and let me know if I am on the right track. thank you, Joan Ratner jratner@lhparch.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeharrispomeroy (talk • contribs) 20:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leeharrispomeroy (Joan) - Your close connection does not preclude you from writing the article, but it does mean that other editors are going to look very closely at it. I don't mind lending a hand. No, the references aren't fixed. I might not be able to get to it for a day or two (I'm working on some things). If I don't get to it by Sunday, give me a shout here to remind me. Onel5969 (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing my article Roots Millennium Schools

Hello Onel5969!

I hope you're doing good. This is Zeeshan Shafquat from Pakistan. I just noticed that you reviewed my article for creation Roots Millennium Schools, and approved it. I would like to thank you for that. And I will keep continuing to improve this Wiki and writing more Wiki articles concerning my community.

Cheers & Best Regards, Bites85 (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:09:29, 5 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Reelnrod007


My proposed article for Dennis M Gillespie was declined, I am not a writer, scholor or anything of the sort, but this is a story with many common formulas and the denominator is this Navy commander. I do not wish to slander him. I am the male sailor submitting the UCMJ Article 138 Complaint with the assistance of Congressman Tom Bevill. My issue is well after the tail hook scandle and and ordnance accident burning AO3 Brian Powers (my shipmate) and the infamous "Tea and Cookies" comment. I had a bad expierience well before all the female pilots and ordnance mishap aboard USS Saratoga. I have A copy of the investigation on pdf aproximately 200 pages; the response is libleous to me, but all things considered I demanded a court-martial but was refused. However I was allowed to complete my final fifty-four months with an Honorable discharge. I was at quarters when Commander Michael Longworth pinned the Silver Star on Gillespie in 1988. A lot of story about this infamous man, but one cannot source this type information I possess anywhere on the WWW furthermore the national archives refused to release it, but I finally got the CNO to release it to me simply because I made the complaint. I do not have much free time, but if someone would like my info to gain insight how the military cleverly covers-up wrong doing; it shall be an interesting read. My email is jleftwich8362@att.net thank you for the time and help submitting a 200 page pdf Reelnrod007 (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reelnrod007 - The issue is that while sources don't necessarily have to be accessible over the internet, they do have to be accessible to the public. If they're not, that pretty much amounts to original research, which is a no-no on Wikipedia. Especially if the information is contentious, or might be deemed defamatory in any way. Thanks for sharing your story, though, and thank you for your service. Onel5969 (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Carter article

Hello, thank you for the pointers on my submission

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

I plan to seek our the secondary independent sources you cited were not adequate when you declined my submission. I hope on the next submission of my revised article on Christopher Carter it will meet Wiki standards and gain your approval.

Best,

Carroll F. Gray

Onel5969 (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carroll F. Gray - First, please always sign your comments with the four ~ , that way other editors can understand which editor they are speaking with. Second, sorry about your attempts to message me. Another editor who had left a prior message had left some code in their message which hid anything written after it, so your attempts did not show. I've corrected that.
Now, on to about what you are truly interested in, your article. Aside from the citation issue, there are a few other changes you should make. First, lose the dialogue between the subject and an interviewer. Doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Instead, transform it into prose and in your own words describe the gist of that conversation, then use the current citation to back up that prose. Second, the long list of exhibitions, etc. should also be converted into prose, with the reference to the subject's CV used at the end. I've temporarily reformatted based on it as a list, but prose is always stronger. Hit the highlights, and add a summation. Third, after the Hollingsworth quote, the next paragraph deals with "him". Is this referring to Hollingsworth? Or the article's subject? It's unclear. Fourth, check your redlinks. Several actually do have wikipages, you simply haven't connected to them correctly, e.g. Grand Rapids Art Museum instead of Grand Rapids Arts Museum. Fifth, and finally, check out WP:CIT regarding how to format your references. Anyway, hope this helps, and keep on editing! Onel5969 (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apotichnyj

Hi Onel5969,

My username is Apotichnyj.

You edited a wiki page I completed. Can you help me make the appropriate changes to the page so that it can pass your approval process.

I thought the references were good and the content was not marketing.

Please help me.

Thanks

Alex

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BitGold — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apotichnyj (talk • contribs) 14:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Falk

My article on Stephen Falk is an orphan and I can't figure out how to remedy this!! Can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janeesussman (talk • contribs) 17:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Janeesussman - On the page, in the orphan box is a "Find tool link". Click on that, and it will show you pages on which Falk is mentioned. I find it easier to bring the other pages up in a separate tab, and then find Falk's name. Once you do that, you can edit that section of the other article, and simply put a wikilink around Falk's name, like this: Stephen Falk. I did the page for You're the Worst, so you can review what I did on that page. Good luck. Onel5969 (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't see how it's done! And I still have to link it to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeds_(TV_series) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Is_the_New_Black — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janeesussman (talk • contribs) 18:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Janeesussman - First, Weeds and Orange are already linked, so I'm not sure what you mean by that. Regarding the other links, click on the Find link tool. Have you done that? It will bring up a list of articles. The fourth one on the list is Next Caller. Click on the "view article" link. It will bring up the article in a new window. Now it takes a bit of time. You have to manually search the article for Falk's name. In this case it's not that difficult, since he created the show, he's in the infobox. Then simply click the edit button, and put wikilinks [[]] around his name, then save. Onel5969 (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:54:30, 5 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Xpediabrown


Thanks for the advice. I trimmed back and tried to stick just to the facts that define the topic. I also tried to tone down the language throughout. I hope this next submission is more in line with the requirements. I really appreciate all of your help.Xpediabrown (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xpediabrown (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done, Xpediabrown! I know how hard it is to be objective when you have strong feelings about a subject. Congrats! I moved the article to the mainspace. Just be aware of maintaining that neutrality if you make any further edits to it. Onel5969 (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:01:21, 5 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Lundianer


Hello, how is it that the subject of the article was deemed notable for the German language Wikipedia, but not for the English version? The references indicate that the painter was featured in an international charity auction, and he has an upcoming exhibition, so if members of the public want to know more, is that not a criterion? ThanksLundianer (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lundianer (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lundianer - can't speak to how other wikis determine notability, only that this article did not meet English Wikipedia's notability criteria. Remember, that does not mean that the subject is not notable, only that the citations provided did not show that notability. Look at the guidelines to see what types of articles are good for notability. There are two types of references, those for verifiability (to prove specific claims or facts in the article), and those for notability (broad, in-depth pieces by reliable, secondary sources). If you look at the 5 sources in your article, #1 doesn't even mention Scholten; #2 is a bio from a gallery, so it is not independent; #3 - he's only part of a lengthy list; #4 - again, simply part of a list; #5 isn't about the article's subject at all.
In addition, the article has serious formatting issues. Please take a look at WP:MOS, MOS:LAYOUT, and Wikipedia:Your first article to learn how to format an article. Also, take a look at WP:CIT to learn how to fix the citations' formats. Onel5969 (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could use some help with this article as all the info is scientific and technical in nature

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Polygon_Laser_scan_head — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkuyp (talk • contribs) 21:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bkuyp - The issue right now is finding reliable, secondary sources which talk about this technology. I did a brief search and all I could find were press releases, which are not independent. Without these sources, the article might not get approved, since it isn't notable by Wikipedia's standards. Since it is so technical, I can't really help with finding sources, since I am unsure whether a source deals with this topic. For example, I found THIS, THIS, THIS, THIS, and THIS. Not sure any of these help, but you'll need to find articles which talk about the engineering, and then use them to back up specifics in the article, or simply as general references. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I will get right on that as I totally understand, this being a relatively new technology that is needed to make high speed Femto and Picosecond lasers work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkuyp (talk • contribs) 20:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:45:33, 5 March 2015 review of submission by Bingo620


Hi, I was wondering if you could give me some advice or highlight areas I need to work on to improve this page so it meets wikipedia's guidlines. Thanks. Bingo620 (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bingo620 - You need to tell us about the subject, not sell it to us. Additionally, remove all trademark and copyright symbols. Most of the article, unfortunately, reads like an advert. The History section is okay. But almost all the stuff in the research section needs to be deleted, and summarized in a neutral way, without specifics which are only of interest to potential customers. Obviously, same with the custom services. Onel5969 (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05 March 2015 for assistance on Draft:Rogers Partners Architects+Urban Designers and Draft:Robert M. Rogers submissions by schung17

Hi Onel5969,

Thank you for reviewing the drafts. Could you advise on specific changes I could make so the firm and architect profile can go up? I'm a fan of the firm's architecture and have been trying to get the entries to go live for months now after making dozens of revisions based on comments from editors in the real-time chat page and also from the initial reviewer who looked at the pages. I've added credible third party sources and have included instances of Rob Roger's notability in his profile. Should I add more of his projects? Also, could you please point out one or two examples where you see the firm profile reads like an ad? I tried to take out anything that might even remotely sound promotional and also made sure to cite every single fact from what projects the firm designs to the types of projects the firm designs.

Thanks so much for any specific help you can provide.

schung17 (talk) 6:57, 05 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi schung17 - I'll talk about the person's article first. None of the references cited are the type we need for notability: in-depth articles from independent, reliable sources. Most are bios on pages, which are usually given by the subject. Look for news about the individual in papers and magazines, not simply bios. The article itself is fine.
Regarding the firm - The copyvio issue comes with the lead paragraph, which is almost virtually cut and paste from the site I mentioned. Regarding the promotional stuff - the last line in the lead is promotional. Other examples would be: "The firm’s redevelopment efforts re­link Minneapolis’ downtown area with its waterfront featuring an educational pavilion, bike/pedestrian pathways, local vegetation, and heritage mill ruins"; "an elevated public path that allows views into the power plant"; "transformed it into"; and "recalls the order and spatial complexity of a college campus...", to name a few. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Onel5969,
Thank you for the comments. They're very helpful-- I'm carefully revising the text and references. I've been trying to read and follow all the guidelines from the start, but the next time I resubmit I'll be sure your comments are reflected in the changes.

schung17 (talk) 16:00, 09 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

05:02:31, 6 March 2015 review of submission by Hewittel


I am not sure what the problem is. I'd like to revise any references that are not acceptable or add information that is needed. I see a few places where it could be clarified. Not sure how to proceed.

Hewittel (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hewittel - The issue is that the vast majority of the citations are by the subject of the article, therefore they are not independent. Others, like the Hutchinson article, are classified as press releases, and again, not independent. What we need are articles from reliable, secondary sources, which show that the subject is known outside their industry circles. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:12:09, 6 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Lundianer


Hello and thanks for your feedback - ref 1 includes a link to the auction catalog including one of the subject's paintings, as to the references where the subject is included in "lengthy " lists, well that is the way with group exhibits, and this is how the art world is structured in Germany, reference 5 is about the subject insofar as in the program for 2015 it states that his exhibition opens on April19th - all of these infos a careful examination of the references would have told you. And no, nobody has written a book about him, in that case A Wiki entry would be pointless.Lundianer (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lundianer (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:10:12, 6 March 2015 review of submission by 141.5.6.109


Dear editor,

The proposal for a page was rejected on the ground of "neologism". However, the primary function of the page is not to introduce a new word, but to provide information about a novel biological theory. To make this clear, I moved down the text about the etymology of the word "practopoiesis". Now, the text begins properly by explaining what the theory is about.

Would that fix the concern that you had? And would the article be acceptable for publication?

Thank you very much.

Danko Nikolic

141.5.6.109 (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I actually hit the wrong key, it should have been declined for sounding too much like an essay. There is an informal tone to the article, and too many uncited assertions, like "An adaptive system must consist of components that are capable of detecting conditions for a necessity to act, and of acting." Onel5969 (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for the clarification. Is there anything I can possibly do to fix it? Can you give me suggestions what to do to make it satisfactory? If I fix certain things, is there a chance that you would then deem it acceptable? Thank you. (Danko (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]


Re: Opting Delition of page Danny Fury

Hi there. I am new at making pages and you have put for my pages "Danny Fury" to be deleted under grounds of lack of notability. How can I change this please?

Also, how can I add to the descussion on the page itself to ask for it not to be deleted please?

Vensheira (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vensheira - None of the references you use show Fury's notability. Take a look at WP:NMUSIC which shows the specific criteria for musicians. WP:GNG is the overall general notability requriements. Fury does not seem to meet any of them. Citations to show notability have to come from reliable secondary sources. In other words, they can't be from the subject itself, or anything connected with the subject (e.g. band webpages). FB and YouTube are not valid references ever. Blogs are usually no good as well.
Finally, WP:COI might come into play here, since you are connected with the subject of the article. I hope this explains things. Onel5969 (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Onel5969,
If you see the Wiki for Vain (which Danny Fury is mentioned) their links are interviews and discogs the same as the page I have created. Why are they able to be on but my page isnt? I can put more interviews or disogs on etc but thats all I can do for a band.
Also COI is in play? I am not talking about him as personally, I am adding it to link in with all of the other pages on wiki. Then others can come and add more. it is only the basics I am putting so surely that is not a problem? Vensheira (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vensheira - the references on those pages don't consist solely of those types of citations, like yours does. And COI has nothing to do with "talking about him personally", merely that you have a close relationship with the subject of the article. And regarding your purpose so that others can add more... while that is a good purpose, the article, from its inception, has to show notability. Onel5969 (talk) 12:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hey

Out of curiosity, what was your reasoning for deciding that notability for Loney Gordon had not been properly shown? DS (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DragonflySixtyseven. All local references, not a single national reference. I actually think it is notable, but did not feel that the 4 local references showed that. The one pdf file, was difficult to ascertain, since it didn't have page numbers. To be honest, I felt this was borderline, and if it had had a single non-MI reference would have approved it. Nice work on AfC, btw. Onel5969 (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:03:18, 6 March 2015 review of submission by Chazhardy

I cannot follow your instructions on how to format a reference list. What does ,ref.freetext,/ref. mean? What is freetext?

Chazhardy (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chazhardy - it's a moot point, realized that your article already exists on Wikipedia: Walter Russell. You can go to that article to see how references are formatted. Onel5969 (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

05:55:38, 7 March 2015 review of submission by ArtCluster


Thanks for the quick review. I have removed the section from Arbeiter Ring Publishing and also removed a few other sections. This is my first article so bear with me. Are there other sections that need reworking? ArtCluster (talk) 05:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ArtCluster - right now it still has three issues. First, there are raw links in the article, e.g. digShift. They have to go away. Convert them into references. Second, your references need to be formatted correctly formatted, you can find examples at WP:CIT. I've edited the first reference, and changed one of the raw links in the lead paragraph to show you examples as well. (you should probably remove the brackets in the one reference for the University of Winnipeg News, since it's a redlink). Finally, I'm not sure this individual meets the notability requirements, based on these sources. The only two really good references are from the Manitoban. You'd probably need 1-3 more from other independent secondary sources (all the stuff from the University is good for verifying facts in the article, but not for notability purposes). If you can find a few more sources and integrate them into the article, that'd be swell. There's really a lot of info on her. I did a quick news search and came up with THIS, THIS, and THIS; there's also THIS, which is a brief, but good mention, of the professor (this last one is good for verification purposes, but is too brief for notability). There's a lot out there. After you make the corrections, just let me know and I'll take another look at it. Good first effort, btw. Onel5969 (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these suggestions. Super helpful. Will keep working at it.ArtCluster (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cool ArtCluster - let me know when it's ready... I see the raw links are still there. Onel5969 (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK Onel5969I think it might be finished. Penny finally dropped - now I know what a raw link is! lol! Let me know what you think.ArtCluster (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Hello Onel5969 Thanks for your help in writing my first wiki article. I hope to do more in the future! ArtCluster (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Lerner article

Hi Onel5969,

I would like to ask about my rejected article on Mary Lerner at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shielapardee/sandbox

I understand that my long quote of O'Brien and my insistence that Lerner was a dedicated professional might seem opinionated, and I can rewrite that to eliminate the editorializing. Are there any other problems with the piece? There is almost nothing published about Lerner, which is precisely why she needs some kind of reference page available. My information about Lerner, other than her published work and the Williams textbook, is from census records and the Radcliffe College Archives. Those seem to me to be quality primary sources. Please let me know more specifically what you object to so that this article will be accepted. Thanks for your work, leopardee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shielapardee (talk • contribs) 17:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shielapardee - First, I formatted the first reference to show you the proper format. At least one of the proper ways, others can be found at WP:CIT. Regarding the tone, it's phrases like "12 Mt. Auburn Street, less than a dozen blocks from Harvard Square", "was actually a dedicated", "a committed professional", "seems to have caused her", "may have caused her", etc. make this sound more like a magazine story than an encyclopedia article. Other than that, I think you have done what you can with the references, and I wouldn't decline it based on notability. Just do another pass, and make it more formal, like you're reporting facts, not commenting on them, and let me know and I'll take another look at. btw - the quote doesn't bother me. Onel5969 (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Govindudu Andarivadele

Would you like to conduct a GA Review on this article? Let me know if you are interested. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Pavanjandhyala - It'll take me a few days. Onel5969 (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Inform me just before beginning the same. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pavanjandhyala - starting today. Onel5969 (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it looks like another editor already did the c/e. Onel5969 (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You were busy, so i approached another editor for a c/e to avoid major complications, particularly in the prose. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries - just didn't want you to think I had forgotten. Onel5969 (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. So, when are you going to begin this article's GA review? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder of the GA Review, in case you forgot. Are you interested in conducting the GAR of this article? Please let me know Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lamontcald

Based on the criteria of Notability (music) guidelines, we have won Grand Prize in the Onstage with Slash Contest that was sponsored by Guitar Center which is a nationally recognized competition. That meets #9 in the list of the criteria and I gave verifiable proof of this happening. Why is my page still being declined for submission? Lamontcald (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lamontcald - Sorry, that's not one of the major awards. Wiki is talking about stuff like the Grammy's, Tony's, CMA's, Emmy's, Oscar's, etc. Onel5969 (talk) 13:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft of proposed addition of entry for Malkia Cyril by cubanabop

Hi One15969 from cubanabop Re: denial of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Malkia_Cyril

I'm a longtime editor, but this was the first page I ever created, and I had intended it more as a stub to get started so others could add, so wasn't sure how many sources I needed. I edited it and think I addressed notability issues finding recent scholarly articles discussing her work (although since this is a grassroots campagin movement there's alway many people discussed in these articles, not just one so there's many short-form newspaper articles about her alone, but most books and journal articles are discussing the movement as a whole and her role is one of many in it). I understand the concept of notability and she def is notable given that she's one of the few leaders people go to to speak on behalf of the movement.

Should I also have coded it as a "stub" rather than an article?

I also didn't know how to document the training she has, so I had only put those links (< ref > Rockwood Alums in the News http://rockwoodleadership.org/article.php?id=334 </ ref > and < ref > Malkia Cyril http://www.prime-movers.net/our-fellows/malkia-cyril/ < / ref > in the infobox to demo her training. I took them out for now, lest you thought I was just adding pages for the sake of adding more refs, but is there a better way to do that?


Finally I didn't include the links to documentaries or tv news reports she's appeared in but should I also? Cubanabop (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Cubanabop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubanabop (talk • contribs) 19:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cubanabop - There's a difference between citations which are for verifying facts, and those which are to prove notability. The latter have to be from reliable, independent, secondary sources, and there should be enough of them to show "significant" coverage. On your article, you have 7. 1-interview, primary source since it's an interview; 2-I'll assume it's in-depth; 3-I can't find any reference to Cyril; 4-same as 3, but I didn't read the whole article, is there a specific page she's referenced on? (perhaps 3&4 are to verify the second half of that sentence, and have nothing to do with Cyril?); 5-are articles by the subject, so are not independent; 6-also not independent, since it's a professional bio; 7&8 I'm assuming are merely to validate the claim of short story and poem publication.
So, your article is nicely sourced for verification, but only the one potential source goes to notability. Do you see what I mean? I would put in some of the short form news articles that are about her alone. You can also add a "general" subsection in the references which simply lists extra sources.
I actually don't see those links regarding her educational/professional training in the infobox, they only appear to be wikilinks to other pages. You can put those references there, or you could add prose about her time at school and in training, and include dates (if you know them), and then use those citations there.
The reviewer will determine the article's class, and this is definitely a stub, but that wouldn't have made a difference. Regarding the links to documentaries/news reports, you can create a new section titled, "External links", and put them there, but I'd only put the most pertinent ones. Anyway, hope all of this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Onel5969 Thanks for your thoughtful review and comments.

In both sources #3& #4 not clear why you couldn't find her (I don't know how much you get to scrutinize the content of the sources, and I appreciate that you looked at each one, but if you're just doing keyword searches in a pdf it might not pop) so I'll add specific relevant pages within the articles. I included these because not only is she mentioned/quoted (I know enough about notability for musicians to know that simply naming someone in the academic article is not he same as a righteous reference), but those scholars go on in their articles to analyze and discuss the specific work done by her and the Center for Media Justice (which does have its own Wikipedia page, so the work done by her is already deemed to be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia) as it pertains to effective work in media justice. My question is: how much is enough to establish notability?
Ditto for her mentions in mainstream press (apart from the interview, which I did in fact include to establish biographic facts not notability). If someone is frequently a go-to public figure on questions of net neutrality from mainstream press, she's going to appear in lots of news stories, but perhaps only as a single quote or mention. Yet it is the preponderance of mainstream news outlets coming to her that denotes her importance. Further, Black Lesbian poets don't appear with the same frequency in traditional publications and canonical American poetry anthologies but that doesn't make her any less well-known or notable (and there's a threshold of number of publications that leaves Queer POC out of encyclopedias sometimes). So I'm up for the challenge of demoing her notability, but I remain unclear on how much is enough?
Seeing your read of the references, it also occurs to me that list of articles and poems by her I put as "references" (#5 through 8) were to substantiate the claims of publication and she is a prolific oped contributor (so you're spot on: they were for verification). I think, though, that I might make a subsection of ways to find her writings on line, rather than treat these like "references" (which I never saw them as, I just hadn't known the best way and I was in "footnotes" mode, but realize that for Wikipedia these aren't the same as references/source lists.) Perhaps a "Selected Works" subsection?
Finally NB: you didn't see the links on professional training in the info box for this version b/c I had removed them for the second edit.

Cubanabop (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cubanabop - by all means make a short selected works section. But notability would only be attached if those works were noticed by reliable secondary sources (reviews of her works by notable publications are an excellent way to show notability). If you could find 2-3 in-depth articles ABOUT her (not by her, and not interviews), from non-fringe sources, that would put the article over the notability hump, imho.Onel5969 (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

small help

Thank you for your advice on the "mathew neal, articles for creation" I am a little unclear if the notoriety, the verifiability, or the depth of the article are in question. I have published media, publications, new releases and others that can assist, I simply do not know how much is reasonable to place in this space. Any advice is appreciated. Mathew Neal mathewneal@hotmail.com

www.MathewNeal.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.130.77.229 (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not sure what article you're referring to. Onel5969 (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:10:35, 7 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by ArtCluster


it looks alot different now Onel5969. i learned so much!

ArtCluster (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, from Kristophkincaid

Thanks for the help! I have made the additional changes and hope that all is certifiable, now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Confessions_of_Sylva_Slasher

-KK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristophkincaid (talk • contribs) 00:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please help add page on Thiru Narayana Iyengar

User: Ramanhome Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Thiru_Narayana_Iyengar

Hi Onel5969

You have rejected my draft on a page about a person: Thiru Narayana Iyengar (above link) for reasons that he is NOT notable.

The reason why i submitted this page and why he is notable are as below:

  • Thiru Narayana Iyengar was a notable Tamil and Sanskrit scholar during his time - 1861 to 1947. This english page is just to get the information about him to a world-wide english audience
  • Winning awards and recognition from Prince of Wales during the commonwealth days for his competency in Tamil language is not considered notable?
  • If we dont have this wiki page in english, the english speaking world will not know about this tamil and sanskrit language scholar.

I have already added more references to the draft article above. please take a look and let me know what else needs to be done.

Regards Ramanhome (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Ramanhome — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramanhome (talk • contribs) 01:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ramanhome - This is a very difficult article to ascertain notability. First, even though the underlying links might be in Tamil, the reference notes themselves need to be in English. To me, it looks like only 3 or 4 sources are referenced. Most of the Tamil language in the article also needs to go away. All the raw links in the article have to go away. And finally, the article has an WP:NPOV issue. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Onel5969

First, even though the underlying links might be in Tamil, the reference notes themselves need to be in English. Reply>>> He is Tamil scholar in the pre-internet times. One of the references is in English, rest are in Tamil because articles about him were written in the Tamil vernacular since he is a Tamil scholar.

To me, it looks like only 3 or 4 sources are referenced. Reply>>> How many references do you need to accept the article? This cannot be a reason to reject the article.

Most of the Tamil language in the article also needs to go away. Reply>>> yes i have removed most of the tamil language in the article. Pls check and let me know.

All the raw links in the article have to go away. Reply>>> what do you mean by the raw links? pls give an example of a raw link.

And finally, the article has an WP:NPOV issue Reply>>>Please be specific in places where you do not find no neutrality. Identify those places in the article.

Ramanhome (talk)Ramanhome — Preceding undated comment added 01:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of a contrabution

Hi, you recently deleted a page i was creating entitled "Orly Sade". Orly is my mentor and professor, and asked me to create a wiki page for her using the content of her university page http://bschool.huji.ac.il/en/Faculty_%26amp%3B_Research/Orly_Sade I have asked the University to send you permission.

Would it be possible to restore the page afterwards?

Thank you, Talia Taliao01

Hi Taliao01 - first, please sign your messages with the four ~, that way we can find out what your talking about if we don't understand your message. Second, probably not. We can ask an administrator, and I'm pinging one (Fuhghettaboutit), so they are aware of it. But once you finish the OTRS process, let's deal with it. Onel5969 (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hercules Morse wiki draft - submission rejected query

Hi Onel5969!

Thank you for reviewing the created article for our band Hercules Morse.

I see that they submission was rejected because of insufficient citations that would verify certain parts of the content, however from the comments left it is not clear which parts need attention. It would be fantastic if you could steer me in the direction of the parts that need changing in order to improve the page enough for it to be accepted.

Looking forward to hearing your reply,

Thank you,

Hgardnerhercules (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hgardnerhercules - it's not that there are pieces of the article which need citations for verification purposes, rather the entire article needs at least 2 or 3 more in-depth citations from reliable, independent third party sources which are not fringe or niche publications. Onel5969 (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia email re Newspapers.com signup

Hello, Onel5969. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
HazelAB (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:38:06, 8 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by CV9933


Thank you for taking the time to review my submission. I suspect that inexperienced Wikipedians like myself are more vulnerable to drifting away from a neutral point of view without even realising it, so any help in this direction would be gratefully received. I have read the section about avoiding peacock and weasel terms but I think trying to proof read ones own article is problematic, so if you could give me some pointers I will attempt to improve the tone of the article.CV9933 (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CV9933 (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CV9933 - I re-wrote the first sentence of the Career section to give you an idea of how to word things neutrally. You just want the facts - no editorializing, no drawing conclusions - just tell the reader what happened and when it happened, sometimes why it happened is also appropriate (as in the case of why Vincent inherited the company). I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; that was a great help and if you get the opportunity to take another look at it I would really appreciate it.CV9933 (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retroscreen Virology (draft)

Hi there, thanks for taking the time to look through this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Retroscreen_Virology_Group_plc - I have reworked it for a fourth time and kept only information that can be independently verified from reliable independent secondary sources such as from Growth Company Investor about Retroscreen Virology's joining the London Stock Exchange (this is NOT a press release) and the Pharma Times - a leading independent pharma magazine.

I also notice that John Oxford, noted for his work with Retroscreen Virology, has his own Wikipedia page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Oxford .....and under 'Research' it states: "Oxford is noted for his work with Retroscreen Virology, the leading virology research company of Europe which he established in 1989 with EU funding." - therefore I would assume that as this page has already been accepted by a Wikipedia reviewer it backs up Retroscreen Virology's case for being given its own Wikipedia page. Thanks again for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwickenhamMan (talk • contribs) 21:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Retroscreen Virology are also listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Bioscience_Innovation_Centre — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwickenhamMan (talk • contribs) 21:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TwickenhamMan - The company may be notable, but the current sources don't show that. Please see WP:GNG and WP:NCORP on what denotes notability and how to use references to show that notability. Onel5969 (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danagog

Hello

The brand DANAGOG is well recognized in Nigeria and we would request you review and allow the page please. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Danagog

teamdanagog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Team Danagog (talk • contribs) 22:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

01:20:53, 9 March 2015 review of submission by Mariselan


Hi, I have a question on the best way to proceed for editing and re-submitting my article on the author Pablo Medina. It was rejected because the information is on the website lavenderink.org. The information that is on that website is a Bio that Pablo Medina submitted to them for his recent book publication. It is the same Bio that Pablo sent me directly as well via email to include in the wikipedia page. I'm not sure how to avoid including this biographical information that the author himself is using as his Bio for his publications and is requesting for me to use for this wikipedia page that I'm writing about him. Can you please advise on what I should do? Thank you.

Mariselan (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mariselan - this is one of the reasons that Wikipedia has a conflict of interest policy. There is a process by which you can use copyrighted material (basically, by having the author of that material give up their copyright), and that process can be viewed HERE. But you can use the material by simply writing it in your own words, and of course, avoiding simply paraphrasing it. Then you can use that site as a citation. Your article, however, also has a notability issue. Please see the guidelines under WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR to see what qualifies an author's notability. Then you need citations from independent, secondary sources (not fringe sites either) which support those notability claims. Or, you need in-depth articles from those independent sources on the subject of your article. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

02:12:46, 9 March 2015 review of submission by JosephChiaccio


Greetings,

Thank you for taking the time to review the article for the Simeone Foundation Automotive Museum. I received a notice that the article was declined. This is the first article I have submitted to Wikipedia.

Can you please indicate which text caused the article to be declined? Since the article is somewhat long, I am unsure which section(s) need to be changed. As you can see, I cited 18 different news articles, including the New York Times and Philadelphia Inquirer, both of which are the major newspapers of their city and are prominent sources of material in the article.

Thanks for your time and consideration.

Best, Joseph Chiaccio


JosephChiaccio (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JosephChiaccio - It's not that the article isn't well-cited, but the reason it was declined was stated in the decline box: this is more of an advertisement for the museum, than an encyclopedia article about the museum. Tell us about the museum, don't sell us the museum. The lengthy lists are unnecessary. A prose paragraph, highlighting the collection is what's needed. Lines that tell us about what can be rented, or what's available for groups are promotion, and need to be deleted. Don't need the address of the place, nor should you use honorifics or titles of people. Hope this clears it up for you. Onel5969 (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Think I've got it. Thanks Onel5969

I appreciate the help for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Confessions_of_Sylva_Slasher

With your help and another editor and several hours of editing, I think I have the hang of it now. Thank you so very much. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristophkincaid (talk • contribs) 05:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jayantilal Gada

user name: Yatin Rewale article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jayantilal_Gada

Hello - I've just seen that My article I submitted for review Draft:Jayantilal Gada has been rejected following your review, with the feedback that read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia and need to be written from a neutral point of view I was wondering if you could offer more specific feedback as to which parts you feel do not meet the guidance and look like Advertisement. The feedback seems very general and I would like to amend and resubmit, but would like more specifics in order to do so.Please help me to get this article accepted. thank you Yatin Rewale (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yatin Rewale (talk • contribs)

Hi Yatin Rewale - There are several issues with the article still, although it's much better after your edits. First, avoid unsupported claimes like "Despite his big success in all facets of the film business" and "Jayantilal Gada then used his knowledge of which videos were getting higher rentals ...". Second, don't use ALL CAPS, except for acronyms. Third, this subject doesn't meet the notability criteria on Wikipedia. You should take a look at WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Tarassenko

You recently removed material from the page Lionel Tarassenko that was fully referenced with appropriate citations being given in the text. Yet you gave no reason for this and did not engage on the Talk page. I have checked and the facts behind the material remain as they were, i.e. they are accurate. I therefore propose that the material be replaced on the page. As Editors we must aim for a NPOV. I would like to hear your reasons behind the removal however. HonestBert (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HonestBert - you made a negative assertion on a blp, and your source did not support your claim. Pretty simple really. Onel5969 (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding. I completely agree that I made a negative assertion on a blp. However I believe that the source did support the claim. The top cited article on the Google Scholar page indicated is from a completely different author. Do you mean therefore that I should include further information to indicate that the top article was actually written by someone else, e.g. point to publisher details? HonestBert (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question about reliability

Hi there, thank you for reviewing my article about F.O.D. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:F.O.D._%28band%29). My name is Arjan van Geel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arjanvangeel), I'm from the Netherlands and this is my first article. I've been working on it for a little over six months now (this is 6th draft, and I've done hundreds of little and big edits to improve it).

Could you give me some more concrete advice on how to improve my article, by improving the reliability WITHOUT deminishing the notability? The band I'm writing about (a Belgian band) has become very popular here in Europe, over the last couple of years, has put out two full albums, is playing the biggest punk rock festival in the world (Groezrock) soon. It's a punk rock band, which by nature makes it a little harder referencing it, because major media outlets don't cover it. Still, it's a noteworthy band, important to the subgenre (skate punk) and more prominent than a lot of other bands who are on Wikipedia. And a lot of the sources I've used are some important web magazines in our scene. Also, I've used minor sources as well to prove notability, because the band is written about in Dutch, French, Spanish and English.

I'm looking forward to your reply! It would be great to get some examples from you on how to improve. Thanks!

Hi Arjanvangeel - Sources for reliability purposes have to be from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Independent means they can't have any connection to the subject of the article (e.g. the band's web page, press releases); reliable means they can't be from fringe sources (e.g. niche publications) or sources which have no editorial oversight (e.g. blogs); secondary means they can't be things like interviews. Reviews are good, and you have several, but all from fringe sites or blog sites. If they had a couple of reviews in publications like Rolling Stone (or the European equivalent of it), that would help. But having said all that, this was a tough one for me. I think it's borderline notable, in my opinion. If you could find one or two more solid references, resubmit. A lot of editors have already looked at this, so it's pretty consistent that it needs better references. I did a quick news web search and didn't really find much on them. Onel5969 (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, thanks so much for your reply! Really appreciate you taking your time to write an answer. It's very helpful to get feedback like this. Also, I hope I'm using the right way to respond to you (if not, please excuse me). Communicating with a Reviewer in Wikipedia is a bit user unfriendly and confusing. It was a good thing you had a specific link at the top of your page to do so :). Much appreciated.

I'll do my best to find more links (this band is getting more and more attention every day). Meanwhile, do you think I should delete particular links/references that are not good enough? If so, which ones would be the first to go? I want to make this article as lean and mean, and objective as possible :).

Finally, there are some people trying to contact me about the declined article (WikiSolutions). They say they can help and ask money for it. It sounds dodgy, particularly because I've read in the Wikipedia rules that paid editing is strictly forbidden. Is this common practice, people like this trying to get money out of this?

Well that's it for now. Thanks again for your time. And cheers from the Netherlands! Arjanvangeel (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Onel5969, your input inspired me to find even better, more reliable resources :). And I've found two of them, like you asked me! The band was featured (and mentioned on the cover) of a European magazine, which has several editors, a chief editor and several photographers working for it. It's a big alternative magazine, with lots of high profile sponsors. For this special festival edition, there were 2.000 copies of the magazine printed and sold at Groezrock, a two day Belgian festival with 35.000 visitors. The 2nd reliable resource that I've added is a Belgian newspaper called Het Nieuwsblad, which writes about their debut album. Also, I've deleted a few non reliable references. But kept some secondary sources to prove that the band is written about (reviews) in four different languages.

Let me know what you think of these additions! Thanks in advance!!

12:13:55, 9 March 2015 review of submission by 2605:E000:99D0:A400:A4FA:E00A:4C4D:7AD8


Hi Onel5969

Thanks for reviewing the submission. Can you please give me some more specific pointers as to what needs to be edited before resubmission? Chris Pang is a famous actor and he has won awards. There are also a lot of wikipedia articles that will link to his currently nonexistent page. Please let me know what needs to he edited.

Thanks!

2605:E000:99D0:A400:A4FA:E00A:4C4D:7AD8 (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry, but I don't see how he meets notability requirements at this time. Other than a supporting role in a flop in 2010, all his other roles are not significant. I don't see him overcoming the notability threshold for actors. Onel5969 (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12:42:38, 9 March 2015 review of submission by AOOHull


Hi there. Thanks for reviewing my article. Could you go in to a little more detail as to why it was declined? Many thanks.

AOOHull (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AOOHull - Sure! Per WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC, there are certain criteria which must be met. This group does not meet any of those criteria. You also only have 4 sources, of which only the BBC is any good (for notability purposes), the other 3 are from the band's website, a blog, and a fringe source. But take a look at the notability criteria. If the group meets any of those criteria, and you can support it from a reliable secondary source, make the edits and resubmit. Onel5969 (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thank you!

When my article was rejected some weeks ago you very kindly contacted me and suggested getting in touch with the Tearoom. I did join this group and got great advice from one of the editors. Your talk page didn't seem to work so I could only get in touch now to say thank you. Angela RiedleAngelariedle (talk) 13:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angelariedle - No problem. That's what the Tea Room is for! Glad it helped. Happy editing! Onel5969 (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:46:55, 9 March 2015 review of submission by SimonHilling


I am struggling to get my page published on Wikipedia. Requiring some advice and maybe some specific areas of the page that I need to alter or address?

SimonHilling (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SimonHilling - first, simply tell us about the park, don't sell it to us. Get rid of terms like "Adrenaline and relaxing activities available", "to entertain the many visitors", etc. The chronology section could be deleted as well. The article also suffers from a notability issue, you should find another 2-3 good sources from independent, reliable sources. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heatherton World of Activities Wikipedia Page

Hello, Thank you for taking the time to review the Wiki page. I am after some help if possible, as I am struggling to get my article published. Is there a specific section of the article that needs altering or addressing?

Kind regards Simon — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonHilling (talk • contribs) 13:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:06:22, 9 March 2015 review of submission by Tbarnold


We feel our organization - started in 1908 by Princeton University students and still operating today - is significant enough for inclusion. I am a troglodyte when it comes to technology, but unfortunately I have been assigned to get this project done. Apparently I need help. Once I understand how the citation protocols work, I feel I can provide enough independent sourcing to legitimize this submission. I'm not sure what NPOV or even how to sign this with four tildes. Tbarnold (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Tom Arnold Tbarnold (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton-Blairstown Center

I thought I just did leave you a message. This process is somewhat frustrating I have to say. I would like to have our organization listed in Wikipedia and have been rejected twice. My citations may be a problem, but I'm not sure if its their quality or a technical matter in how they are shown on the page. I'm wondering if - in plain English - you could guide me. I have to warn you that I'm 63 years old and technology resistant. I grew up with the "Elements of Style" (E.B.White) and a book called "On Writing Well" by William Zinsser. Both stressed simplicity. Thanks for your help.Tbarnold (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Tom Arnold[reply]

Hi Tbarnold - I'm right there with you in age, so I understand. Both of those books are good sources, and Wikipedia likes simplicity as well. Just the facts. You need to supply references from independent, reliable sources (so anything from Princeton, or the org's website wouldn't count). I did a quick websearch, and there isn't a plethora of sources out there not related to Princeton. There's a nice article atnj.com, and another nice article in the New Jersey Herald (although it's subscriber based). But stuff from the Bergen Record, NYT, Star-Ledger, Philadelphia Enquirer, etc. would also be good. I formatted the first reference so you can see how it's done. Also be aware of not sounding promotional (the opening paragraph is very non-neutral). I hope this helps. After you make the corrections, let me know and I'll take another look at it. Onel5969 (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:27:33, 9 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Tjfr


Thank you for taking the time to review my submission, a bio of Israeli businessman Ran Poliakine. I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide me some specifics about where the submission still fails to be written from a neutral point of view or refer to independent, reliable, published sources. Those are the exact same issues that arose the first time I submitted the article in January. The second time, which you edited, I tried to eliminate any non-neutral wording. Clearly, Poliakine has been cited repeatedly by independent, reliable published sources, which I also cite.

This is a case where I fear that I am not up to the task, rather than that Poliakine is not eligible for a Wikipedia listing. He is without question the "father" of the wireless charging industry, which will reach $15 billion in global revenues soon. He is also the founder of the Power Management Alliance, which is a global group comprised of some very important multinational companies. He founded and is still a director of Powermat Technologies, which is not bringing wireless charging to Starbucks, McDonalds, and many other global locations.

If you can give me an example of how to take a sentence that I wrote incorrectly and how it SHOULD be written from a neutral point of view, that would help. I have other worthy bios that I would like to write for Wikipedia, but I want to be certain I understand how to submit these correctly.

I very much appreciate your feedback. Thanks. Tjfr (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)TJFR[reply]


Tjfr (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hi Tjfr - stuff that is meant to sell or promote the business (info only of interest to potential customers), rather than simply telling readers about the company. For example, the lead sentence doesn't need to talk about consumers, manufacturers, etc. We don't need to hear about who invested in the company. The reference to Starbucks is also purely promotional. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:20:40, 9 March 2015 review of submission by Yerpo


Hi, I would like to request your reconsideration of the AfC in question. The boilerplate response you gave clearly misses the point, as the article does cite multiple independent and reliable sources (albeit in Slovene language, but that is not against WP:V). To explain, the article was originally written by me at :slwiki (here) after a discussion with the company representatives. They were not involved in the writing process in any way, they just provided some of the independent references cited and made this translation that they now want to publish. Please let me know what you think needs to be done. — Yerpo Eh? 16:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yerpo - although it is you who completely misses the point. The article was not declined for notability, but because the article reads like an advertisement for the company. I admit, I've seen much more blatant advertising, but the overall tone of the article is one of promotion, rather than educating the reader. It's not too far from publication, though. Onel5969 (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, nuances are not one of the benefits of boilerplate responses. What I meant is that the appearance of a promo piece usually stems from the combination of tone and sourcing. If the references used to support this particular text were written by the company itself, then yes, it would come across as quite blatant advertising. As it is, however, it is supported by high-quality independent sourcing (national TV and newspapers plus a scholarly source for history) - this is possible because Zlatarna Celje is indeed one of the more notable companies in the country. That said, I polished two parts that the translator took a bit of artistic liberty with, is it better now? If no, please suggest further improvements. — Yerpo Eh? 06:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your answer would really be appreciated, here. — Yerpo Eh? 12:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updates to Simeone Foundation Automotive Museum

Greetings,

Thank you for the timely reply. I carefully read your note which stated you declined it because you felt it was an advertisement. However, until your most recent reply, you did not specifically state which text that you considered to be promotional in nature. That was the reason for my inquiry.

I will make changes as requested below. However, after reviewing the Wikipedia pages for other museums, I do have some disagreement to some of your reasons, and I would like further clarifications as to why certain content cannot be in the Simeone article.

Here are the pages of other museums, which I will now be using as examples to formatting for the Simeone museum, especially since they are approved:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Car_Museum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petersen_Automotive_Museum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackhawk_Museum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber_Motorsports_Park#Barber_Vintage_Motorsport_Museum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louvre

You also mentioned that this should be an encyclopedia article about the museum. This is the specific reason why I included the list of exhibits and cars, especially since it is very small in comparison to some of the museums listed above.

I have conducted a review of the Louvre Museum's page, located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louvre

It has 8 different sub-sections under "Collections". I will structure the Simeone collection in a similar manner. It also has a "Location, access and facilities" section, which shows a map and discusses proximity to other landmarks. I will structure the Simeone in a similar manner, however I will remove the exact address of the museum as you requested.

JosephChiaccio (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:17:42, 9 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Warrenjstuart


Onel, I see the page was declined due to insufficient notoriety, or proof of notoriety. She Makes Comics, one of the documentaries that Sequart produced, has been deemed fit as a public page, and yet the organization, the only organization that promotes comics studies on an academic level, was declined due to insufficient notoriety from independent sources, some of which include the Village Voice, and also the Latino Review. Could you please justify to me then how your decision to deny the legitimacy of a credible organization was made? This decision doesn't seem just or fair.

Warrenjstuart (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Donald Doe Part Two

Hello, LINK: Draft:Donald_Gerrard_Doe

I had spoken to you earlier on the wiki page that I am drafting up for artist Donald Doe. I have done a lot more inline citation. Now instead of three or four sources, I have thirteen, with possibly more. I am still trying to figure out how to legally get access to photos for the site. I have some just want to make sure I have permission that is acceptable to Wiki rather than an email that has allowed me to put them up from the artist.

If you have time I would like you to look it over, I have not changed much of the actual writing except for a little bit of reformatting. Most of what was done was placing the inline citation that was required. Please let me know if I need more citation or not.

Thank you very much, I appreciate this greatly, Thanks again. -SageheartBK — Preceding unsigned comment added by SageheartBK (talk • contribs) 20:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SageheartBK - article looks good. I formatted the first reference, to give you an example of how they should look. Just fix the other references, resubmit, and let me know, I'll approve it. Nice job. Onel5969 (talk) 04:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lamontcald, revisited

I understand the major award part like the Grammys, AMA and such but # 9 refers to major competitions and the OnStage with Slash sponsored by Guitar Center is a major competition. Nation wide, major corporation sponsored and backed with a major Rock Icon SLASH. What more is required when the guidelines states we need to fulfill one of the stated criteria? Lamontcald (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Lamontcald - it refers to the major awards as I explained before. What is required is that you fulfill those criteria, which some secondary award does not. There might be a case for certain awards gaining the same status as the majors (e.g. People's Choice Awards), but the award you cite is clearly not a major award. Onel5969 (talk) 04:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gowe

Onel5969,

Thank you for reviewing my submission about rapper Gowe. I did as you suggested and resubmitted the article. I haven't heard back from anyone in a week, so would you be able to take a second look at the submission, as you offered to? For your convenience, here's the link to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gowe_(Musician)

As you can probably imagine, it's difficult for me to find motivation to continue contributing if my first submission is rejected. Hopefully we can reach a solid conclusion about the "national tour." Let me know what you think about Gowe's notability. Thank you so much!

Edward.sun94 (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edward.sun94 - we're a bit backlogged on submissions, so it never hurts to ask someone to review it. I did and moved it to the mainspace. Nice job. In the future, beware of sites like YouTube, they do nothing for the notability of a person, but can be used to verify certain facts in an article. Congrats! Onel5969 (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: PayasUgym (March 4)

Hello, can you give me some more information about how I can improve this article so that it is published? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:PayasUgym — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abearheart (talk • contribs) 21:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abearheart - the article reads like an advertisement, not an educational piece. Terms like "hottest", talks about pricing on the website, funding data, etc. are all stuff that only potential customers are interested in. Onel5969 (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

02:34:05, 10 March 2015 review of submission by Klempayj


I don't understand why this page was declined. There are 15 sources as varied and as reputable as The New Yorker, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Vogue Magazine, etc. Nothing has been copied from Jerry's website http://themarblefaun.com/ as stated as the reason for denial. I think that if the person denying this page read through all of the sources they would see that nothing has been copied - the sources have been summarized. Also, Jerry is mentioned several times on Wikipedia already - on the Grey Gardens page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Gardens), and The Marble Faun page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marble_Faun). Jerry deserves his own page and I request that the denial is reconsidered. Klempayj (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Klempayj - went back and checked, and yup, the article is a close paraphrase of a certain part of the other site, with at least one sentence directly cut and paste. Normally, if it was a longer article, I would simply have deleted the offending sentence, but not in an article of this length. Onel5969 (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi My article was rejected on the grounds of "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies." As it was my first article it would be a great help if you can tell me where and how the submission appears to read more like an advertisement? I just wrote an article about the information about certain organization. I'll work on the links part. Your help would be great and will be appreciated. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaibhav1446 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vaibhav1446 - articles are meant to inform, not sell a product. When you start mentioning the types of stuff a company sells, and build up the investors in the company and use peacock words in the awards section, it sounds promotional. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of "Oldschool (Nena album)"

Thanks for your help with the page on Nena's latest album which you quite rightly rejected last month on the grounds of notability, since it had only just been released. As I have just referenced on the page itself, it has today entered the German charts at #4. Since your rejection and following your advice, I've also added a section on the album's reception and more information on its track listing. I have just resubmitted it for approval. Given that all of Nena's previous 16 albums have their own pages, I think it's now ready to be accepted. Regards, Duncan R2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncan R2 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Duncan R2 - definitely notable now. One issue with it is the lead paragraph. While leads don't need citations, if the material in them isn't mentioned in the body of the article and cited there, they do. The commentary (for without citations, that's what it is), about the negative publicity and celebrating her past either needs to be cited, re-written so as to not sound like original research, or deleted. Fix that one issue and let me know and I'll move it to the mainspace. Nice job! Onel5969 (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great news that we're nearly there so I've inserted a couple of references into the offending first sentence but if it's still not right, let me know and I'll delete because it's not essential to the page although, if possible, I'd prefer to keep it, since I think it adds a good bridge in the Nena narrative from the previous album's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncan R2 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well done Duncan R2! Moved to mainspace. Onel5969 (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of article

My Wikipedia article was declined as it said it sounds like an advertisement and I would like to follow up to find out what specifically sounds like an advertisement and what I can change. Saigon Asset Management is an investment fund that has received coverage from numerous third party sources. Links were included to archived third party news source articles from the Saigon Asset Management website because some of these links are no longer active on the third party site. I will remove those but is it possible to upload a pdf of the article as it is no longer available online? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Saigon_Asset_Management&action=edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leighann.chow (talk • contribs) 10:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leighann.chow - articles need to tell us about the subject, not attempt to sell it to us. Individual fund information, talking about what the company is seeking to do, and using terms like "expertise", make the article seem promotional. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jr. NTR Filmography

Hello, Onel5969. User Ssven2 told me that you copy edit lead sections of filmographies. Can you help me do that for Jr. NTR's filmography.

Thank you, Maheshreddy2 (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Maheshreddy2Maheshreddy2 (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maheshreddy2 - Sure. I'm doing a c/e for Pavanjandhyala over the next couple of days, then I'll take a look at your filmography. Onel5969 (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:37:25, 10 March 2015 review of submission by Avicennia marina


I am not sure what the editor means by opinion here or original research. Substantial references have been provided. It would be great to learn as to how I can improve the article.

Avicennia marina (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avicennia marina - Even though there are references there are also conclusions drawn, which is original research (e.g. "Simply put, seeing what works and what doesn't work should be the basis of environmental conservation efforts.") That statement also is worded in an informal tone. Onel5969 (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Onel5969 - That sentence was added by a wikipedia editor (Bfpage). I have removed it in the current version. Could you please suggest any other edits that I could make to improve the article? This is my first wiki article so any suggestions would be useful.

Edited article, based on your input

Hello again, Onel5969, I sincerely do not know whether you did get alerted by my other responses (I find it extremely difficult to grasp the way communicating in Wikipedia works), so apologies in advance if I am contacting you in the wrong way.

Just wanted to let you know that I've added two high profile, reliable sources to my article. The European version of Rolling Stone; a high-profile, sponsored magazine with several editors, called RMP Magazine. And one of the biggest Belgian newspapers who wrote about the band: Het Nieuwsblad. I also cleaned up (deleted) some of the less reliable sources. And shortened the article a bit, to make it even more lean and mean.

Here's the link to the updated article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:F.O.D._%28band%29 And here's the link to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arjanvangeel

I would appreciate it if you could let me know if this makes the article ready for resubmitting it, or if it could be reviewed by you again. Thank you!

Kind regards from the Netherlands. - Arjan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjanvangeel (talk • contribs) 17:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arjanvangeel - the one article from Nieuwsblad was good, but for the life of me, I can't find the other two you talk about above. What reference numbers are they? Onel5969 (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alex GIlbert Article

Hi User:Onel5969.

You recently declined the article Draft:Alex Gilbert. I do not understand why you think these references do not show the articles notability? They are clearly reliable sources. Can you please look at these again? Please let me know what to improve on. Also if it got accepted will this not fix the G4 issue?

Thanks! --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Your Helpful Feedback

Because I'm new to Wikipedia, I don't know how to correctly reply to your earlier feedback, which I very much appreciate. If I should somehow be continuing the previous "thread" rather than posting anew, please let me know how to do that so I'll comply in the future.

My previous post carried the headline "Request on 15:27:33, 9 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Tjfr"

Your reply was: hi Tjfr - stuff that is meant to sell or promote the business (info only of interest to potential customers), rather than simply telling readers about the company. For example, the lead sentence doesn't need to talk about consumers, manufacturers, etc. We don't need to hear about who invested in the company. The reference to Starbucks is also purely promotional. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC).

In writing to you a second time, I wish to both better understand your comments and to make the necessary corrections. Please accept these questions/comments in that spirit.

In my lead sentence I mention that Powermat Technologies, which Mr. Poliakine founded, serves consumers, OEM and public places. That is not intended as a "promotion" for him or the company. It is intended to let Wikipedia users know which "markets" Powermat Technology serves. If I were writing about General Motors, I would state that it sells both to individuals and to fleet owners, and it also makes specialized industrial vehicles. Apple makes computers, phones, and portable music players, etc.

  • But the article isn't about Powermat, but Poliakine. So when you expand information in that matter, it looks like your "fluffing" the article.

Because Powermat is a relatively new company, I think the fact that it has well-known investors - details that have been reported by major news organizations - is crucial to understanding that this is not a fly-by-night operation.

  • Again, the article isn't about the company. Wikipedia has a policy that notability isn't inferred by association, so in this article, that information isn't appropriate.

Most significantly, the Starbucks reference - which has been reported by CNN, CNBC, The Wall Street Journal and many others - demonstrates that wireless charging is quickly being accepted globally.

  • Again, same as above two reasons.

1. Do you recommend that I begin this article writing strictly: "Ran Poliakine is an Israeli business executive who founded Powermat Technologies, a developer of wireless solutions." Should I ever mention that is technology is used by different types of users, such as consumers v. furniture makers?

  • Yes, just go with the simple sentence. You might not be able to get this article over the notability criteria. When you just talk about him, his only accomplishments are founding the company, and the Powermat alliance.

2. Is it NEVER relevant which major investors have taken a stake in a startup company? If Apple, Intel or Warren Buffett makes an investment that has been written about by major financial news organizations, I shouldn't mention it anywhere in the entry?

  • It would be appropriate in an article about the company.

3. How might I introduce the fact that Starbucks and others are now using the technology that Mr. Poliakine created globally? Again, this has been covered widely by the mainstream news media and seems to be an area that Wikipedia users would find relevant. After all, when they visit a Starbucks and charge their phone there wirelessly, they might find it interesting to know that Mr. Poliakine is the person who made that possible. I need a hint how to write that and still avoid being promotional.

  • Again, appropriate in an article about the company. But even then, you should drop the PR statement, which being PR, is clearly promotional.

I know how busy you are and how many people are seeking your help. So I'll be patient. If you can find the time to help walk me through this process, I will be most grateful. It will also allow me to be a better, regular contributor to Wikipedia. Many, many thanks.

  • Never hesitate asking questions, most people are helpful. Especially when someone, like you, is trying to learn and trying to become better at doing this Wikipedia thing.

Tjfr (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)TJFR[reply]

Hi Tjfr - First, most editors appreciate if you continue threads already started, as that keeps all the information together. Now regarding your article, I'll answer your questions as they occur up above. Overall, you might want to change the focus of your article to the company, which is most likely notable. Not sure Poliakine himself will meet the criteria. Hope all of this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:49:19, 10 March 2015 review of submission by Albanianhistory


Hello! You declined my draft "Selman Kadria" and since i am new to this, i'd like to get some help improve my submission and see it posted.

See link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Selman_Kadria

I do not understand the part "Add citations for sources that are secondary and independent"

Allow me to describe this draf:

This is an article about Selman Kadria, a Kosovar Albanian who lived in Kosovo during the 1912-13s, when Serbia annexed the area. During this period, many were killed by Chetnik leaders, one of those being Milic Krstic. Selman Kadria, being a patriot, killed Milic Krstic and was remembered as a hero. This article would surely be added to the category of Albanian heroes awards available here on Wiki.

Sources for this persons story are only available in Albanian and most are articles written by journalists in Kosovo. There is also a movie available on Youtube. ¨

Perhaps these sources are just enough for this draft to be reviewed and processed? What do you think i should add more? I have not found any more sources than those that are available. Thanks for any advice you may give.


Albanianhistory (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Albanianhistory - It doesn't matter if the sources aren't in English. The references should be written in English, and then if there is a weblink available, include that, even if it's not in English. But if there is no weblink, just carefully cite the source. See WP:CIT on how to format citations, and what to include in those citations.
Also, be aware that you are not writing a story, which is how the current submission reads. You are writing an encyclopedia article, so it should only contain facts, not conjecture, and you should lose the dialogue. But this person may not meet Wikipedia notability requirements. Take a look at WP:ONEEVENT.
You're pulling the information from somewhere, so you should cite where you're pulling it from. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Playtime Is Over (mixtape) Submission Decline

I saw you were the reviewer who declined my submission for an article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Playtime_Is_Over_(mixtape).

(Thanks for reviewing the article, by the way.)

The sources I used were based on the sources at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucka_Free_(mixtape), the artist's first mixtape. Along with this the artist has three other mixtapes that each have their own page.

What is the difference between the article that I submitted and the one at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucka_Free_(mixtape) that warranted a decline? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soyrice (talk • contribs) 21:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Soyrice - you're right, they are not that different. So I've nominated the other mixtape for deletion, since it clearly does not meet the notability requirements of either WP:NALBUM, WP:NSONG, or WP:NMUSIC. Beam me up, Scotty, is different, since it hit a national chart. Onel5969 (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey again Onel5969 - Okay, I'm understanding the issue better now. However I did more research and I believe that the mixtape may in fact be noteworthy. I know that the article would need to be changed but I wanted to ask an experienced user before I do, so I don't waste my time.
Specifically Wikipedia's notability guidelines state that a recording is notable if it has been referenced in multiple, independent, important, reliable works. Billboard, MTV, and Music Times -- along with other sources -- all have articles that say that Playtime Is Over was integral to Nicki Minaj's success because of the context in which it was produced. This points to the mixtape being noteworthy, since it has been referenced by multiple, good sources as an important work.
Hi Soyrice - Actually, what the criteria is "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself" (my emphasis). However, it would depend on the depth of coverage of those articles. It might make the mixtape notable. If you want to just put the links here on my talkpage, I'll take a look before you put a lot of effort into the article. Onel5969 (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Onel5969 - Ah, I see. I still think that the sources support the mixtape's notability, but that changes my argument a little. Each source (I'll listen them at the end) states that the ways in which Nicki Minaj began producing and releasing music were integral to her success as an artist, and that Playtime Is Over is the first example of this. I think that classifies Playtime Is Over as notable under the criteria. But because the subject of the articles is more her early recordings, would that be a better article? I still think Playtime Is Over should get it's own article; but if I'm wrong, would an article that combines information about Playtime Is Over and Sucka Free be appropriate, since they, together, are discussed in depth as the early recordings that launched her career? Or an article about her music releases (her recordings and marketing tactics) before Beam Me Up, Scotty?
Here are the articles: http://rapfix.mtv.com/2012/04/04/nicki-minaj-playtime-is-over-mixtape-shoot-footage/; http://www.musictimes.com/articles/9655/20140904/nicki-minaj-reflects-on-her-career-calls-lil-wayne-the-king-in-cover-story-for-the-fader.htm; http://www.thefader.com/2014/08/05/cover-story-nicki-minaj; http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/959722/nicki-minaj-artists-to-watch-2010; http://hiphopwired.com/2009/08/31/nicki-minaj-officially-becomes-a-young-money-millionaire/; http://thesource.com/2014/07/05/7-years-after-playtime-is-over-a-2007-interview-with-nicki-minaj/

Someone who wants to argue

Again number 9 states winning a music competition NOT AN AWARD.

Here is the criteria number 8 and number 9. 8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. 9. Has won or placed in a major music competition.

I don't understand why this info is getting confused for my entry to be accepted. The OnStage with Slash is a major music competition. Lamontcald (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. And all your insisting that it is, will not make it so. This isn't a debate, and at this point I'm pretty much done talking to you, since you simply fail to understand. Onel5969 (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sucka Free(mixtape)

Just wanted to let you know I fixed a couple wikilinks that you did in the AfD. Normally, I wouldn't fix other's typos, but I saw you're an experienced editor and just overlooked it and figured you wouldn't mind. Cheers. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page that was declined by you - Judy van Niekerk

Hi, I would you be able to give me one example on why you declined this page so that I can ensure that I can correctly amend this one and other pages I would edit? Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Empowering you (talk • contribs) 12:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Empowering you - Here's one: "Throughout her writings, seminars and talks, van Niekerk, teaches "Forgiveness" (in the non biblical sense - releasing self from the emotions attached to the event) ...", also the use of first names throughout the article is another. And there are a few others. Onel5969 (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Ratner

Thank you for your encouraging comments last week. I hope you can help with the references for my article. Joan Ratner jratner@lhparch.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeharrispomeroy (talk • contribs) 13:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leeharrispomeroy - I started on the article today, will take me a few days. There are some copyvio issues with the architectural firm's website. You can take a look and see where I'm heading. Will let you know when I'm finished. Onel5969 (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:08:53, 11 March 2015 review of submission by MrArmstrong2


I have sent you a separate email asking why my original submission on both this page (Herbert Durham) and also Walter Myers were declined, since I believed I met Wikipedia’s criteria of notability.

Since then I have updated this page with further references, and also expanded the bibliography.

Please let me know if this now suffices.

MrArmstrong2 (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Amanat

Hi,

I saw your remarks on my proposed new entry on Abbas Amanat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Abbas_Amanat). I understand your remark and am at fault for having started with his current position as professor at Yale. I have made a modification at the start and added references. The reason I think this entry might be pertinent if this: he is one of the most important specialists on 19the century social and religious movement in Iran, with many publications and articles on the subject. The subject is obviously important. Please let me know if you see the need for further changes.

thanks,

bahman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahman (talk • contribs) 15:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bahman - I think that you have shown his notability with the references provided, but the article needs inline references to back up the facts asserted therein. However, the article has a much larger issue: it is a copyright issue with THIS SITE. That needs to be corrected before you resubmit. If it's not, there is a good chance the page will be deleted, and blanked. Once you deal with that, you also need to format the citations, see WP:CIT on how to correctly do that. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I'll make the changes and resubmit the draft. Thanks for your help. Bahman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahman (talk • contribs) 10:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:45:45, 11 March 2015 review of submission by Shs123


Thank you for your time in reviewing the Brightview Senior Living article. It was certainly not intended to be an 'advertisement.' Just facts are stated and independent and verifiable resources were used. In the writing of the article, I followed a few submissions already in Wikipedia as a guide - including Sunrise Senior Living, Brookdale Senior Living, Johnson and Johnson and Procter and Gamble - and don't see how the Brightview Senior Living article is any different. The references used in those articles were mostly the companies own website?! I will revise and resubmit but would appreciate an explanation as to why those articles aren't considered 'advertisements.' Thank you in advance for your time.

Shs123 (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shs123 - Just because an article exists on Wikipedia does not mean it is necessarily a good model to base a new article on. It is often better to compare with existing recognized Wikipedia Good Articles. You can find a list of Good Articles about companies at Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society#Businesses & organizations.
Having said that, I have nominated one of those other articles for deletion, for it also reads like an advertisement, while another definitely needs better sourcing, which I've tagged it, although your comments don't really apply to J&J and P&G. Onel5969 (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Daniel Panetta - Updated

Hello Onel5969,

Thanks for the feedback! I appreciate your time looking into the article. Just wanted to let you know, I've cited a few additional references and expanded on his work with Canadian Idol judge Farley Flex. I've re-submitted the article for review and will continue to add more information as I track it down! Draft:Daniel_Panetta

Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPanic15 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Buck Sexton

I'm happy to make any additions I have to for the Buck Sexton page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Buck_Sexton

So, here's a question. Sexton is a CNN contributor. Unfortunately CNN doesn't have a page that lists contributors and his becoming one didn't generate any press. He did, however mention it on his show. In addition, there are videos on Youtube of him being chyroned on CNN as "CNN Political Contributor" (here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_54R_1blgM ). How would I cite something like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheForgottenMan (talk • contribs) 19:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheForgottenMan - YouTube isn't a great source, but you could use it to validate certain assertions as a last resort. But there are other sources you could use in this instance. I simply googled him and CNN and came up with a link to a CNN transcript, which clearly defines Sexton's role: here's the link. That's just one example. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:10:45, 11 March 2015 review of submission by Bertmbc


Remarks on the rejection of the article “The Watauga Treaties: The Great Grant”

In March 1775 at Fort Watauga in East Tennessee about 1,200 Cherokee and 600 or so white settlers gathered to make what turned out to be four real estate transactions. The Cherokee were the sellers and various Americans were the buyers. There were four large tracts sold resulting in four deeds. These are known as The Path Grant (subject of my piece the Path Grant Deed), The Great Grant (subject of the piece in question), The Jacob Brown Grants, and the Charles Robertson Grant. The articles on the latter are in development but not yet written. That is, my plan was to write four separate Wiki articles each describing the properties conveyed. As a result of research on the four grants, a sizeable body of information has been gathered on the large group of people involved. The four pieces will refer to each other and thus not be orphans. They can also be linked to other Wiki articles with similar subject matter.

The main thrust of the articles is meant to be the properties. That is, the deeds will be analyzed in the light of current maps and presented to define the boundaries and to provide maps clearly indicating what was bought and sold.

A second reason for the article is to place the events related to the particular grant deed in a much larger historical context. That context includes pure real estate speculation, the gathering storm of revolution by the colonies against the Crown, and how specific individuals acted and reacted.

A third reason was to solidly cite the works of the main historians and primary documents used in the article. Wiki is the compilation of knowledge that includes not only facts but sources. My grandson or the two girls next door might develop some interest in our local history and the first guide will almost certainly be Wikipedia. The articles in question are not only factual, but an easy and direct path to far stronger and more detailed accounts and original documents.

While the article in question does factually overlap other Wiki articles, the other wiki articles do not convey much if any detailed information of the boundaries and locations of the properties. It is this lack of information that led me to begin the study and to engage in the task. This overlap is provided as background

At the outset gathering information on the Path Grant, it finally became obvious that maps on the internet, especially those on Wikipedia were not accurate. The map of the Great Grant that appears on several wiki articles does not accurately depict the Great Grant Boundaries. It apparently was drawn using the very general description of the lands between the Cumberland, Kentucky and Ohio Rivers. The authors of the map apparently did not have the actual courses that include a large area to the south of the rivers and the Cumberland Mountain including the Powell River Valley and the ridgeline of Powell Mountain. Most importantly, the Wiki map noted does not include the Cumberland Gap, the key, the very essence, of the Wilderness Trail and the whole effort to open the west.

The article I wrote accurately defines the boundaries and includes a map that precisely indicates those noted in the Parcels Clause of both the Great Grant deed and The Path Grant deed. It also includes a map indicating the topography of mountains and gaps and valleys that provides insight into the understanding of the land by both the Cherokee and the American pioneers. The Great Grant article in question includes two other maps that are not included in any Wiki article. After the Great Grant was declared null and void by the Virginia Convention and the North Carolina Assembly both bodies determined that some recompense was in order. Two grants of 200,000 acres each were made to Henderson & Co. The locations of each of these is indicated in yellow on the Great Grant map and the surveyor’s map of each is included in the article. Absent the story and maps of these two grants, the story is incomplete.

Generally the many, many, Non Wiki historians that have written on the subject of Watauga Treaties and the Transylvania Colony completely omit or pass lightly over the land. They write of people and events but always fail to describe the land in question in adequate detail for the reader to develop an understanding. Reading and then understanding the various deed parcels clauses, even with the very good maps of today, is difficult. I set my task to interpret the deeds draw a map derived from extremely accurate mapping sources and then write the courses as they are shown on the new maps.

In addition to the articles on the four properties, I have obtained original documents that are intended to be put up on Wiki Source. The Path Grant deed from the Hawkins County Registrar of deeds has already been put up on Wiki source. I intend to post the original journal of Richard Henderson for 1775, the 1774 partnership articles for the Louisa Co, and the partnership articles for the subsequent Richard Henderson & Co of January 1775. For someone having an interest, these original documents provide great insight. An ongoing search is underway for the complete Great Grant deed. Presently the parcels clause is known and is included in the Great Grant piece in question. Should the complete deed be located, it will also be put up on Wiki Source.

Regarding the people. The existing Wiki articles do not convey the magnitude of the effort and turmoil that resulted from the gathering at Sycamore Shoals to transact the real estate deals. These people include at least 6 Cherokee Chiefs, nine members of the Henderson & Co syndicate, several witnesses to the documents, several witnesses deposed by the Virginia Convention, several ordinary Cherokee and Americans that facilitated the successful gathering, at least three governors of Virginia, two governors of North Carolina, three future Presidents of the United States, members of the brand new Continental Congress, and the future Lord Chancellor of England. A truly amazing number of people both high bred and common were involved in transacting the four grants and the resulting turmoil.

I am open to your assistance to insure the article is published. I suggest revising the titles. That is, the title would become The Great Grant Deed, The Jacob Brown Grant Deed, and the Charles Robertson Grant Deed. They would thus be in the title format of the previously accepted Path Grant Deed.

Additionally, I made a decision to address each of the four grants separately rather than make one very long article. When writing the path Grand Deed piece I found it difficult to stay focused and not go off on many, many possible side roads. You guidance will be welcomed on that decision.

Lastly, for a reviewer far off in cyberland, the articles proposed might be history in the abstract. For me, the events are essentially local. The point on the Holston River six miles upstream from the Long Island that is the focal point of all the four deeds, lies within a half mile of where I sit.

20:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Bertmbc (talk)

Hi Bertmbc - I think that I understand what you're proposing: writing four separate articles, one for each grant, which supplement the original article which currently exists on Wikipedia, and can link to these underlying, more specific articles? I would support that wholeheartedly. Or, did I misunderstand, and you would only be writing an additional 3 articles? Either way, I get it now. But be careful of sounding like an essay, which is when you make assumptive or declarative statements, like "The record is of Indians, not necessarily Cherokee, but whomever they were, they did not acknowledge ...", "the entire Richard Henderson & co purchases proved to be something of a fiasco", "obtained legal advice from Lord Mansfield, the great English jurist and future Lord Chancellor". Just give the facts, no embellishment, no commentary. I like your idea of the retitling, and have moved your draft accordingly. Let me know when you think it's ready to be resubmitted, and I'll take a look at it. Very interesting subject. Onel5969 (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:MLODROB/sandbox draft issue

Hello, I was using the sandbox to draft a page edit with another user for the page "Biratnagar jute mill strike." There was some confusion, and he mistakenly sent the page in as a "new article request." It was meant to be a merger with the aforementioned article. After we completed the merger, I wanted to blank the sandbox page but noticed a "do not remove line" comment. Is it alright if I do blank the page? Thank you, MLODROB (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MLODROB - Yes, you can blank that line. Thanks for being cautious. Happy editing. Onel5969 (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Neeraj Mehta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Neeraj_Mehta.

HI,

I have updated my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Neeraj_Mehta.

Can you please have a look. The references which I mention, all are the (Neeraj Mehta). I am not sure what else should I put in.

Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neeraj Mehta123 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neeraj Mehta123 - it's not that you don't have good references, it's that a blp (biography of a living person) requires inline citations, meaning that when an assertion is made in the article, it needs to be referenced at that point. For example, in the career section, the first sentence makes 3 assertions: about when he was 9, 12 and 14. Those three facts need a reference which should come at the end of that sentence (after the period). It can be a single reference, which backs up all three assertions, or several, but the facts all need a reference. You can learn about references at referencing for beginners, or at this link, to learn about what to cite and where to put the citations and at this page, which gives you examples about how to properly format your citations. Right now, your citations are all "raw links", which isn't acceptable. Hope this helps. After you make another edit, feel free to let me know and I'll take another look. Onel5969 (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Onel5969 (Sigh!),
I have had a go at wikifying this page. But it is obviously an autobiography and also appears to be a copvio of http://www.desimd.com/doctors/dr-neeraj-mehta, particularly the "Experience" and "Awards & Honors" sections. It makes a number of rather grandiose claims that require independent verification, not "published articles by the concerned person"!
Hi 220 of Borg - wow. That's all I can say. Obviously, he's just on here to self-promote - have tagged both the article and his user page for csd. Nice catch.
Regarding your work on the article, nice job, at least it now looks like an article. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. "100,000 hours of practical experience in coaching"? that's like 60 hours per week for 50 weeks a year for 33+ years (they claim 35 years in fitness industry). AND "5 times National Gold Medalist in various Martial Arts like Judo, Karate, Taekwondo and Athletics" AND "3 times National Arm Wrestling Champion" AND "a successful model". Sounds unlikely!
And both pages are gone! Yay! Funnily enough, I have seen such self aggrandisement on WP user pages! Usually by teenagers who are poets, singers, actors, directors, producers, social workers and politicians at age 17! I kid you not!
• I added a few indents to your reply to help it 'flow' better. Interestingly, you stared this account only 3 days before I started editing WP, but I was editing as a static IP for over 2 years. 220 of Borg 12:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rejection

Hi Onel5969 I recently had an article declined and was wondering if you could help me understand why. I thought that I had found enough articles that would validate the notability of the company I am talking about. The link to the article is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Swinburne_Online I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on how I can improve it? Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swinon (talk • contribs) 04:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Swinon - It has to do with your references. Wikipedia notability guidelines (in general, see WP:GNG; for corps/orgs also see WP:NCORP) require substantial coverage from independent sources. You have 5 sources. The Swinburne source is very good. The CareerFaqs is a good mention, but very brief. The AFR is another nice one, but is very brief. The final two are good for verification purposes of a fact in the article, but not so much for notability. If you can come up with another 1 or 2 (2 would be better, of course) articles of the caliber of the Swinburne source, that would definitely show the group's notability. You do a nice job of telling about the program, without crossing the line (imho) of promotion. Let me know if you find those sources and I'll take another look at it. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Onel5969 Just wondered if I could ask one more question. If there are various articles that talk about the same topic, should I include them or just the best one? I guess my question is can you have more than one reference for a particular point in case? Thank you for your help, I feel I'm getting closer :)
Hi Swinon - Yes. But you should rarely have 3, and almost never more than 3. Pick the best citation or two (most well-known, reliable), and use those. Onel5969 (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rejection: Chuma Anagbado

I will get more relevant references and edit. Thank you.NejeebBello (talk) 07:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC) NejeebBello[reply]

Request on 08:46:12, 12 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Myfriendkrisna


Dear Reviewer,
I tried to create a page "Great Eastern Energy Corporation Ltd. (GEECL). I tried to include at most references and covered almost what I could found on internet. I included references of news papers, their company website pages, London Stock exchange as reference etc. etc.


Would you please mind to guide me clearly what should I do to get this page created.

Thank You.

Myfriendkrisna (talk) 08:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Myfriendkrisna - for notability purposes, Wikipedia requires substantial coverage from independent sources. The last time your article was declined, most of the sources were simply mentions, or listings. Others were not independent, being either from the company's site or press releases. The only good article was the Business Standard piece, and that was pretty brief. I see you've added some additional citations, which, imho, push the company over the notability threshold. One last thing needs to be done, and that's the references need to be formatted correctly. I'll format one for you, so you can see one of a couple of proper ways to format them, you can see others at WP:CIT. Once you make the references correct, let me know and I'll move it to the mainspace. One other thing, your citations should be inline, if appropriate (for example, the citation I fixed should be up in the Business operations section). Onel5969 (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Onel5969- I have made all the changes and updations as per your guidance. Please have a look at my sandbox and if it is perfect please move it to main place.

Thank You, Myfriendkrisna (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Myfriendkrisna - Nice job! Approved it a moment ago. Onel5969 (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:24:12, 12 March 2015 review of submission by AggieRogers17


Hi there, I have updated the page draft to include better references with links to a published book and online newspapers. I hope these are sufficient to show notability.

Thanks


AggieRogers17 (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AggieRogers17 - references for notability purposes should show significant coverage, which part of means that the references should go beyond mere local and regional sources. Onel5969 (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Software Collections" article submission

Software Collections — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert.kratky (talk • contribs) 12:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I see you rejected my article submission on "Software Collections" (unfortunately, I didn't get a notification by email, so I'm only replying now). I was aware of the fact that some might consider it an advertisement, which is why I tried to be as neutral as possible and included references to upstream sources (fedoraproject.org, softwarecollections.org).

Software Collections is an independent open-source project. It is true that some of its developers are sponsored by Red Hat, Inc., but so are developers who work on the Linux kernel or other open-source projects. Also, Red Hat offers a commercial product based on Software Collections, but the same is true for a lot of other open-source software (basically the entire GNU system etc. -- all these projects have Wikipedia articles).

Would you consider it an improvement if I removed the last section, i.e. "Recognition"? I thought it was relevant since it showed that the project has actually led to the development of a tool that people in the IT community can appreciate, but I'd be happy to remove if you think it's inappropriate.

Regards, Robert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert.kratky (talk • contribs) 12:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert.kratky - Actually, recognition is not considered advertising, since it is from third party sources, so that section is fine. The difficulty arises when you have sections like "SoftwareCollections.org", and a list of features, both of which are simply promotional material. The first paragraph of the lead is fine, while the second is basically promotional. The History section is fine. The usage section is borderline promotion, but if that's the only thing I think it would be okay. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:05:26, 12 March 2015 review of submission by Myfriendkrisna


I have added many more references which show the subject's notability. I have added News papers pages as reference.

Myfriendkrisna (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:16:20, 12 March 2015 review of submission by JalKiRani


I have provided all valid references on this article and yet I don't understand why my article is getting rejected. Can you please tell me exactly what change I will have to make so that you accept my article?

JalKiRani (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JalKiRani - that's simple, it doesn't meet any of the requirements for notability. There was a link provided which you should check out as to what determines notability. Onel5969 (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions to improve the article

Hi Onel5969,

I have edited the document again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Evidence-based_conservation. Could you please take another look and let me know your suggestions? Many thanks!


Avicennia marina (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)User:Avicennia marina[reply]

Hi Avicennia marina - MUCH better! There are still conclusions which are drawn in the article. For example, the last line in the History section. Also, the Critique section is almost all discussion/conclusion. Simply state what the dissenting opinions are, and leave the conclusions to the reader. Let me know when you make the changes, and I'll take another look. Onel5969 (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ran Hwang- edited article, wanted to ask for another pair of eyes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Prtonthat15/Ran_hwang

Hi, I recently submitted this article. I updated it with less self-referencing sources, and more outside sources, and attempted to correct any errors. I wanted to ask if you could take a look at it. I want to make this as complete as possible. Any help would be more welcome.

thanks!

Prtonthat15 (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better - descriptive without being promotional. The sources are much better. However, you still need to format your citations correctly (see WP:CIT). I moved it to the mainspace - Congrats! I also tweaked the references slightly, for esthetic reasons. Onel5969 (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfC you accepted.

please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert E. Love DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up DGG. I saw that you had tagged it for AfD. I try to err on the side of accepting articles, so as not to discourage new editors. I also don't usually participate in AfD discussions on articles I've accepted. I guess I feel that the fact I accepted it should make it clear where I stand. I also don't want folks to feel that I feel I need to defend my actions. In this particular case, I completely agree with your individual assessments for each of the areas of this subject's life. But I felt that taken together, in total, it might simply pass GNG.
Anyway, let me know if you think I should comment on AfD's. Thanks for backstopping me. Onel5969 (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still arguing

Please review this again.

Number 8 in the criteria referes to a major award as (Grammy, AMA, etc) but number 9 pertains to a major competition and the OnStage with Slash sponsored by Guitar Center is a major competition. By that we qualify using number 9 as a criteria and NOT number 8.

Lamontcald (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLOM Bank

User:Ghinael ; article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BLOM_Bank_Lebanon Hello, thank you for reviewing my article. I’m trying to rewrite my article based on the notes you’ve listed. However, I would appreciate it if you could provide me with a break down or like specific examples of phrases in my article that don’t sound from a neutral point of view. Knowing that I tried to edit few terms in order to formalize the tone and improve my article.

Also, most of the references I found are from online sources, would that be the reason why that they do not show the company’s notability? Because from the research I’ve done on how to add references to my Wikipedia article, it’s stated that online sources are not enough, could you please advise on this point too.

Would it be suitable to mention anything related to the bank’s innovation and how well it is recognized in the banking industry, or you believe that it’s better to avoid such topics?

Thank you for your assistance ! Ghinael (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghinael - The entire article format is like a promotional brochure, with simple listings and highlights. Articles are written in prose (for the most part), with lists in particular places when appropriate (unless the entire article is a list, such as List of Oscar Winners). Also, phrases like "BLOM Bank offers a broad range of products and services through its business entities", "developed to meet market trends", "The Banker Middle East nominated BLOM Bank as the Best Retail Bank in in the Middle East for 2010 in addition to getting granted 13 different titles during the same year", "2001 was a prosperous year for BLOM Bank". Get rid of the corporate governance section. Get rid of the mentions of most of the non-notable people - for example no one cares that Ezzat Traboulsi was general manager (except perhaps for Traboulsi and his family).
Also, get rid of the bold and CAPS throughout the article. Get rid of honorifics, no Dr., Mr., etc. The list of subsidiaries is okay, but again, the CAP issue needs to be addressed, and it shouldn't be in the lead. Move it to where you have Corporate Governance now, and combine it with Business Divisions. Even though the company stylizes their name in all caps, if you look at articles you cite, they are referred to as Blom. That's how it should be in this article.
Sources - there are two types, those which verify facts, and those which show notability. All sources should be from reliable sources, but those for notability purposes should be from independent sources (not connected to the company, not press releases, interviews etc), and should be in-depth coverage, not simple listings. All of your citations are either not independent, or are simple listings.
Regarding notability... by all means add it if they have been noted for it. BUT - back it up with independent references. If you don't have the references, it's simply promotional. Hope all of this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

07:20:18, 13 March 2015 review of submission by Myfriendkrisna


Dear Reviewer,
I have made all the updations and changes as per your guidance. Please have a look and if it is perfect now, then please move my article to the main place.

Thank You, Myfriendkrisna (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:53:44, 13 March 2015 review of submission by Derrick Essirifi


I didn't copy and paste from www.ghfreestyle.com. I own the legal rights to everything i submitted Derrick Essirifi (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Walter Kofler

Hey, I try to add what you suggested, specially concerning notability. My problem was /is that could only make a small selection of his very big "overture" https://www.i-med.ac.at/sozialmedizin/en/staff/litkofler2014.pd (48 pages... ) - it`s not easy to check all the 100 of details, if the are relevant or not....

Kofler fits to the criteria 3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria because of Membership in the Russian Academy of Science, I think also to criteria 7, and to 6 and also 1 because of 3. Pleas can you make a small check - what can I do more ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.173.237.119 (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - you're right. Resubmit and let me know. Onel5969 (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you--2.173.237.119 (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jayantilal_Gada

user name: Yatin Rewale article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jayantilal_Gada Hello - I've just seen that My article I submitted for review Draft:Jayantilal Gada has been rejected after review, with the feedback that This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. The feedback seems very general and I would like to amend and resubmit, but would like more specifics in order to do so.Please tell me what changes i have to do to get this article accepted.If any reference in article are reliable or not pls tell me .thank you (Yatin Rewale (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.102.171.138 (talk)

Hi - Wikipedia requires significant coverage from independent, reliable sources to show a subject's notability. Bollywood Hungama and imdb are not reliable sources. The one article which might be all right (not sure about it's reliability, is the showbiz article), and that's only a brief mention. Onel5969 (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12:52:31, 13 March 2015 review of submission by Shyamw1


Shyamw1 (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

My article on this page "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shyamw1/sandbox" was declined. The reason quoted was that it did not follow the footnotes protocol. I thought I did. I have read the instructions on the page for beginners but am not sure what is wrong with my citation. Can you please tell me what exactly I should do - the general comment about not keeping to Wikipedia footnotes guidelines doesn't help me. I would like a specific example from my article with instructions on how I should go about correcting it so I understand what needs to be done. Although I have been told that I can ask reviewers and get on to chat where friendly editors are waiting to help, I find that help has been minimal. I would appreciate any proper assistance you can give me - I would really like to see this article published as I have spent so much time researching. Thanks so much.

12:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Winnie

Hi Shyamw1 - the decline box gives links to some good places to start. Referencing for beginners is a very brief overview; cite explains more in-depth about when cites have to be used, should be used, and where they should be placed. You have simply spewed your references, without order or formatting, at the end of the article. Also take a look at formatting citations, to see how to properly format your references. The biggest issue, is that there is not a single in-line citation. Articles need citations within the body of the text in order to verify/validate any assertions made. For example, your article states: "Mr. Ayyangar joined Madras civil service in 1905". That needs to be proven. A footnote should occur at the end of the sentence (after the period).
Your article also has a few other issues. First, is formatting. Take a look at the Manual of Style, which will explain how to format the headings for your sections. You also need to get rid of honorifics, like Mr., and there are a couple of sections it looks like you indented, which caused a formatting break (the blue boxes you see). Finally, avoid making declarative statements, like "During this time the village panchayats, especially in the districts of Ramnad and Guntur, were well organized and efficient." Just list the facts. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:38:25, 13 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Manc86


I'm asking advice, rather than requesting a review - I think I put this in the wrong place before. Hope this is OK here.

I have a question about notability. The Subject in question has been a member of three bands, whose notability already appears to have been established via three established pages. One band included Paul Cook from The Sex Pistols and still includes Rob Symmons (founder of Subway Sect). So, if accepted, the "Matthew Karas" page would immediately be linked to from four Wikipedia pages, where the subject's name is mentioned.

(1) Would those links from other Wikipedia pages make a difference to the measure of notability?

Also, those pages which mention this subject have a load more references, so

(2) should I just copy and paste some of those references to this page?

I figured that if there were links from the new page to those band pages, it would be unnecessary to repeat the reference on the new page . Finally, the subject's notability as a technologist is a separate issue. The references in that section came from "The Independent", "Wired" and "The Register", which are all influential and reliably independent. It is not my primary interest, but through the process, I met a journalist who had written articles relevant to both sections. So, another question -

(3) on the technology sections, are those links sufficient, i.e. would the article be acceptable without the music part?

Thanks for your help. It is very complicated, but, the mid-1980s music scene in Manchester isn't covered very well, so I have a few more articles up my sleeve, and want to get the process right.

Manc86 (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manc86 - I see you were answered on the AfC help desk, so I'll let that answer stand. Onel5969 (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reply to recent rejection

Thank you for the prompt and helpful critique of my proposed article on Ramon Guthrie. I think that I shall be able to find adequate documentation of his notability give the number of the contributors to his festschrift who have their own Wikipedia entries. I will visit the Teahouse.

Yours truly, Wendell Smith (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Wendell Smith[reply]

The important (and new) references in my F.O.D. article

Hi Onel5969, thanks for your quick response. You asked me to show which references in my article about F.O.D. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:F.O.D._%28band%29) were the new/reliable/highprofile ones, because you couldn't locate them.

The reference numbers are five and six. Reference 5 is the high profile European magazine, called RMP Magazine. If you scroll on the page it links to, it shows all the editions over the last couple of years. The printed Groezrock edition which is referenced (F.O.D. is on the cover, and there's an article about them in this magazine), is all the way down, between RMP Magazine #5 and RMP Magazine #6. I've also added another reference to a newspaper article in Het Nieuwsblad (reference seventeen). Reference twenty-four (which was already there) is another important one, because Gazet van Antwerpen is the local Newspaper of the City of Antwerpen (capital city of the Dutch speaking part of Belgium).

Looking forward to your feedback. Please let me know if I have to resubmit my article, if you can re-review it, or if there's another way for me to move forward with it now that I've updated it. Thanks.

Kind regards, Arjan van Geel, The Netherlands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjanvangeel (talk • contribs) 14:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arjanvangeel - Yup. Looks good. Resubmit and let me know. Onel5969 (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Onel5969, thanks so much for all your help in improving the article! You were the first of all reviewers who gave me some real and extensive feedback, which is much appreciated. I'm very pleased with the end result. I have resubmitted the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjanvangeel (talk • contribs) 09:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Arjanvangeel - I've posted a message on your draft, but your article was hijacked. Happens sometimes. That page will be deleted, and then we'll move your article to the mainspace. Nice work. You should be proud for sticking with it, and never losing your cool. Onel5969 (talk) 12:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Onel5969, thanks so much for your help, kind words and feedback. Means the world to me! Yes, it's been a long road, working on this article. But it the end, it was also really educational, writing my first Wikipedia article and getting insight into the inner workings of this. It was confusing at times (this hijacking in particular), but you live and learn. Cheers from the Netherlands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjanvangeel (talk • contribs) 12:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles published but want to keep it in sand box till full proof reading

Dear Reviewer,
I created an article and it is accepted and have been published on main place. But i have to make so many updations in this articles. Even have to cross check the facts also with full proof.
Is it possible to keep article back in my sandbox, till i access are the sources and verify the facts myself first. Please help. Myfriendkrisna (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Myfriendkrisna - You can't put the article back to your sandbox, but you can copy it there, and then work on it. First, completely empty your sandbox (except for the top tag). Then go to your article's page, click on the edit button, and highlight the entire article. Click <ctrl> C; that copies the entire page. Then exit out of the article, without saving. Go to your sandbox, click edit, and then click <ctrl> V, that will paste the entire article onto your sandbox. Then you can work on it there, save all you want, use your preview, etc. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rejection of Rev. W. A. (Willis Anselm), Jarrel D.D. article?

Onel5969, regarding the rejection of the Rev. W. A. Jarrel article on grounds he is not notable enough. Jarrel's work was endorsed by the world renouned Charles Spurgeon. I think that makes him very notable indeed, certainly in the 19th century he was. If nothing else the article should be here because it does relate to an associate of Spurgeon. Jarrel was a noted leader in the Baptist movement back in that day, very historially important.

I am new at this so I'm not sure what the threshold is to be considered notable, but I was looking for more information about this author and found nothing here at wikipedia so I decided to at least start an article.

Thank you, Ed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Elam (talk • contribs) 18:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed Elam - Wikipedia has some pretty good guidelines on notability. Take a look at the general guide on notability, and notability for biographies. Spurgeon's endorsement alone would not meet those criteria. Take a look at those guidelines, and see if you think the subject of the article meets those. Another good reference is Wikipedia:Your first article. After you look at those, if you think you can provide enough references to meet the notability threshold, add them, and I'll take another look. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. This is highly suspecious to me, I wasn't aware that wikipedia censored history that is not "notable". It's the notable characters that have the most myth connected to them. As a historian I can tell you that it is the secondary characters of history that tells us more about what was really going on. I will note this about wikipedia, secondary history is completely blocked, the most important information to historians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Elam (talk • contribs) 05:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For example, if I am doing research on Charles Spurgeon, as a historian it's not the front page news I'm most interested in, that is often hype. What I want is to find as many secondary persons connected to Spurgeon, such as an author like Jarrel. What did author think of Spurgeon, how did Spurgeon influence his work? I want Jarrel to show up in a google search, and he did but not here. So finding out that wikipedia blocks important historical information based solely on popularity is frustrating. I was aware that wikipedia didn’t seem to have any real good in-depth historical information but I thought that was just because wikipedia was in it’s infancy and the information will find it’s way there. But now I know wikipedia actually blocks secondary historical information. Nearly worthless. I short, I really don't want to contribute to an encyclopedia whose critia is "popularity" I can get "popular" information from the National Enquirer.

Ed Elam - Wow, you're really confused. Standards of notability are not censorship. But, take care. Onel5969 (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Grant Deed

formerly The Watauga Treaties: the Great Grant


With reference your guidance:

The sentence “In the end, the entire Richard Henderson & co purchases proved to be something of a fiasco.” Was removed

The sentence ”The record is of Indians, not necessarily Cherokee, but whomever they were, they did not acknowledge Richard Henderson's Great Grant deed.” was removed


obtained legal advice from Lord Mansfield, the great English jurist

Regarding your thought on the above, I added a citation the Wiki piece on Lord Mansfield that redirects to William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield. My statement is considered to be solidly factual and not opinionated. It should be ok when the wiki link is inserted. Please note also that the sentence on Lord Mansfield is very solidly supported by the citation 17 , Henderson: The Significance of the Transylvania Company , page 12. The sentence is considered completely factual


I also revised the paragraph For Further Reading to reflect what I assume will now be correct titles for the Path Gant Deed and as yet the unsubmitted articles on The Jacob Brown Grants, The Charles Robertson Grants and The Watauga Treaties: The People. I may not actually develop the People article because the subject is quite complex and perhaps lengthy and maybe even boring.


I thank you for your guidance and will endeavor to hold tight to cited reference as I develop future articles Bertmbc (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bertmbc - I tweaked the opening to conform more with MOS. I also edited the Dissention section, to give you an idea of the difference between an encyclopedia article, and an essay. Using verbiage like "a dark and bloody ground" should only be done if that is a direct quote, at which point it would need a specific, in-line reference.
The closing section has to go. That is truly something that would only appear in an essay, not an article. The opening quote also needs to be someplace else. I like it, it simply doesn't belong where it is. Incorporate it into the article in a blockquote, in an appropriate place.
You've taught me something though... I've never seen that Wikisource thing before. Thanks for that. Although, sentences like, The Path Grant deed in it’s entirety can be read at Path Grant" need to be deleted. You simply place a link in either a "See also" section (if it's another wikipage), or the "External links" section if it links to something outside of Wikipedia.
Any quote needs an inline reference, from EXACTLY where you got it (in other words, page #, not chapter). On the whole, avoid commentary or descriptive phrasing, such as "quite lengthy", "for the most part". Just the facts, no embellishments. While not every line needs a citation, there should be no section which is not sourced. I hope all of this makes sense. I'll keep working with you on this until we can get it into shape to be published. Onel5969 (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your efforts.

I'm going to relax and enjoy the process. I'm going to take at least the next week to reflect on your comments and to make revisions Bertmbc (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Serge Blanc

Hi Onel5969,

You asked for a speedy deletion of this article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Serge_Blanc_(violinist)

However, there was no copyright infringement of the website www.sergeblanc.com as it is stated in the footer of this website : "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA)"

I'm working the author of the website itself, and we wanted to publish this article as it was... Is there a way to get it back?

Hi - although since this is unsigned, not sure. Can you send me a link to the page it was copied from. Even though it was a CC-BY-SA, I'm not sure that is okay, but I'll ask. If you send me the link to that page, I can check it out. Onel5969 (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article deletion

Hi Onel5969,

You asked for a speedy deletion of this article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Serge_Blanc_(violinist)

However, there was no copyright infringement of the website www.sergeblanc.com as it is stated in the footer of this website : "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA)"

I'm working the author of the website itself, and we wanted to publish this article as it was... Is there a way to get it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noeclement (talk • contribs) 21:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Montézic Power Station

Hello,

Thanks for your helpful comment about my article, Draft:Montézic Power Station. I've added a few more references that I hope will prove sufficient. The difficulty I have, since I only translate content from foreign wikis (I don't write my own articles), is finding English-language references to supplement or replace the original ones. I'm afraid I've exhausted my available resources for this particular article, however, so if what I've added isn't enough, there is nothing more I can do. Anyways, thanks again!--KeeperOfBees (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KeeperOfBees - remember, you don't have to have English sources, only the citations need to be formatted in English. We all have translation programs. Thanks for taking the time to translate these articles. I'm not going to review this, since you've resubmitted, since I don't think with the current references it meets the notability criteria, but another editor may think differently, so let's wait and see. I did find two more references, which you might use: here and here. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Bronin

Hey,

My username is Drapery24 and I wrote the Luke Bronin draft submission. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Luke_Bronin)

I realize there are problems with the page, and have removed many details on the draft I'm going to resubmit. However, in terms of relevance, is being a candidate for Mayor not enough? Am I missing something? Any help would be much appreciated!

Thanks

Drapery24 (talk)

Hi Drapery24 - the short answer is no. WP:POLITICIAN gives you the three criteria for politicians. Your best shot is under the general notability criteria, found at WP:GNG, but I don't think he meets those, most of the citations are not independent, or do not show substantial coverage. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

You're right, just being a candidate doesn't guarantee notability. I thought that, given the background of the individual, this candidacy was prominent enough to warrant a page at this stage. Do you think it's close enough that you would reconsider if the sourcing was more independent and some details were deleted? Or, wait until there's more coverage? If you do a brief search on the guy, I think you may be persuaded that he meets the criteria by the volume and quality of results. Thanks again for the help.

Drapery24 (talk)

What do I need

Hello amonroe713 here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:J._Abrams what do I need to do specifically to get my article published. Wiki is one of the best informational tools and I need my article to be published, therefore I need to know all that I need to do inorder for this to happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amonroe713 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amonroe713 - first, take a look at Wikipedia:Your first article. That's the best place to start. In a nutshell, you have to find good (in-depth) articles from independent, reliable sources to show the notability of the subject. That means they can't have anything to do with the brand (e.g. the brand's website, press releases), and they have to be secondary sources (e.g. not interviews). If you can come up with 3-4 good sources, then the brand will pass the notability threshold. Once that's done, you have to write the article in an unbiased, non-promotional tone. Don't sell us the brand, tell us facts about the brand. Sentences like "The main focus of their brand is to provide the Houston youth with a Ready to Wear and fashionable product to both males and females with an addition to clothes that have that street wear feel in great quality" and "J. Abrams brand believes fashion itself ..." need to go away. Finally, your article also reads in an informal manner. Phrases like "Just as musical artist, painters, photographers, etc gain ...", "True fashion should not be classified by the face ..." need to dropped. Stick with the facts. And if it is a fact, it should be able to be referenced. Onel5969 (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Kapneck

photoloop here:

Hello, thanks for reviewing the entry I added. I'm having problems finding the references you asked for.

I have someone in Maryland trying to get to the MD Archives to find some documentation. They don't appear to have anything online from the 1970s.

Can you please advise me on what I'm missing - what do I actually need references to show?

Ambassador Kapneck was the first state Trade Ambassador - of any US state - and he has been the longest-serving - 40 years so far.

If we do find something in the offline Archives, how do I reference it? Can we use a scan/photo of a document?


Here is one reference I found, showing that he was the special advisor, but I don't know how to use it, can you please advise?

http://digital.lib.umd.edu/archivesum/findingaids/elkins.pdf

RECORDS OF THE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE: WILSON H. ELKINS University Archives, University of Maryland, College Park

Note of July 17, 1970 on Philip Kapneck, [1970] Page 354 Kapneck, Phil, Governor's Special Assistant for Student Affairs, 1971 Page 193

--- Also, I have this:

In 1970, university students throughout Maryland had been involved in protests over faculty tenure. Mandel wanted to change the dynamic, to open lines of communication between the students and his office. Mandel appointed Philip Kapneck, a local businessman, as Special Advisor on Student Affairs. Mandel's idea and the special advisor were both so successful and well received by students across the State of Maryland that in 1971, the student body presented Kapneck with a "Man of the Year" award[1], the first time in 12 years it went to someone other than a student.

[2]

[3] http://newspaperarchive.com/us/maryland/cumberland/cumberland-news/1971/03-01/page-2

Hi - First, please remember to sign your messages with a four ~, that way we can take a look at any of your information if we're unclear. Regarding your article. Sources do not have to be available on-line. If you have good solid sources that are available off-line, use those, just cite them correctly (you can find out how at WP:CIT). I do a lot of historical editing, and I use books from the library all the time. Just make sure you have complete cites, with all the required info. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Cumberland News March 1, 1971 p. 2.
  2. ^ "Kapneck Is Named Man Of The Year". 1971-03-01. Retrieved 2014-12-06. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ Cumberland News March 1, 1971 p. 2.

07:36:02, 14 March 2015 review of submission by TheGoldenPachyderm


I don't understand why I was denied--the portion that you wrote was copywrited was intended as a direct quote and formatted as such?

TheGoldenPachyderm (talk) 07:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheGoldenPachyderm - Ah, I see what you were attempting. The way you have it structured (even though you have it as a blockquote) makes it unclear if you were quoting the organization. Change the preceding sentence to something like: "On this issue, The National Association of Foreign Student Advisors said the following: " - You don't need to state where it's from, since that's included in the cite (makes the sentence less wordy), and the colon will inform the reader that what follows is a quote from the organization.
Your article, however, suffers from two other issues. First, and the easiest fix, is over-citing. Take a look at that link which explains what I mean by that. Basically, there is rarely a time when something needs more than two citations. Second, your article suffers from an NPOV issue. For instance, in the lead you state, "One explanation for the increase ...", but never discuss other explanations in the body of the article. In fact, you never discuss that explanation in the body of the article. A second example is the entire Anti- section. You offer no opposing viewpoints. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hello again!
I'll fix that with the block quote. I didn't find other explanations but if anyone else did and edited them in that would be understandable. I don't think that takes away from the value of the article as a whole (there isn't one on International Students in the US which is a little crazy since there are so many and it is objectively increasing). Likewise with the anti section, there isn't much other than op-eds in the way of saying that reception is golden, and I added so many citations because people don't use Wikipedia as-is, it's often used as the starting point to find more sources if it's used for academic papers. I thought more citations would mean people could find more use from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGoldenPachyderm (talk • contribs) 19:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TheGoldenPachyderm - Just so you understand, I never said that the article should not be written. I agree that it could make a good article for Wikipedia. I was just trying to help you understand some of the concepts here regarding NPOV. Onel5969 (talk) 04:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help! Seems like someone stole my article (and is asking band for money)

Hello again, Onel5969, I have an important question! While I was working on the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:F.O.D._%28band%29), and discussing it with you this week, somebody seems to have stolen the entire draft text I've put so much work into, and used it to put it up in the article space (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.O.D._%28band%29), without the six months of editing & reviewing history (which are important, as they prove how the article came to be).

One of the band members of F.O.D. contacted me about this in the past; apparently (a while ago) a third party was asking the band money, saying they had privileges to get an article published (which is weird, because I thought 'paid editing' is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia).

Can you confirm whether there is something weird/illegal going on, or not? This new, 'official' article was created on thursday (it is 99.9% an exact copy of my work - minus some external links at the end). I resubmitted mine, after your okay, today (this saturday morning). So this is two days later. The 'official' article was also published today (hence the confusion). Meanwhile, my (original) draft article about F.O.D. is still 'awaiting review'. And the new article (which seems to be LIVE, not a DRAFT) has no history with my edits anymore :'(.

Any information/help would be much appreciated, by this confused editor!

Kind regards, Arjan van Geel.

PS: details of the person who stole it, and was asking the band for money: Bombsperony (fake wikipedia user, who - apparently - has high wikipedia privileges?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjanvangeel (talk • contribs) 10:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Arjanvangeel: I have nominated that page for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G6 as a wp:Cut and paste move which is not allowed, as it does not take the edit history, which is required for wp:Attribution Copyright. This is normally meant for cases where a page is already in article space is copied and pasted into a page with a new name not, as you put it, a hijacking of your draft. (the correct procedure is at WP:Moving a page.) At the very least it's rather rude!. However Bombsperony (talk · contribs) is a new editor and we need to wp:Assume good faith, and that they were so impressed with your page that they thought it should go out there for everyone to read. (maybe). That editor has no special privileges over what you have. If anyone is asking for money, for an article, I'm sure that the WP hierarchy would be interested in knowing who they are.220 of Borg 12:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Arjanvangeel - (and thanks, 220 of Borg) - We're working on it. And Borg has already taken the necessary steps to clear it up. It should happen shortly. Be patient, like you've been for the last couple of months as you've worked to improve this article. btw - excellent job! Onel5969 (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're again welcome. (And I like Port myself, though Johnnie Walker or similar is always welcome ) --220 of Borg 13:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Onel5969 (and thanks 220 of Borg), for making my experience on Wikipedia a pleasant and inspiring one. I'll be patient, no worries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjanvangeel (talk • contribs) 13:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12:28:47, 14 March 2015 review of submission by Bent strings


Thanks Onel5969 for reviewing so quickly (I had expected I would have a long time to improve it before it reached the top of the queue ;-) The url (which I hadn't seen before)quoted in the decline says "Source: Wikipedia - Text from this biography licensed under creative commons license" a) does that make it OK?

I had, in fact, sourced the info from the sonny black page - and yes I did follow the text closely believing that since Swinton and Black were in the same bands - the same textual history should be stated. b) do you think it would be better for me to rewrite in my own words?

Your guidance is appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bent strings (talk • contribs) 12:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bent strings (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bent strings - it doesn't say which CC license. Even then, I'm not sure it can still be used. I actually have a question in to an administrator on this, but that could take some time getting answered. Best thing is to simply re-write the offending portions in your own words. Onel5969 (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda McKerrow

Amanda McKerrow is one of the most accomplished dancers of her generation. Did you turn down Van Cliburn as "not notable"? I guess it is true that Wikipedia is written only by men, for men and about men. Not to worry. I shall never write another wikipedia article again. Psantry (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Psantry - did you even bother to read why the article was declined? Obviously not, based on your uncivil comment above. We attempt to help new writers understand the dynamics which go into getting an article approved. But you want no help, you simply want to vent. Rest assured, no further comments from you are welcome, nor will they be answered. Onel5969 (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to "assume good faith"?Psantry (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did assume it, until you proved not to have it. Onel5969 (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:44:59, 14 March 2015 review of submission by PauloCalvo


Information about this topic is still scarce and wanted to get support from other users to improve it. What is definitely needed for approving the article? So I can research this part myself. Thanks in advance!

PauloCalvo (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can come up with another solid (or better 2) references, that would work. Onel5969 (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:01:58, 14 March 2015 review of submission by Sansevieria4


Hi Onel5969 - I really don't understand why this was rejected. Please let me know how to fix. I find this process particularly frustrating and threfore I don't contribute as much as I would like to. Why can't the Wikipedia directions be simplified? This shouldn't be that difficult!

Sansevieria4 (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Onel5969 - I really don't understand why the Dorothy Lawson article was rejected. Please let me know how to fix. I find this process particularly frustrating and threfore I don't contribute as much as I would like to. Why can't the Wikipedia directions be simplified? This shouldn't be that difficult! Sansevieria4 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Sansevieria4[reply]

Hi Sansevieria4 - You only have one source which goes to notability (the NYT article). All the others are either not independent (the bios), or are not from a reliable source (Allmusic), or are only brief mentions of the subject or don't mention her at all. Notability requires substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. Hope this helps.Onel5969 (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Onel5969 - I respectfully disagree with you. AllMusic is in fact encouraged as a reliable source by Wikipedia itself. (see below)
"Resources[edit]
Good online sources for recordings are the Freedb search engine or the Allmusic search engine. To find ownership information on song texts copyrighted in the US, the ASCAP ACE Title Search and BMI Repertoire Search utilities are invaluable. When looking in depth, a Google book search may turn something up. For material that has captured the attention of academics, a search on Google scholar may work."
This was copied directly from the directions Wikipedia:Notability (music). Lawson appears on several albums, both major record labels and important indie, including one that won a GRAMMY. She is a prominent member of more two independently notable ensembles. Lawson is mentioned by name multiple times in the two reviews of the Marcelo Zarvos albums. I am not sure you have thoroughly looked at my references. You seem to have dismissed them, furthermore, music does not seem to be your area. The Wikipedia instructions for notable musicians say that I only need to meet at least1 of the criteria and I have met at least 4 of them. When I look at the Wikipedia articles that have been allowed to be posted about other members of her group ETHEL, which I have used as a reference to help get Lawson's started (see Jennifer Choi and Todd Reynolds) I see little to no references and I feel that I am being singled out for some higher standard. Please take another look at this article.Sansevieria4 (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Sansevieria4[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaheim,_California

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaheim,_California The edits I made for this page were correct with the information that was previously cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.214.173 (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not. The citations clearly indicate what was there previously. Please refrain from your disruptive editing. Onel5969 (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline of Draft:Joseph_Sledge

Ok I've been trough this and there is no copyrighted information, or material copied from elsewhere anywhere in this article. The article's format is based on the National Registry of Exonerations: Joseph Sledge page (which i assume you were talking about), which tells the story from start to finish, but THAT article is based on the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission Brief for State v. Joseph Sledge Columbus County source, which also tells the story from start to finish in chronological order. I've taken information from BOTH of these sources and included it in the article, as well as information from news sources (unfortunately these news sources generally are about his exoneration and the length of time he spent in jail, and the NC centre for innocence report is the definitive source on the actual case-on which the national registry of exonerations source is based). This can't be helped as it is simply the only information available.

Are you saying that I shouldn't write the story in chronological order? The whole story has been rewritten by myself... and various parts of the story are doubly referenced to other sources where I could find them.

I'm confused as to how heavy reliance on one particular source (in this case two) violates copyright in any case, as everything has been rewritten, and if anything the only thing is the 'format' for the article following that of the NRoE source, which is chronological and the obvious choice for format of the article in any case.

please explain how the article violates copyright and if so how i can correct it, as I'm not seeing it after reading through WP:CP  InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere  02:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Insertcleverphrasehere - Several sentences are verbatim, and many more are a close paraphrase. I think that it's difficult to avoid this issue when you rely so heavily on one of your references. It's really to your benefit to get this fixed before moving it to the mainspace. If it had been moved in its present form, it most likely would have been deleted and blanked in the AfD process, which then would give it yet another hurdle to overcome if you attempted to re-publish. If it helps, here's a link to the copyvio report: here, which might help you get an idea of what editors see which causes them to tag this for copyvio. Onel5969 (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox title

The US City guidelines do not require the state name to be in the infobox title. Guidelines are just that: guidelines, not absolute requirements. That many pages use that is not a reason to mass-edit dozens of articles. Kent, Ohio is a featured article and made it through FAR without that being an issue since it's not a requirement; it's simply a case where most infoboxes use the title of the article. There are multiple examples of articles that have titles that simply do not work in the infobox title since they're only for disambiguation purposes. The name of the city of Akron is "Akron", not "Akron, Ohio". "Akron, Ohio" is the name of the article. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. And we disagree. So that is why you should take it up on the talk page. Onel5969 (talk) 03:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to claim you have consensus to for your mass changes, you need to actually have consensus that was specifically discussed, not simply your interpretation of how strictly the guidelines have to be followed. And of course there's: "This advice is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline and is not part of the Manual of Style" and "While it is just a guideline and there are no requirements to follow it in editing, it contains some of the basic elements of a city article, as well as useful tips that would help to bring the article to good article or featured article status" on the top of the WP:USCITIES page. Save yourself some time and don't do mass changes that are either unneeded and/or do nothing to really improve the quality of the article. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You make my point - Every FA article of US City, in the top 200 populated cities uses this format. So perhaps this is a useful tip for formatting it this way. Onel5969 (talk) 04:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arlington, Texas Demographics

Can you please stop adding the Vietnamese American subtitle in the demographic section. 1) Vietnamese people making approximately 10% of the foreign born population isn't noteworthy. They are not an overwhelming representative of the non-white population, therefore if you're going to single out Vietnamese Americans you need to single out every single ethnicity in Arlington. 2) It's outdated. Demographics of Arlington have changed drastically since 2000. 3) It's unnecessary, it doesn't add to the content and is strange looking. Vietnamese Americans are counted in the updated demographic statistics above it. Broadmoor (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, you should start using edit summaries, might limit confusion on some of your edits. Second, if they made 10% of the population, that would be noteworthy, since they are not a major ethnic group in this country, and if they had that large a presence, it would be of note. Onel5969 (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allu Arjun filmography

Can you please copy edit this article's lead? Let me know if you are interested. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll get to it today or tomorrow, Pavanjandhyala. Onel5969 (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the c/e bro. Well, please do confirm whether you would conduct a GAR on Govindudu Andarivadele? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

08:33:47, 15 March 2015 review of submission by Kanoog


Please help me identify the sections that violate the terms and how to fix

Note that most of the material in the page created or reviewed by Faisal Taqi -Director of HJMS in Bahrain, the owner of the website http://hoijeonmoosool.free.fr and author of the books lsted as references- willingly for the sake of creating the page.

Kanoog (talk) 08:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kanoog - it's already been deleted, which means that the vast majority of the article was copied from underlying sources. Onel5969 (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for another look

Hi Onel5969,

I have edited the page again and resubmitted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Evidence-based_conservation). Could you please take a look? Many thanks for your valuable suggestions.

Avicennia marina (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Avicennia marina[reply]

Avicennia marina - Nice job! I'll approve it to the mainspace. Couple of suggestions. I would move the history section to be the first subsection. I would combine the three forms into a single section, with them being subsections, but that would require at least a brief few sentences opening that section. Anyway - congrats! Onel5969 (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmission of article

Hi,

The rejected article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Govindbhai_Shekhda) has been submitted again with some more references. You may look at the same, Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xscontrib (talk • contribs) 16:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC) -- xscontrib — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xscontrib (talk • contribs) 16:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xscontrib - the single additional reference still doesn't establish the notability of this subject, as per wiki criteria. Wikipedia requires substantial coverage from independent sources. Onel5969 (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Lawson

Hi Onel5969. Please take another look at the Dorothy Lawson article. I have re-submitted it now twice. I cannot imagine that it doesn't have enough references now. Thanks! Sansevieria4 (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Sansevieria4[reply]

22:26:37, 15 March 2015 review of submission by Tatianajug


Dear Reviewer, Please help with a reference. I would appreciate your feedback. In your rejection you cited Alexander Noelle's article "The Gravity of Provincetown" as an obscure reference. Noelle, Alexander. "The Gravity of Provincetown". www.tfaoi.com. Traditional Fine Arts Organization. Retrieved 7 June 2014.

I understand that impression, but the link I cited is the scholarly repository of the article which I thought would be helpful for anyone checking the primary source material online. However that article is the primary essay in the book, The Tides of Provincetown, published by the New Britain Museum of American Art in support of a major exhibit that traveled to four US galleries. The ISBN reference and publication information is below. ISBN 0972449736 ISBN-13 9780972449731 Pages 176 Publisher New Britain Museum of American Art Published 2011

The roughly 80 artists chosen for this exhibit and the fewer cited in the book's essay are considered some of the most important artists from this art colony which is the oldest in the US. Hence by definition noteworthy in terms of American art history. I will bring some reviews from other magazine and newspapers into the initial work-up of Romolo Del Deo's biography, but I would like to include this source article because it is considered authoritative. So I would appreciate your advice and feedback. I will try and work with the text to make it more neutral in tone. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Tatianajug Tatianajug (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tatianajug - There's nothing wrong with that citation being included. But in terms of notability, it's obscure. If you're not counting on that for notability, it's actually a nice source. Onel5969 (talk) 02:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

02:30:22, 16 March 2015 review of submission by 120.148.0.216


Hi Onel5969 Thanks for reviewing. I've revised the page and taken out any personal references but as this is my first time adding to wikipedia, I'm finding it difficult to understand how to do the formatting or sidebar tables so haven't attempted them. Some of the best references that would be available for this article are unavailable to me on Google searches or publicly accessible newspaper archives. If you have academic access it might be easier. I know articles exist as I have the hard copies from those times. And lastly it if Tom Wallace can get an entry on Wikipedia, I think Neil McInnes definitely deserves one. Even if it is not written by me.

120.148.0.216 (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just because an article exists on Wikipedia does not mean it is necessarily a good model to base a new article on. Since McInnes did not hold a statewide office, he would have to qualify under the substantial coverage criteria. Those need to be from independent sources. Sources do not have to be available online, just from reliable sources. If you do use off-line sources, be very specific (see WP:CIT about how to format references, and about what information you need in references (i.e. for a news story, you need the name of the paper, the date of the article, the title of the article, the author of the article, and the page number on which the article appeared). You're right about Watson, I don't think he's notable either, and have nominated his article for deletion. Onel5969 (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. You're editing from an ip address, so I can't "ping" you to let you know I'm responding. Anyway, after discussion with a couple of other editors, I think McInnes does meet the notability requirements, so resubmit and let me know. Onel5969 (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:14:57, 16 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Ahlitanah


The existing article on Eureka Quartzite is two short sentences. How can I replace those two sentences with my extensive article?Ahlitanah (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahlitanah (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ahlitanah I would open your article, and highlight the entire article (not including the AfC comments), but including all the references, etc. Hit <ctrl> C. The open the existing article, delete what's there, and paste your copy in its place by hitting <ctrl> V. Hit preview to make sure it worked before saving. Let me know how it turns out. Onel5969 (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:55:13, 16 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Silverspoon83


Hi there, thanks for taking the time to review my draft. I'm following up as really keen on getting this published and wanted to find out what I can do to make this happen. I did ask someone in the live messaging service what they thought and they said there were too many references to Racing Post and that I should use another source alongside RP. Could you let me know if this is along the right lines?

Is there anything else you can suggest?

With thanks

Silverspoon83

Silverspoon83 (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Silverspoon83 - The use of that source is all right to verify underlying facts, but it doesn't help the notability of the subject. You need to find articles from independent reliable sources (no press releases, interviews), which speak about the OLBG. We'd need 2-3 decent sources. If the Guardian article had been about OLBG, instead of just briefly mentioning them, that would have been a good source. The Owner and Breeder is a nice source, but it's a niche publication. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Eric._T._Costello

Regarding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Eric._T._Costello. This draft was rejected on March 15, 2015 because it didn't prove notability: "See WP:NPOL - significant coverage needs to be from more than local coverage. Onel5969 (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)" Eric Costello is a member of the City Council of Baltimore, Maryland. His work, and therefore his footnotes and citations, are from sources within the State of Maryland. Please note that all citations/references in Wikipedia articles that were published for Baltimore City Council Members are from within the State of Maryland. Following are 2 examples: 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_C._Young
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_B._Kraft

In light of this information, I am requesting a rereview of Draft:Eric._T._Costello Thank you. DoreenRosenthal (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Doreen Rosenthal[reply]

Hi DoreenRosenthal - you're right, I don't think either of those two articles meets the notability requirements, and have nominated both of them for deletion. Onel5969 (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:43:21, 16 March 2015 review of submission by Shyamw1


Shyamw1 (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Hi,[reply]

Can you please tell me what's wrong with the footnotes. I can't seem to figure out my mistake although I read "Referencing for Beginners". Thank you. Shyamw1 (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link to the article I submitted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shyamw1/sandbox. Your note says it was rejected because the footnoting was incorrect. Can you please point out my mistake so I don't repeat it. I don't see what's wrong with my footnote although I did read "Referencing for Beginners". Thank you. Shyamw1 (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:53:03, 16 March 2015 review of submission by 24.13.237.93


I don't understand why the submission for Kol Hadash Humanistic Congregation was declined. The congregation is "notable" both as the "oldest and largest Humanistic Jewish congregation in Illinois" and for its rabbi emeritus being "the first Humanistic rabbi in Illinois." There are citations to articles ABOUT the congregation (not just a passing reference) in two different editions of the Chicago Tribune (Jan 13, 2008 and Sept 15, 2014), the Daily Herald (Dec 23, 2009), and WBEZ radio (July 16 2014).

Wikipedia has published articles about other Jewish congregations that have almost no citations or special distinction. See the links below:

1. Congregation Solel in Highland Park, Illinois - This article has almost no references, and none of the three references cited are independent, third-party references like a newspaper. The article was printed asking for additional submissions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_Solel

2. North Shore Congregation Israel in Glencoe, Illinois – This article has only two references, one of which is just a “dictionary and sourcebook,” and the other is a reference to the synagogue’s building. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Shore_Congregation_Israel

3. Temple Beth El in Madison, Wisconsin – This article has NO citations at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Beth_El_(Madison,_Wisconsin)

4. Temple Beth El in San Antonio, Texas – This article has only one citation, and not for anything that makes them “notable” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Beth-El_(San_Antonio)

5. Temple Beth El in Great Neck, New York – No citation for anything other than its location. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Beth-El_(Great_Neck,_New_York)

6. Beth Shalom in Frederick, Maryland – Nothing notable about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beth_Sholom_Congregation_(Frederick,_Maryland)

I would appreciate any explanation or specific instruction that would enable me to edit the article and have it approved for publication.

Thank you!


24.13.237.93 (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:10:14, 16 March 2015 review of submission by Patburns93


I have written this article on behalf of the copyright holder for the website Gerard M Burns and the information within it. Can you please let me know what I need to show/prove in order for the article to be accepted and published? I have written the entire article in my own words and it only copies very small pieces of information from the 'about' section on the Gerard Burns website. Patburns93 (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:11:36, 16 March 2015 review of submission by 96.231.1.137


The article has been resubmitted after using more "neutral" wording and adding in more references 96.231.1.137 (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:54:24, 16 March 2015 review of submission by David.Toledo.p


You suggest that I merge this article into the definition for Conservation Grazing but they are two different things. The definition of targeted grazing in the conservation grazing page is not correct. Just because the person who started the conservation grazing page "got here first" does not mean his definition is correct and we should have to abide by it. There is actually more literature and scientist working on targeted grazing than there are working on conservation grazing. Additionally, the person who started the conservation grazing page has a conservation grazing business. I represent an interdisciplinary, multi-institutional workgroup with no financial interests that is working on targeted grazing. Can you please let me know what I need to do to clean/clear this up. Will just adding more content gain us a separate entry? We were trying to go for short, accurate and concise. DTP 17:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Request on 18:10:15, 16 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by David.Toledo.p


I just wrote you a message regarding targeted grazing a saved it without knowing it would automatically send it. Sorry, I am new at this. I wanted to end by saying that if you look at the conservation grazing page they say that Targeted grazing is just conservation grazing done on rangelands. Please look at the definition of rangeland. Any area that is grazed (even for conservation) is a rangeland and hence my co-authors and I believe that conservation grazing is a sub-discipline within targeted grazing.

Thank you for your thorough review

DTP 18:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Request on 18:29:53, 16 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Artistsfind


Hello, Thank you for reviewing this article. Please help me to understand your reasoning. This is of up-most importance to me. I value your time. I have put many long hours learning Wikipedia culture, styles, and markup for the purpose of having this artist's article. Please in all candor help me to understand the flaws of this article.

Please allow me to explain this- This artist is influential and very highly regarded. The artist has over one hundred solid offline biographical data and cites stored in library reference books. This doesn't help get references to easily look-up online. Example - The academy awards does not list the art directors or set design winners on line - they favor actors.

Questions- Do you want photocopies? I do have tangible proof of his awards and mentions. If this article is edited again, do you want this article shortened? What should be cut? What should I cut - teachers; education details; intros of others; other details or lists? There is a matter of the image, it is proper to use it and if documentations from the artist (subject) or me is requested I can do so. Help me with getting the image through the proper channels to be approved. Thank you very much for helping me getting this article approved. All advice that you have for me is welcome. Again, in all candor please help me to understand the flaws of this article. Caryl Jean 18:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Caryl Jean 18:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Request on 18:30:47, 16 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Artistsfind


Hello, Thank you for reviewing this article. Please help me to understand your reasoning. This is of up-most importance to me. I value your time. I have put many long hours learning Wikipedia culture, styles, and markup for the purpose of having this artist's article. Please in all candor help me to understand the flaws of this article.

Please allow me to explain this- This artist is influential and very highly regarded. The artist has over one hundred solid offline biographical data and cites stored in library reference books. This doesn't help get references to easily look-up online. Example - The academy awards does not list the art directors or set design winners on line - they favor actors.

Questions- Do you want photocopies? I do have tangible proof of his awards and mentions. If this article is edited again, do you want this article shortened? What should be cut? What should I cut - teachers; education details; intros of others; other details or lists? There is a matter of the image, it is proper to use it and if documentations from the artist (subject) or me is requested I can do so. Help me with getting the image through the proper channels to be approved. Thank you very much for helping me getting this article approved. All advice that you have for me is welcome. Again, in all candor please help me to understand the flaws of this article.Caryl Jean 18:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Caryl Jean 18:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alexander_Liccione. Please help me to understand how to improve the article. Caryl Jean 18:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alexander_Liccione. Please help me to understand how to improve the article,Caryl Jean 18:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Caryl Jean 18:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artistsfind (talk • contribs)

20:15:54, 16 March 2015 review of submission by Thill101


Hello - this is NOT a request for re-review. Not yet. At this point I'm just seeking guidance on how to make the entry look less like an advertisement. A "range of independent, reliable, and published sources..." does not really exist yet for this product. There are some press releases and a TechTarget article (all already in the References section). The core technology has been previously described in a separate Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenKBM ).

Would it help for me to remove marketing terms such as "service-aligned", "adaptive correlation", and "single-pane-of-glass"? Perhaps to list more potential negatives throughout? Or do the problems with the article go beyond those types of things?

I appreciate whatever guidance you can offer so that I can improve the article for acceptance.

Thanks

Thill101 (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Doe Part Three

Thank you for taking the time to help.

Fixed the edit and resubmit it. Draft:Donald_Gerrard_Doe Thanks again, -SageheartBK

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onel5969&oldid=651742488"