Jump to content

User talk:Sulfurboy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 77.86.86.38 (talk) at 07:41, 22 July 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

'I will be out of town the next few days and may be slow in responding to issues.'

See an issue needing an answer on my talk page that you could help with? Feel free to answer!

I will absolutely not respond to your comment unless you follow the following simple rules in placing a comment on my talk page.

  • 1)You have read my FAQ below and haven't asked a question answered by it.
  • 2)Appropriately post a new section (see button/link above) at the BOTTOM of the page
  • 3)Do not ask me to just generically fix your page without a specific question, I'm not interested in fixing everyone's page for them.
  • 4)You need to hyperlink to the page you are discussing, this is probably most important. If it's remotely difficult for me to figure out what page you're talking about, I'm not going to waste my time.

Sorry if those four things seem harsh, but I review and patrol hundreds of pages a day and can't keep up with all the replies.

FAQ You declined a page I submitted for AfC and have a question... If that question is directly answered by one of the hyperlinks posted after I reviewed it, I will not answer you. You'd be surprised how often it happens. The posted links are posted for a reason!

Why did you not leave a comment when you tagged my page? I typically won't unless I think the issue may be unclear. New page patrol is overwhelmed (~50,000 pages to be reviewed with only ~1000 being currently reviewed every week) and if I spent the time to explain every tag, I wouldn't be able to review even a third of the pages I do now.

I completely disagree with a tag you placed on my page!! If you disagree with a tag, please state why on the article's talk page and leave a note here for me to review it. If you think the tag was a blatant error on my part (it happens, sorry), then please revert the edit and leave me a message letting me know that was the case.

I don't see a conversation or message I posted on your talk page... Check the archives, conversations are typically automatically archived after five days. If you wish to comment on an archived section, please move it back to the main page. I do not regularly monitor my archive pages.

Why do you keep tagging my page? Do you have something against me? No. Occasionally after you address certain issues, more issues will arise on my re-review. For example, let's say I first tagged your page for having no references, after you add references I may go back and add a tag for no in-line citations (which would have been irrelevant before there were references). Also, if there are multiple, small issues with your page and I can see you're new, I might just tag a few things at a time instead of overwhelming a new user. Please do not take any of my tags personally. I do not target people. I go straight down the list on the new page patrol. I do however regularly watch pages I review, which is why you might see me come up often in edits on your page.

Will you help me fix issues you tagged on my page? Typically not, unless I need a break from new page patrol. Why? I used to do this and it got to be very overwhelming. I feel the actual new page patrol needs my help more than helping to fix things on already existing pages (not to mention there's others much more qualified than me for most fixes suchs as categories, copyediting, etc). It doesn't hurt to ask though, but please do not be offended if I do not help or don't respond. The tea house is your friend, use it. Note: I will always clarify on tags, though. All in all,don't hope the house will build itself!

I would like to give you an award, thank you note, or barnstar... Thanks! You're awesome. And I always love the support. But please put it on my user page, not my talk page. :)

Richard A. Kimball, Jr. page

Hello Sulfurboy. Thank you very much for approving the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Kimball,_Jr. I've been working on it since January and it's a relief to see it's been moved out of the draft!

I would just like to know if I can still add a new section after Business Career or Health Conferences? I'm thinking of adding Telehealth Advocacy or Patient-Centered Advocacy as a new section.

The references include:

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/5-ways-your-hospital-can-benefit-from-patient-centered-care.html

http://electronichealthreporter.com/telehealth-a-promising-future-for-healthcare/

http://www.corporatewellnessmagazine.com/column/telemedicine-an-ally-in-the-fight-to-get-your-life-back/

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/population-health/chronic-disease-management-improving-outcomes-for-low-income-patients.html

http://www.thestreet.com/story/13165484/2/heres-whats-standing-in-the-way-of-a-technological-revolution-in-health-care.html

I also read Wikipedia's rules on attribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution). I thought it'll be best to course through you the above-mentioned references just to be sure it's within Wikipedia's guidelines.

Thank you very much! Itscamilla (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhushan Mate

Hello Sulfurboy, Thank you for your review and rejection of my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bhushan_Mate. I am wondering if you read article and all my references, there is no advertise in the article. I have given enough referecnes supporting the article. Bhushan is a wellknown photographer in India, I wonder, why his article was not created in the past.... There are many strong referecnes in the Marathi language which you might have not understood. All my comments are neutral and loyally true from the references. Could you help me undertstand which sentences you think are not neutral and not true?

I am also getting a feeling that since Bhushan is from India and the article creator is also from India, are you having any bias against both of them? (this is not a allegation but thought) I can share humdreds of so called celebraties including porn actor and porn accresses having articles on Wikipedia. The official websites of those mentioned on their Wikipedia pages directs the people to the sites which are mostly provibited in most of the countries. Why can't we have the article of a honest person who is doing something for the society on Wikipedia? Coolgama (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reason the article was rejected was because of lack of inline citations needed for a BLP. It had nothing to do with the sources. And the accusation that I am some how biased towards Indian people is absolutely absurd and unfounded. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coolgama, while the article does have inline citations, they are not from acceptable reliable sources. I mean, this is reliable to some extent, I suppose, but it's also a very positive (read, promotional) write-up of a very small exhibition, in a local newspaper. Consensus across the project is that such local news, which inevitably is very positive, is not sufficient to establish notability per our standards, such as WP:ARTIST, in this case. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am really surprised to the see the comments - "write-up of a very small exhibition, in a local newspaper". I guess, you are not aware of the sales figures of the 'so called' local newspapers. First of all, these are not just local newspapers including Sakal times, Maharashtra Times, Times of India, DNA are the trusted newspapers who are having a daily volume in Millions. All these newspapers are highly responsible and trust worthy. There are thousands of articles which are sourced against these newspapers in Wikipedia itself. I am afraid, I can not agree with you on this comment/point and request you to add/approve the article as Wikipedia article.Coolgama (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, you might not be aware that at least few thousand people visited that exhibition and appreciated the efforts. I have personally seen the crowd and have recorded the positive comments from the people over there. First of all, the judgment should not be made on the news coming in which newspaper and how many people attended the same. It is the quality of the work which is been done by the artist. Hope you would agree with me. I again request you add/approve the article as Wikipedia article.Coolgama (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, let it not be a little local newspaper then, but a big one. It doesn't change the basic premise, that we have very little coverage. And of course the source of the news, rather than the quality of the artist, does matter: this is an encyclopedia, not a journal that assesses the value of this or that artist. That the Sakal Times article is far from neutral is pretty evident at first glance. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, I think, you are mixing neutrality of newspaper and neutrality of Wikipedia. Newspaper and especially other media like Television will give non neutral information. The news many times are glorified as the newspaper want to improve their TRP and want to increase their sale. We as wikipedions has responsibility to convert that content that into a neutral language in the Wikipedia article. That is what I have done. Secondly, even if the news is at the small corner, it does not mean that it is not important. As per Wikipedia guidelines, the content to be added should have references and should not be have information on our own or non true. I hope, you agree to me. When I have followed all the pre requisites of any Wikipedia article, why it is taking so much time and discussion whether it should be added or not? If we do not add this article in Wikipedia, it would be loss to Wikipedia. I am making once again request you to add the same in Wikipedia.... Coolgama (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me put it this way, then: the article you cited from that newspaper was not neutral. And things in a small corner are by definition less important than things in a big corner. And I can go on, if you like, and if Sulfurboy does not mind, about the individual notes: ""Friendly Shots" (PUNE MIRROR) 12 September 2013" is an incomplete citation and there is no way to verify what this is, whether it's reliable, etc. 3. this is just a catalog of photos on a website. 4. this is his own website. 5. ""ART" (MID DAY) 13 September 2013" is a woefully incomplete citation, see item 1. 6. " "Bhushan Mate" (PUDHARI) 21 February 2015": ditto. 7. this is an invitation on some website to an event the importance of which cannot be established without reliable secondary sources. 8. ""Bhushan Mate" (DNA) 16 Sepetember 2013": see item 1. 9. ""Bolnar Nisarg" (Maharashtra Times - Pune Times) 24 February 2015": ditto. 10. this may be something. Maybe. 11. " "Bhushan Mate" (PUNE MIRRIOR) 21 February 2015": see item 1. 12, 13, and 14 may be something, but do they verify anything of importance? That he was in a play is not a reason for notability, certainly not for someone who is supposed to be a famous photographer. 15. is the same as 2. 16. " "BHUSHAN MATE" (THE TIMES OF INDI) 28 February 2015": see item 1. And then there's [www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV1Mp6r7qSY this YouTube video] which shows a man, allegedly our subject, playing a guitar and singing.

    This draft process provided you an opportunity to improve and resubmit. Rather than arguing with reviewers, consider improving it. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marianne Hirsch - Draft

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

Hi Sulfurboy! Thanks for looking over my article on Marianne Hirsch. The article has been marked as up for immediate deletion due to copyright violations from a single source, and I wanted to check in. Four sentences appear to directly match the source: one simply states her position, and therefore cannot be put into new language (“Marianne Hirsch is the xxx Professor of xxx”); the second names a center she founded (“She is one of the founders of xxx”); and the third and fourth respectively contain a list of grants and a list of service positions (“recipient of fellowships from” and “has served on”). If these are to remain accurate they can at most be changed by 2-3 words, and I’d be happy to make those corrections to the three violating sentences.

All other sentences in the profile contain new information, new citations, a new order, and new language, and much of what’s been marked as plagiarism is not found on the page you’ve cited (immigration date, time teaching at Dartmouth / professional development at Dartmouth, focus of scholarship, etc.). Half of the article has not been marked as containing any plagiarism. The article does follow the conventions of an academic profile –– job, education, past jobs, awards, service, scholarship, publications –– but I do not believe it violates copyright in overlapping with the cited academic page. I’d appreciate the opportunity to fix the three violating sentences and have the rest of the article published.

Please let me know if anything else would be necessary, and apologies if I’ve contacted you in the wrong venue (not very experienced here, eep). Thanks! –– knifegames — Preceding undated comment added 06:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an update: RHaworth sent me the text, and I've made some changes to the wording, added additional citations, etc. I'm hopeful that the new version is up to par. Thanks again! Knifegames (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Approved. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Vaembu Aathi Muthumari Amman Temple

In case you hadn't noticed, I brought this page up for discussion at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Sri Vaembu Aathi Muthumari Amman Temple. The page creator has three times removed several maintenance templates I added, without first addressing the problems. I have also been trying to communicate with the page creator, without success. 220 of Borg 00:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the page on my watchlist. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but they have since done this, removing the prod, removing maintenance templates for the fourth time, and adding non-english text. I have manually reverted all, except the prod and English text added. 220 of Borg 09:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:34:50, 11 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Malcolmwoodhams


Draft:Association of Guernsey Charities

Hi. Thank you again for your comments and help with my first article. I have followed your advice and rewritten some sections and added additional independent citations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Association_of_Guernsey_Charities MalcolmWoodhams (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)MalcolmwoodhamsMalcolmWoodhams (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MalcolmWoodhams (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC) I will look at this later tonight, if I forget, ping me again tomorrow. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12:17:55, 11 July 2015 review of submission by Vivolasting


Vivolasting (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC) What is the problem with the articles?[reply]

Request on 13:03:20, 11 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Sonam R Thakur


}}

22:42:59, 11 July 2015 review of submission by Dave Truesdale


I'm not clear on why some of Bryant Villeponteau's references are overly promotional, as they are just patents he has. What is the difference between an author's wiki page listing all of his books (which someone could purchase) and a listing of patents? Patents cannot even be purchased, so they are hardly more promotional than a listing of an author's works. The listing of patents, on the other hand, reinforces the scientist's credibility, respectability, and stature.

I am also unclear on why some references are not kosher if they are linked to external sources. I don't get that. This is my first attempt at creating a wiki page, so I thank you in advance for your patience.

Dave Truesdale Dave Truesdale (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Truesdale (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the person who pointed it out, but I'm not sure how I can help if you don't see comparing a patient list to a book listing of an author is apples and oranges, not to mention to privacy concerns of listing patients. And there is no standard via WP or me personally that I see a patient list influencing credibility, not to mention the issue is notability, not credibility. And which links are you particularly concerned with in staying? Sulfurboy (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:53:16, 12 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Marcella.lazarus


Hi!

Thank you for your feedback on my article on Leslie Lazarus. I struggled to submit the first draft and at a loss on how to correct the footnotes and citations, even after reading the citations for beginners! Is there someone who can help me, by showing me how with my article, ie doing the first citation correctly for me? Help!!!

Cheers Marcella

Marcella.lazarus (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse

Request on 19:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC) Submission declined: Too much close paraphrasing

Hello Graham,

you declined my Article about the voxeljet AG. Draft:Voxeljet AG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Voxeljet_AG The reason was too much paraphrasing. So it would be nice if you could be more specific, which phrases or parts of the article should be changed. Then I will do it immediately.

Thank you for your help and have nice day,

David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwikipedia94 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13 July 2015 for assistance with rejected page submission

Hi, first a bit of background on the page which was rejected (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Genesis_Foundation) I created the article and went to move it into the main space but the name was not allowed due to another page with a similar name - my page is 'Genesis Foundation' but there is already a 'Genesis Foundation (Colombia). Consequently I submitted the article for review with the hope that the page could go to the main space with that name - perhaps with a disambiguation page and a short description in brackets? - but the article was rejected due to context and the name was not mentioned, when the reason I submitted it was for the name. Could you tell me if I am going down the correct process and if once I make the changes you've suggested it could be put up with the correct name? Thanks for your time Watfordfan23 (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:01:24, 13 July 2015 review of submission by Sivaks2001


Hi I am bit lost in declining the article and want an understanding from your end. The first decline was because of the wrong citations w.r.t wiki the second decline was because of the content were not neutral enough the third decline was by you stating that the article is a duplicate and you will consider the other draft

Sir, after declining the first time because of lack of proper citations, I changed and included all the citations properly. Second time the draft was modified and changed the tone and also tried to put proper referencing in according to the wiki standards

Now you have rejected stating that there exist other draft with similar name and you will consider the other draft. the other draft was already rejected because of tone being not neutral. Hence I have modified and changed to this tone. So why we are going in circles.

Further, I saw one comment to say that the article is not notable. I am really surprised when one just blatently says such points without understanding a contribution significance.

The person has created histroy by having 2740 episode show aired over 100 countries. The person has first TV artist anchor atleast in India which is Astrology focused The person has acted as main lead in first astrology themed movie in India These are few of contributions of the person (Sundeep Kochar) in the field of acting/astrology.

Wiki uploads about a person when a person has contributed in one area of expertise. In this case, Sundeep has contributed the growth of astrology through acting or vice versa. His shows were aired in more than 100 countries and that is significant as nearly half the world sees his program.

The content is neutral, grammer is decent and references are valid. So not sure why it is rejected thrice and giving three different reasons. Sivaks2001 (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I may: first of all, two submissions for one person, that's not helpful. Second, they're more or less the same. Third, the most recent one (with (actor)) is marginally better than the others, but still not well written, not neutrally written, not well verified. For instance, that "Predictive Ability" is...well, not encyclopedic. Predicting a second term for Obama, most everyone did that--and in this case it's verified to the guy's own Facebook page, and that UPA government thing is sourced to his own blog. If you want this draft to be taken seriously, all that will have to go, as will puffery such as honorary doctorates and other not apparently notable awards. And really, if you cite properly, to where facts are clearly linked to bits in the text (see WP:CITE), you will make it a lot easier for us to assess the importance of your topic. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the other article?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sundeep_Kochar

WP:PROF

Draft:Arijit_Das was resubmitted with minimal changes except for shortening the list of refs.. I declined it, but I gave an explanation--there is no way from your decline that he could have figured out why he wasn't notable, especially because the relevant guideline is WP:PROF not WP:GNG, tho meeting either would do. If he had been notable, the refs would have been adequate: they're perfectly clear numbered footnotes, tho run together in a paragraph. First he listed scientific refs that he used for background of his work, then he listed all his papers , then comments about him, and then in a separate section he listed the relevant links for the data on his career. (of course, I am used to this sort of academic writing), With an adequate explanation the first time, he might not have resubmitted and cause extra work . I know it's a balance between how much is worth saying and the need to get them done, but beyond a point going too fast makes it harder. And I limit myself to reviewing drafts in fields of which I have some fat least minimal knowledge, unless their total impossibility is obvious. I would not review a draft in a field using field-specific terminology that I did not understand. no one person is responsible for doing them all. DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about what must have been a slip of the mouse. DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I am not competent in the area of assessing academics, probably through my own choice. Thus I have taken, where there is the slightest doubt, to asking DGG to take a look. They have chosen to adopt a skill set and knowledge I do not have. At risk of overloading them, may I suggest you become aware of their work and skills and and them for help from time to time? Fiddle Faddle 16:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I'll look at any such page. Several other people ask me also. Just a notification (eg {{U|DGG}} )is enough--I always see them DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:30:59, 13 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Peboer


I'm curious about some specifics of the Livid Instruments page denial. It "reads like a catalog" is pretty vague. While it does provide a lot of information about all the products, the language is dispassionate and doesn't make any claims that aren't referenced by outside sources. There are no benefits or advantages that a catalog might engage in. In short, the page is simply a comprehensive history of all the activity of the company, which seems like a good point of reference for study by people who need information. Peboer (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Peboer (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Peboer, Sulfurboy was absolutely correct in their assessment. The draft is a catalog, plain and simple. Even if some of the content were well-verified with references to reliable sources, the thing as a whole, with its plethora of pictures and technical descriptions, is a catalog and as such not really acceptable here. ("Comprehensive history of the activity of the company"--well, only in as much as that history is written up in secondary sources, preferably in print.) I'm sorry, but that's the way things are. For an accepted example of a similar company, but with fewer pictures and details and more reliable sourcing, see Keeley Electronics. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:15:29, 13 July 2015 review of submission by David.x.wang


Dear Surfurboy,

Thanks for your review and comment for my submission. I have questions regarding the reference you pointed out. Did you mean more references are needed to cross-reference some claims in the article, or simply more independent references that's related to "Nanonex Corporation" are needed?

It also seems that entries for similar kind of companies are not supported with many references; for example, the entry for company called EV Group: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EV_Group

Thank you a lot for your help and clarification.

Dave

David.x.wang (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page you mentioned is actually being considered for deletion. All the sources you have listed on your page are either primary or just basically press releases. We need independent, reliable coverage of the company not just press releases or things that would be considered WP:ROUTINE Sulfurboy (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:59, 13 July 2015‎ Sulfurboy (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (3,551 bytes) (+27)‎ . . (clean up, added orphan tag using AWB)

You added an orphan tag to the article EgyCon. From my understanding it's a tag added to an article that has no other articles linking to it, which is not the case since Comic Con does so. Please correct me if I am wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheShamy (talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you linked it to there after I added the tag. At the time of review, nothing linked to it. I've removed the tag. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confused feedback

Hi,

You recently reviewed (and declined) my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Association_of_Guernsey_Charities - however you provided some useful feedback (and said that it was a well written article). I made some more corrections as you suggested. However another reviewer has declined it, saying that they consider the article too long and detailed. I'm a bit confused as I had looked at several other articles about similar organisations to gauge the appropriate level of detail - and thought that I had it about right. I'd be grateful for any further comment / feedback (it's my first Wikipedia article - so still learning!!). Thanks in advance.

MalcolmWoodhams (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask DGG, the most recent person to decline it, for their particular issues with the page. I can tell you that one section that would seem a bit over the top is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Association_of_Guernsey_Charities#Membership_of_the_AGC. Keep in mind wikipedia has a global audience. Make sure everything mentioned in the article is tailored to a wider audience. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I sent message to DGG and have amended the paragraph and removed some of the info which may not have been of interest to a wider audience. I had originally tried to include an appropriate level of detail for anyone searching Wikipedia trying to find info about the organization. I have re-submitted. Thanks again for your advice. MalcolmWoodhams (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the references for authentic sources about the article

I have edited the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Giresh_Naik_K&redirect=no , added new references and also provided authentic links about the article. kindly verify & approve to article release I have added link of official Facebook page my of Movie" Four pillars of basement". It provides the information about Director(about the article: Giresh Naik) as well.

Kindly guide me if any further details required for accepting my article

Facebook is not an appropriate source. Please read the linked articles in your rejections. Also, please do not remove previous rejection notices from the page. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SOSORRYCARTOON

Hi Graham, I have removed all the PEACOCK TERMS from the article, request you review it and allow submission of the article. thanks so much

Sosorrycartoon (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:18:13, 14 July 2015 review of submission by Rwbest


Submission declined, well, that's disappointing. It is a translation of Wereldelektriciteitsgebruik at the Dutch Wikipedia and contains the newest available data from the International Energy Agency. I don't want to merge it at Electric energy consumption, which in my opinion is too long and outdated, but to add content and submit it under a different title. In particular I'd like to describe scenario's for electricity consumption in coming decades published by IEA and World Energy Council. But how can that be done without violating Wikipedia neutrality? Please advise me. Rwbest (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rwbest (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any scenarios like you suggest would need to be sourced. You can't formulate your own opinions. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:42:49, 14 July 2015 review of submission by EBFree


Hi -- As I am new to Wikipedia submissions, I would love clarity on one thing: Are the citations for the article not good enough because they aren't varied enough? They are all third party sources that have written about MealEnders, not articles that we wrote. I tried to be varied and pull from a variety of sources.

Any intel would be really helpful as I am trying to do my best to comply with wiki policy.

Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MealEnders

Thanks!

EBFree (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC) EBFree (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:19:03, 14 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by 173.250.185.177


Hi – This article was reviewed and the reviewer said "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability".

The subject has won a major international award, the FSF Award for the Advancement of Free Software, as noted and referenced in the submission. Furthermore, the subject of the article is the only recipient in the history of this award who does not already have a Wikipedia page. He is also the creator of the IPython project, which is notable enough to already have its own wikipedia page. I think these two facts together meet Wikipedia's notability criteria.

If there's anything more I can do to make this clear in the article (aside from the text and references I've already included) I would appreciate some specific pointers! Thanks for reviewing and responding!

173.250.185.177 (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other people who have won this award have wikipedia pages, does not automatically entitle someone else. Also the creation of something doesn't necessarily make its creator notable either. I would recommend reading the notability guidelines that were posted in your rejection. Particularly you need independent, reliable sources that aren't WP:ROUTINE and aren't primary. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Open Contracting

Where the talk page and answer??? Deleting without answer is very aggressive, please put it back and put an answer and please talk. --Krauss (talk) 09:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't hyperlink to anything, so I have no idea what you're talking about. It probably got moved to archives automatically. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:38:29, 15 July 2015 review of submission by 122.162.86.92


Hello. The article was declined. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ashok_Chopra It would really help me a lot if you could please help fix this. I am very new at this, so not quite sure how to add the references/footnotes in the correct manner. Thank you.

122.162.86.92 (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


13:40:36, 15 July 2015 review of submission by Ahmedahmed777


Hello. I do not understand the reason for the draft being declined. Your comments were adhered to and most materials in the article has been sourced using footnotes; and any duplicate copies were deleted.

Thanks,

Ahmed

Ahmedahmed777 (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically are you concerned about? Pretty sure the issues were addressed. Not to mention, you creating multiple articles of the same thing makes it very confusing on us to keep up. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article "Nicolas M. Chaillan" modified according to your request

Hello Graham,

First of all, thank you for taking the time to review my article.

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nicolas_M._Chaillan

I'm focused on a few hand picked notable serial entrepreneurs in the Valley, NY and DC, working on their profile, that's my expertise.

I wanted to give you some feedback regarding the page of Nicolas M. Chaillan.

First of all, I added several links: - Reuters! - DC Sun Times! - Bloomberg! - IAM (very big in IP) - Yahoo finance (!) - 01net (!) - OOH TV (French TV) - OnWindows.com - Tribune.fr (top 3 French newspaper)

There are dozen or more links but that would be a lot...

Also, please note that the existing references are from verifiable, reliable sources from famous newspaper such as: - Washington Post (!!) - Washington Business Journal (!!) - A dedicated article on him on Bisnow which is also very famous on the East Coast - Totalfood, well known for Hospitality articles - Bloomberg (!!) - Microsoft Blog did one too - Technical.ly !

I have now more than two references for each section of my article.

I have a total of 22 references now! This is way more than what I usually provide so at this point I hope it is more than enough to prove his notability...

He has hundreds of results on Google US and Google FR (since he is French but moved here).

As you understood, he is a very successful entrepreneur and entrepreneurs, like football or basketball players, deserve to be recognized for creating jobs and value in the United States.

I submitted the article again and hopefully you will be able to approve it since I hope to have addressed your concern.

Let me know if you have any further concerns.

Thanks a lot, Tom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.62.70 (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you fix the formatting of your references, I'd be happy to review it. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind showing me the right syntax in ONE example and then I can replicate it? I'm not so sure what's wrong but I will fix it. Thanks Tom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.172.96.244 (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Graham, I actually just fixed the references, I used the same syntax than Elon Musk's page. Let me know if it works, I believe you can review it ! Thanks Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.172.96.244 (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:25:50, 15 July 2015 review of submission by Mobilitie LLC


Thank you for providing feedback on Gary Jabara’s article. We have gone through the golden rule and notability guidelines, and strongly believe that our reference links meet Wikipedia’s guidelines and requirements. For additional reassurance, we took a look at other notable Newport Beach residents and noticed that Gary Primm for instance had much fewer reference links, but still managed to have his Wikipedia page published. Gary Jabara’s page has a total of 14 reference links, all of which are from reliable and independent publications such as Forbes, LA Times, Sports Business Journal, Ernst and Young, and the Orange County Business Journal. We urge you to please reconsider your decision or to possibly provide additional direction on what edits need to be made specifically. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.” Mobilitie LLC (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that the acceptance of another article has no bearing on later articles, comparing it to another article is useless in trying to get it approved. The issue with the sources, like I already said, is that they focus on the companies not the individual. We need articles that actually profile or discuss the person individually for him to pass the golden rule as you mentioned. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Ramsey

Hi there. Thanks so much for accepting my submission for the Russ Ramsey article last week. I'm hoping that you might be able to help me with a few outstanding issues with the article. Most importantly, I'd like to address the orphan tag on the entry. I found two articles that already mention Ramsey that would be very simple to add a link to. Would you be able to do that? Since I have a COI and follow the "bright line", I'd prefer not to do it myself. Here's where they are:

Secondly, I uploaded a headshot of Ramsey that can be added to the article's infobox. That file is here. Could you add it in? Let me know if you're unable to make these edits and I can reach out to other editors. I wanted to ask you first, since you created the article, but I see in your FAQ that you frequently are busy with new articles. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on vacation right now and really don't have the time for editing, just focusing on responding to issues. I see no COI issues in doing the above things mentioned. But if you want to reach out to other editors in an abundance of caution I understand. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#11:35:44, 15 July 2015 review of submission by Simon.wbush

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#11:35:44, 15 July 2015 review of submission by Simon.wbush. Thanks. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

21:14:17, 15 July 2015 review of submission by Wikicohen


Wikicohen (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are these independent sources OK though? Wikicohen (talk)

What sourcs are you talking about?

00:16:58, 16 July 2015 review of submission by 99.167.82.190


Greetings and thank you for reviewing our submission. We are very interested in addressing the issues that you noted previously and believe that we have stripped out "peacock" terms and written this in a more encyclopedic format. In fact, we have tried to be in-line with the writing on an organization, Peace One Day, that also performs peace work. Is it possible for you to note a few specific examples on our draft that you think need to be changed so that we understand what you're talking about? 99.167.82.190 (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I rewrote the first paragraph to try and make that sound encyclopedic. The rest is going to need a lot more work. I'll be glad to help rewrite that--but you may not like what is left. What you have right now is in between a brochure and a press release. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

07:18:54, 16 July 2015 review of submission by Azradon


Hello,

thanks for taking the time and reviewing the draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fair_Stone. The article still seems to be missing the formal tone. I reviewed the text for any claim or marketing blah blah. I removed 3-4 sentences but could not find anything else. Is there anything in particular you critize? The article is meant to describe the formal requirements of the standard as well as the procedure. The previous reviews were very helpful and I have adjusted (i.e. reduced) the text accordingly. Segments such as the motivation or the need for a standard have been omitted. The reception segment contains an endorsement ("particulary recomendable" label), this however is a justified third party evaluation.

Kind regards Azradon (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Azradon (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I won't have the time to re-review it for a few days as I am on vacation. But I would recommend that if you feel confident about it to go ahead and re-submit it. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12:04:33, 16 July 2015 review of submission by Erinhistoric


Erinhistoric (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sulfurboy,

Thank you for reviewing the Historic Hotels of America draft page. Is it possible to move the Historic Hotels of America content on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Trust_for_Historic_Preservation to make its own page? I'm wondering that because Historic Hotels of America is licensed out of the National Trust for Historic Preservation and is not operated by this group.

Also, one of their other programs has their own Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Trust_Community_Investment_Corporation.

Why would Historic Hotels of America follow a different rule than the National Trust Community Investment Corporation?

Would you take a look at that again and let me know what you think? It doesn't seem fair that the Investment group would be able to create their own page but Historic would need to be part of the National Trust page.

Many thanks Erinhistoric (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)Erinhistoric[reply]

The existence of other pages is not a means of proving why another page should exist via WP. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:18:07, 16 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by LeahVanRooy


Hello,

I am have only submitted one other article in the past, so this is still new to me. Sulfurboy, thank you for reviewing my submission. I see that you had rejected the submission for the following reasons: Submission declined on 10 July 2015 by Sulfurboy (talk). This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule.

I am failing to see the issue with my sources and the was wondering if you could point out to me what specific areas concerned you. I am happy to make adjustments, I am just unsure where to start as I feel the sources selected follow the requirements. Any guidance would be appreciated.

Here is a link to the article you reviewed. It was covering a company called 4imprint. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LeahVanRooy/sandbox

Thanks so much!

LeahVanRooy (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LeahVanRooy (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing my article.

I have been working on this article for a long time now. Many delays in publishing have even resulted in some aspects of the article becoming dated in the fast moving world of cybersecurity.

Firstly I would like to point out that the statement of 'excessive or improper use of non-free material, is grossly unfounded. All material is historical in nature and references are cited for all aspects. All diagrams are posted as free material, and any and all parts of the article are not plagiarized.

Secondly the 'subject notability' and reliable sources has been extensively debated and approved, please see the extract below:

My article was approved allready as qualifying as being widely spoken about and so forth by Winner42. Winner42 allready approved this regarding reliable sources. Strange you refer me to an article very much the same, CMM, for formatting, then say there are no references. The last stage was to format it into an acceptable publication. Now you have reverted to previous debates. See below:

NOTE from previous discussion with Wikipedia publication process, in a letter to the editor: I would like to provide you with some background what would not necessary be in the article. I have been working on this model, CS5L CMM for a few years now, and although it has been adopted by some state governments and companies it has not made its way to Wikipedia. As you may see in my references that there was an attempt to develop a capability maturity model in the energy sector which did not get past C2M2. Although the CMM model exists, and there are Wikipedia pages allready with this content, it is not applied to Cybersecurity, only the C2M2 in the energy sector. This measurement model CMM in cybersecurity, is quickly becoming a standard in the industry to fill a void. There is great need for a measurement much like credit scoring in the cyber security world, to enable vendors to measure agents that they do business with. We have developed a web based SAAS UI that allows companies to independently have access to an easy to use interface to collect data and measure their security. This is an open system, (free) and is developed in the spirit of maturing capability nationwide.

  • I'm honestly not even sure what you're talking about. I assume it was once a different article in your sandbox page? You should create draft pages in the future to avoid confusion. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and see you soon!

Hi Sulfurboy,

I'm glad to read that you were ready to approve my article, I've been working on it for three months and I hope it will be soon approved. I'm going to follow your piece of advice and resubmit it again.

Thanks a lot!

CyrilG4 (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

00:09:33, 17 July 2015 review of submission by Annlyons


Annlyons (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC) Hi, Would reallly appreciate feedback and advice to get this right. Each edit, it gets better - have been reviewing other Wiki posts and see that others are using IMDB references, film reviews, and similiar info- any specifics on when it's ok and usable? Any other avenues to support? Will it help to create one of the boxes with history of works? ie music videos, tv show.. Airplane repo-[reply]

Tough part is most info is on Imdb- Please help.. Thanks so much.

Looks fine now. I approved it.Sulfurboy (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

09:29:57, 17 July 2015 review of submission by Cloudy001


Cloudy001 (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC) I am not clear why the artcle has again been rejected. You have asked me to 'cite your sources using footnotes' and I think I have done that. Please could you provide further explanation.[reply]

There is entire points and lines that lack citations. Please keep in mind the inline citation standard is much higher for living people. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:29:00, 17 July 2015 review of submission by Daltonsocial6


Daltonsocial6 (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I need some help and I'm hoping you can help me. Is there any way you can point out "peacock terms" within my submission because everything outlined in the piece has sources. I've read many other entries on wiki for business men such as Mark Cuban and Donald Trump and tried to mirror the tone...Straight forward, just the facts. If you could please point out the areas that you feel are non-neutral, that would be helpful. Then I can address those areas specifically. I've been researching a curating sources for months and I just don't know where else to go from here. Your insight would be greatly appreciated!

Jukka Kalevi Salonen page

Sulfurboy,

Thanks for your comments on the page submission for Jukka_Kalevi_Salonen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jukka_Kalevi_Salonen Followed your advice and removed secondary and corporate references, added some new third-party media references, and took out "promotional" language. Hope this meets the issues you raised. Thanks again.

Wrtr63 (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Wrtr63Wrtr63 (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sulfurboy, I have extensively checked my article for two areas of contention, namely "contain excessive or improper use of non-free material" and "references do not adequately show the subject's notability". The article has no use of non-free material so that is not an issue. Note all diagrams are also free source. The article has references for each part in its construct showing the build from CMM and C2M2 though to the current model, thus showing its notability. I cannot determine what changes need to be made before a resubmit. Can you please assist me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean p connors (talk • contribs) 16:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advise changes needed before re-submission as 2 areas of contention are not substantiated

Dear Sulfurboy, I have extensively checked my article for two areas of contention, namely "contain excessive or improper use of non-free material" and "references do not adequately show the subject's notability". The article has no use of non-free material so that is not an issue. Note all diagrams are also free source. The article has references for each part in its construct showing the build from CMM and C2M2 though to the current model, thus showing its notability. I cannot determine what changes need to be made before a resubmit. Can you please assist me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean p connors (talk • contribs) 16:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) At first glance, the sources seem to show the notability of other things, such as CERT-RMM. The sources I can find don't seem to mention CS5L (Cybersecurity Strategy 5 Layout Capability Maturity Model). (Some of the sources are hard to find, and you really need to post page numbers and brief quotations to help those of us who can't find the sources.) Really, I don't think you can change the article to make it suitable. You just have to wait until CS5L itself gets significant coverage: for some topics it takes many years, but it could be much sooner than that. Until then, look for ways outside of Wikipedia to share your creation. Since you don't make money from CS5L, I suggest you post your research that cites how you developed CS5L on a low cost or free hosting provider, or one of these: Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexiulian25 (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Hello, sorry for disturbing, but i want to report to you something. This page Superleague Greece has been violated. Can you undo the list of champions also correctly and to check if something else was deleted. Thank you.[reply]

Advise changes needed before re-submission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ray_Zinn

Hofland (talk) 06:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC) A friend asked me to help out. I've noticed that you suggest more context in the draft page for Ray Zinn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ray_Zinn).[reply]

Can you help out and let me know what your missing (pointing to the how to write a better article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles does not really help).

Another reviewer, user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elee_(renamed) seem to suggest that this article is well written and complete. Also, my friend has corrected the issues related to copyright (there are no longer copied items from other sources). She is stuck and needs some suggestions/direction to move forward and published the article.

Thank you for your help.Hofland (talk) 06:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources are cited do not actually state the info which is claimed in the article. Especially some of the direct biography bits which would be considered most controversial. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hofland, the article is also an excessively personal biography for a quite minor figure. If it is added to mainspace, I will certainly nominate it for afd. DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hofland (talk) 06:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Thank you for the update.[reply]

Advise

06:39:23, 20 July 2015 review of submission by Nickfowler67


The Beach Recovery Foundation is the only organization I can find that is trying to cure coastal erosion, not just dump sand that quickly washes away. I was able to find an article on them in a paper out in American Samoa which shows them getting interviewed on TV there (two independent sources). In Googling them at the Outer Banks, I found talk about them in the Island Free Press, but no actual story. There is a video of a rally they organized at the Bonner Bridge, but the news talked about the rally itself and not them (two more independent sources). I also found a picture of one of their representatives in Jamaica but I see Wikipedia has The Examiner on their ban list. There was also a picture of their celebrity spokesmodel from California, but that's not something I felt appropriate for the page. Actually, I didn't think it necessary to add all the above either, but I did add what made sense to do at your request. They also said they will be speaking to the United Nations in October but don't want to announce that yet. That's a lot of independent sources right there, thousands of miles apart.

In sum, the Beach Recovery Foundation is actually doing something to repair our damaged planet, not just talking about the problem. They have done so for years very quietly, paying for everything themselves. It would indeed be sad to know this honorable non-exploitive non headline-grabbing approach is being used against them. The more people that know about them the better. Please approve the page so others can have a chance to add their news items as well. Thanks.

Nickfowler67 (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't approve a page just because it involves someone doing something noble or good for the world. That is not apart of our guidelines. We need significant coverage in reliable sources. Sorry. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:49:30, 20 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Ahmedahmed777


Hello. Kindly delete the draft and all other previous drafts; because they are still showing on the net once someone googles the name Al-Sabah. Many thanks.

Ahmedahmed777 (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:07:37, 20 July 2015 review of submission by Nigelyoung51


Nigelyoung51 (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed this submission with several colleagues and we are having difficulty in understanding the reasons given for the rejection, primarily lack of outside coverage.

While I would acknowledge that the earlier references relate to coverage of the creation of the organization and its people, this objection cannot be leveled at the later references. In particular I would point out that The Academy of Experts is referred to (reference 12) in the Supreme Court judgment in Jones v Kaney, the second most important judgment relating to expert witnesses in the last half century; the Supreme Court judges assuming that the legal world would know about The Academy.

Likewise references 5, 6, 7 and 8 are from UK or Irish Governmental or Judicial bodies. We are having difficulty in seeing why these are not considered "outside" The Academy.

Perhaps you can advise and assist us. With thanks, Nigel Young Nigelyoung51 (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator observation: Dr Young is a Fellow of The Academy of Experts and the Former Chairman of the The Academy of Experts. As such he will be familiar with the term Conflict of Interest. I have placed the required notice on his talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The supreme court reference only mentions them once and would be considered a routine mention. All it says is "This Protocol was drafted by the Civil Justice Council with the assistance of work done by the Expert Witness Institute and the Academy of Experts." A simple passing mention of an academy does not make them inherently notable. Source five and six I can't check. Source seven does not even mention the academy. Eight is again just routine mention. I would encourage you to re-read the link posted in the rejection as what are considered appropriate sources to show notability as these are lacking the ability to come anywhere near would be SIGNIFICANT coverage. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:05:55, 20 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Michellerounds


Thank you for your review of my article.  I'm actually not Michelle Rounds, I'm writing the article about her (I'm her manager).  Can you please guide me as to what I need to do to correct the article.  Do I need to add references to press articles or something else?  I don't know what else I should be adding to show she is 'notable'. Any guidance you can give would be greatly appreciated.  Thank you.


Michellerounds (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC) Per the link already posted in the rejection, you need to show substantial coverage in reliable sources. The peacock terms also need to be removed and also make sure to use inline citations for the sources since it's an article about a living person. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Bacteria further reading

I do not quite understand your comment on Talk:Bacteria. There is in fact an extensive further reading section to this page, containing a number of standard textbooks. It would seem to me highly appropriate to add a current one--in fact, a few more recent ones should be added--the section is somewhat out of date. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC) Yeah I have no idea why I completely didn't see the further reading section. I'm going back and fixing it now. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello Sulfurboy. Your account has been granted the "rollbacker" and "reviewer" user rights. These user rights allow you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes and quickly revert the edits of other users.

Rollback user right
Please keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
Pending changes reviewer user right
The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection enabled is located at Special:StablePages. You may find the following pages useful to review:

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of reviewer or rollback. If you no longer want either of these user rights, contact me and I'll remove it, alternatively you can leave a request on the administrators' noticeboard. Happy editing! Swarm we ♥ our hive 23:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

00:11:15, 21 July 2015 review of submission by Senpei


Senpei (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Hi! I am writing the Wikipedia Page on Enid Farber, and I was wondering why it was denied? I'm wondering because I have gone through her list of credentials and know her as an accomplished Jazz photojournalist and there is enough press on her as well as notability in the industry and outside of it that it didn't make any sense to me.[reply]

Please let me know what I can do with the references or the page so that I can resubmit it. Thanks!

00:12:45, 21 July 2015 review of submission by Senpei


Senpei (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Hi! I am writing the Wikipedia Page on Enid Farber, and I was wondering why it was denied? I'm wondering because I have gone through her list of credentials and know her as an accomplished Jazz photojournalist and there is enough press on her as well as notability in the industry and outside of it that it didn't make any sense to me.[reply]

Please let me know what I can do with the references or the page so that I can resubmit it. Thanks!

re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Enid_Joyce_Farber.

04:51:51, 21 July 2015 review of submission by Qropsspecialists


Hi, I added updates after the 1st July update by HMRC on the new ROPS list and also added secondary sources from journalists as requested. Many thanks for reviewing and pointing out the lack of secondary sources. Best regards,

Richard

Qropsspecialists (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on the draft page. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

05:56:47, 21 July 2015 review of submission by Vivek.bekhabar


Hi, Thanks for reviewing the page. The article I feel is notable, since it has around 4 references which discusses it (in addition to the 3 for Gallery Soulflower), and other passing by sources which have not been mentioned here. Check this and this. I have done extensive research on aroma industry. I found Soulflower is one of the early company in this sector in India. Please go through all the articles I have shared. I still feel Soulflower could have a small article. The other brands in this category are Nyassa, Om Ved, khadi, Forest Essentials. Their is a no information about all these on wikipedia. And I don't feel that you mean this whole sector is not notable. The most coverage I could get for was Soulflower. So, I started making a page. What do you say ? Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I and about five other editors who have reviewed the page disagree. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Sulfurboy, Where are those other 5 editors ? I can't see comment of any of them. Even one of the editor tokyogirl79 made a lot of changes in the Draft and felt that it could satisfy minimum criteria. Why are you running away instead of being logical and giving replies. Why are you feeling sorry about this. I should feel sorry. I wasted my whole time. Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 06:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The comments are below your rejection notices on the draft page. And if I wanted to run away I would have just not responded to you. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK Sulfurboy, You see the first comment was put by FocusAndLearn regarding the notability criteria. After that the article has been revised many times & references citing has been done. Its my mistake that I didn't ask that editor to review again to tell me the difference.
  • After that all the comments are from tokyogirl79 (who also declined it), I had a conversation with that editor after making every edit. And even the editor did a major restructuring of the Draft and was somewhat convinced about it. I don't know...you tell the go ahead. Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 06:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 21 2015 review of All Power Labs

Hi Sulfurboy, I read the links you gave in your review and went back and made some edits to improve the neutrality of the article and remove some of the peacock usage. Thanks for taking the time to help improve the quality of our much beloved wikipedia.

I am an employee of this company who believes in their work, but am also committed to the principals of wikipedia. Forgive me if my bias comes through, I have been trying hard to minimize it. If you could point out any particular instances where you feel the language continues to be non-neutral, informal or peacocky, I would be glad to address them.

Thanks again for you work here. Nesdon (talk) 06:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:57:15, 21 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Paulhus15



Paulhus15 (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your time and review. Tamara Champlin's life is strong and relevant globally, and she is deserving to be here. There are many 3rd party links and cross links where she is mentioned in other wiki articles that I have cited adding a few more this morning. Any suggestions for specific changes from you: additions I should make or deletions I should consider, please advise. I have trimmed what might be viewed as peacock terms, added 2 book links and added family links that I know. I am also asking advice of other editors and stopped by the tea room for their advice. thanks again so much for your time and consideration Paulhus15 (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)@Paulhus15: I dropped by here to look at something else and your post intrigued me, so I looked at your draft. I have left you a large comment there which I hope will help you. It really adds a little more flesh to Sulfurboy's review. I think you have mistaken quantity for quality. There is much work to do and I hope very much that you enjoy doing it. It is up to you to prove that her life is "strong and relevant globally" rather than simply saying so. Fiddle Faddle 09:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thank you both again for your suggestions and all your help. I know what I need to do more specifically now with this draft and will work on it over the next couple weeks to perfect it. much gratitude and respect Paulhus15 (talk) 10:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:41:29, 21 July 2015 review of submission by Pamendez01

Hi Sulfurboy! Thank you for reviewing my article for creation. I noticed you marked "resembled advertising" and I wanted seek you out to better understand what you mean. I have over 1,000 well-cited, supported, notable, unbiased words from my perspective. In defense of your challenge to article notability, the U.S. President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities designated Lovewell (the subject of my article) as one of the nation's most effective arts education programs. I'm not sure what else needs to be done differently? I used countless other wikipedia articles as templates and read all creation guidelines and rules... What resembles an advertisement? I have scholarly references not related to the founder or the organization. Thank you for taking a second look. Pamendez01 (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the article is it reads more like a brochure for the program than an encyclopedic article. Someone who comes to the article isn't going to want or need every detail about every program. The article should focus primarily on the history, why it is notable and it's impact. For example that it seems to be cited as a teaching method by different research studies. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:41:38, 21 July 2015 review of submission by Bchd2


Hi Sulfurboy, The draft that was submitted initially was lacking some citations (apologies! Many of the descriptions of programs came from the same Health Department website so we did not include all citations initially). We've gone back and inserted citations/references according to Wikipedia policies. Please re-review this latest version! Thank you very much.Bchd2 (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bchd2 (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFC and perhaps some pointers

I come to review AFC articles from time to time, as it takes my fancy. Over the last dozen or more months I've been fairly active and have been told that I have been quite useful. It heartens me that you are doing the same.

I wonder if you would like a few pointers of some of the things I have learned. Indeed, I learned something new today.

I'll offer them anyway, and let you decide to consider them or not

  • I have learned always to check for copyright violations, but some are not obvious. One such is Draft:Face Recognition where someone, presumably the contributing editor, has copied a student paper verbatim. This is a copyvio because we have no idea if the edit has the actual copyright to the paper (ignoring whether the item has a place here). I have learned that copyvios are the things to check for at once. WP:DUCK often applies
  • I have learned to give as full a review as I can. This avoids a lot of talk page questions. I have a standard list at User:Timtrent/Reviewing which I've developed over time, and edit from time to time, and I pull paragraphs as required and modify them as needed
  • I have learned where I am not competent. I am useless at music and academics! I cannot know everything and so I avoid certain areas like the plague!

I feel we should pass our skills on in case they are useful to others, and so I pass these three things to you in case they are useful to you. If they are, great; please pass them with your own learnings to someone else who is enjoying their reviewing career and may be newish to it. If they are not useful, then know that no slight is intended. Smile and nod and move on Fiddle Faddle 18:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah I was a little confused as to what to do in the Face Recognition bit as nothing popped up on copyvios. Also, if you'll see it was originally a sandbox, so for all I knew the guy was using wikipedia like a word processor haha. And that Timtrent archive is really nice! I've been trying to get better about giving full reviews, but usually skip it still on pages I think the reviewers won't even come back to. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also skip the full reviews when I feel they are pointless. We all have to make choices. I do try to remember to use Twinkle to welcome each editor, though. As soon as I started giving full reviews I found the talk page questions lessened and my time was better used
Feel totally free to use my review archive. I have the source open in a window all the time I am reviewing.
The sandbox is not web space, that's the thing. And,the moment they submit it, it becomes public property. The Face Rec thing I just used as an example of somewhere we have both been, not in any way as a criticism. We need to zap copyvios as soon as we suspect them WP:DUCK is a useful guide! Fiddle Faddle 19:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, since I got you here, Timtrent, can you tell me what GFOO means? I tried looking it up in the archived AfC questions, and the best I can understand is that it's articles that can be easily reviewed? Just curious what criterion goes into deciding what they are and how they're nominated and such. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great Firehose of Ordure. Bizarrely it is a phrase I created, but I never expected it would become 'famous'. Fiddle Faddle 07:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsalting

FYI, Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_reduction_in_protection_level is the "correct" venue for requesting unsalting an article per the third bullet point, I've encountered this at AfC before too. Pinging @Jaryon32: who said to take it to AN. Keep up the fantastic AfC work! Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks! Yeah it seemed pretty unclear as to where to post to. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Siva Power

Thanks for the speedy review and for the submission of Siva Power. Slainte12 (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tags

Please don't forget to add the "Unreferenced" tag where appropriate - as for Imaginary Friend (2012 film) (I've added it). It's probably far more important than the "Orphan" tag. Thanks. PamD 23:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey PamD, I was just doing a little AWB cleanup to get warmed up which doesn't really catch the unreferenced parts. The pages I tagged though should still be unreviewed so they should get caught in NPP. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 01:32:39, 22 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by ChiefSweetums


I'm a little confused. I only used one reference to the business itself. All other references were totally independent?? I also used another precious metals company's Wikipedia as a guide, so I am thoroughly confused.

ChiefSweetums (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the attached links to the rejection it wouldn't be confusing at all. We can't use wikipedia as a source, also, the other links are either press releases or just business profiles not actually substantial independent coverage. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

01:34:44, 22 July 2015 review of submission by ExGerman

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

I'm a little bit confused.

Under my user account "Virelin" I wrote the article "World of Digitals" but then my user account was blocked as it is equal to my companies name.

I then created another account "ExGerman" and created the same article "World of Digitals".

Now on both accounts I'm told that the article is duplicate and that the version of the other account will be proceeded.

How can I delete my account "Virelin" and the article "World of Digitals" in there to proceed with my new account?

ExGerman (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any draft can be edited by any user. You can edit the original article freely under a different account. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

02:09:32, 22 July 2015 review of submission by Venus tan


May I know which are the references that are problematic? Is it ok to link to our actual website from which we obtain factual information? Something like a primary source. Because the venue portal is existing and functioning. I am using it. However, it has yet to be covered by prominent media. Therefore, I was just stating facts obtained from the website and linked to the Eventnook website directly.

Thank you for your reviews!

Warmest Regards, Venus

Venus tan (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it hasn't been covered by prominent media then it likely won't pass WP:GNG. Wikipedia requires substantial independent and notable media coverage to show notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

07:41:45, 22 July 2015 review of submission by 77.86.86.38


Thanks for reviewing my article.

I can't figure out which parts read like an advertisement? All sources are external articles written by independent publications and none have been produced by the company.

Happy to reword/rewrite or remove parts that are deemed inappropriate.

Thanks

77.86.86.38 (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sulfurboy&oldid=672545683"