Jump to content

User talk:LaMona

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LaMona (talk | contribs) at 20:08, 22 August 2016 (→21:21:23, 17 August 2016 review of submission by Bfait). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


17:35:04, 19 June 2016 review of submission by 203.106.156.98


I ask you to explain, instead you go to the mentioned sites to remove the added information and references. Then posting a idiotic template that is a consequence of you removing the references. Incompetent scumbag! You are only worth fucking yourself and eat your own shit! Damn you all, especially you and the first reviewer! This proves my point of what I said below.

The wikipedia reviewer(s)who posted the "templates" for "Furious Slaughter', Fist of Fury', Intimate Confessions of a Chinese Courtesan, and 'Insomnia Lover) is/are incompetent prejudicial idiots! Rejecting article submissions for movies base on individual whims and fancies. Why? The "template" was not posted for these articles until being informed about the inconsistencies in accepting or declining a submission. These are only on the surface. There more of these type of articles. Idiot! One of the "template" posted is the consequence of the idiot reviewer removing two or three of the citation sources.

07:25:43, 20 June 2016 review of submission by 1.9.100.170


Check out these movie articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie..._In_Your_Face , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chow_Ken . The way these articles are presented and you all still accept them??!! What happen to notable and verifiable? This is plain double standards

07:34:26, 20 June 2016 review of submission by 1.9.100.170


Check out these movie articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie..._In_Your_Face , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chow_Ken . The way these articles are presented and you all still accept them??!! What happen to notable and verifiable? This is plain double standards.

17:36:38, 29 June 2016 review of submission by 86.132.14.205


This is not a request for a re-review just a clarification, take on board the points re guidance and reviews and considering redrafting,but would the convention for Wiki be to include references to reviews of his books etc within the article?

12:50:03, 4 July 2016 review of submission by Tukombo


Yes, the BBC link is still working. Thanks for the heads up and suggestions. So much appreciated.

12:13:58, 22 July 2016 review of submission by Librarian1849


Hi LaMona, thanks for your comments. I have made the changes you requested. I think that Victoria is notable, founding Cityhop, and contributing significantly to the Auckland Kindergarten Association and the Auckland Arts Festival, outside her former Councillor role. Other articles on Auckland Councillors (see Category:Auckland Councillors at the bottom of the page) are shorter/arguably less notable yet they have been published. Would appreciate it if you could review the article again. Thank you.

Reference test

This is the text that you are going to verify with a reference.[1]

References

  1. ^ Reference details go here

12:31:45, 4 August 2016 review of submission by Jobmuel


Hello there! I have amended the language, as suggested, to make it more formal. Apologies, it is my first one. Thank you!

16:50:52, 7 August 2016 review of submission by CASGMT


Hi, just a quick one. Where you say I can't use her own website - do you mean the charity websites?

Thanks. CASGMT (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CASGMT, I mean her "Saying Goodby" site, which is written in the first person and is not an independent third-party source. Also her LInkedIn site. LinkedIn cannot be used as a source at all. Ditto her HuffPost profile, which was probably submitted by her. You need well-regarded sources that have published about her. You should avoid PR sites (they exist to promote), blogs, and marginal sites. What you need are regular publications with a good reputation. LaMona (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for your help! Will have another crack. CASGMT (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hickies Draft Rejection

Dear Editor,

Thanks for the review! You declined my submission, stating it looked to much like an advertisement. The comment stated that I have a personal affiliation to the company, which I do not. I am currently a Mexican student in my first year of college, and have nothing to do with the company. I am writing about them because they helped my down syndrome brother a lot, and have always wanted to do a Wikipedia article. All of the references I used are third party sources, and I honestly do not understand why it was rejected. The company is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. If you could consider reviewing it in an unbiased way that would be great. (Here is the link Draft:Hickies)

Cheers, Emarcosb (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, I don't know where you get the idea that my review is "biased" - we simply do not allow advertising on WP, and companies must meet WP:CORP. Since I am the second reviewer to reject the draft for that reason, you might want to consider that the article is overly promotional. Of the promotional aspects is the Endorsements section -- which is the result of promotion by the company. ("And to get the brand some glitz, he got a number of athletes and celebrities to try out the product, including Australian triathlete Rebekah Keat, professional golfer Danny Willett, actress Chloe Grace Moretz, designer Diane von Furstenberg, and comedian Baratunde Thurston." - it's an advertising campaign.) And beyond that you haven't shown that there is anything other than business as usual - doing a kickstarter is not notable, having a product is not in itself notable. As for the sources, they must be both third-party and reliable. Press releases, blogs, and sources with no reputation behind them are not reliable. It is always best to limit the article to reliable sources rather than to include ones that do not meet the criteria, even if that means that the article may be shorter. Remember that no article is ever finished, and more can be added later. As for the COI notice, it does NOT say that you have a personal affiliation, it asks for you to state IF you have a personal affiliation. We often ask that of people who have done no editing except to create an article for a company. In many cases the editor is working for the company, and we need to know whether or not that is the case because WP has policies about that. LaMona (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:47:56, 7 August 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Julie Bif


Hi there! Thank you for your input of Mr. Guest's draft. I have been working on it for a few months and it doesn't seem he is qualified enough, sadly. I was wondering if there was a way I could at least get him a thumbnail in Wikipedia? Would that be possible? He has numerous talents and I think he is well deserved to have at least that! :) Please let me know what you think! Your input makes a lot of sense and I really appreciate it! 


Looking forward to hearing back from you! Julie Bif (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Julie Bif, no, the only way to have an article in Wikipedia is through notability. There's no "thumbnail" version. Consider, though, that he may become notable in the future, at which point an article would be appropriate. LaMona (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:11:29, 8 August 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Hannahmgodfrey


Re-submission of MedAccred page Hi there,

Thanks for reviewing my first draft of the MedAccred page. I have made changes to the opening line to address your concerns regarding the initial description of the program. Hopefully this is now clear and in much simpler language, avoiding marketing-speak.

Looking forward to receiving additional feedback!

Hannahmgodfrey (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hannahmgodfrey, it is clearer now. You have large parts of the article without references, though. Articles must be built from third-party sources about the subject, and all information in the article has to come from those references. No unreferenced information is allowed. You should begin with sources and create the article from those rather than writing an article from knowledge that you have. If there are not enough sources to provide a sufficient article, then the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. LaMona (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:08:12, 8 August 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Julie Bif


So, there is nothing I can do for Mr. Guest? He is an author, professor, musician and lawyer. But since he is not nationally known, he cannot have a Wiki page? A lot of hard work went into this and I really don't want it to not be published somehow. Can I reduce some or do you think that it just won't get approved at all? I really appreciate your input!

Julie Bif (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Bif, it's not a question of being nationally known, but of not having been written about in reliable sources that support notability. Read WP:NOTABILITY, WP:MUSICIAN, WP:NACADEMICS. Those explain what the criteria are. For professors, it's being known in their field, holding a named chair, or being highly cited. For musicians it is recording on major labels and charting. For everyone, it is based on sources. (I'm condensing this down quite a bit - you need to read those pages.) And, as I said, for many people, notability may be in their future if it isn't in their present. LaMona (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, thank you so much for your input! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julie Bif (talk • contribs) 22:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting help on Morale Patches page

Hi,

I tried to create a page for morale patches and it was declined. But if you search wiki for morale patches or google scholar for morale patches, there are hundreds of inclusions of the term. I believe it deserves, and needs a wiki page. Please tell me how I can clean up this page and make it pass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Morale_Patch Wikipage2016 (talk) 07:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipage2016, the problem with the page you created is not the topic, but the fact that much of the article is unreferenced. Here's what I told you there: "The article must be built from information found in third-party sources (newspapers, magazines) that are independent of the subject of the article. Those sources must be referenced in-line with the text they support. No un-referenced material is allowed." You must create the article from sources that you reference - all information must be verifiable in those sources. LaMona (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Charles Robinson

Regarding Anthony Charles Robinson, which I have just published from draft; appointment as an Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire irrefutably confers notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a cite for that? I recall that there are hundreds per year (although I may be thinking of a related honor). Also, notability isn't the only thing I look for in a draft - large amounts of unreferenced material or bad refs (as in this case) are a good reason to keep them back, IMO, keeping the editor working on it until a higher quality is reached. But we each have our own take on AfC. LaMona (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. the section is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents #Damage done by declining AFC --RexxS (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

07:32:26, 10 August 2016 review of submission by Nathitchcock


I am not presently requesting a re-review at this time


Dear LaMona,

Thank you for taking the time to review my wikipedia submission. I have checked the guide lines for musicians notability and feel my article cites that the artist has produced 2 or more albums released by a major record company & has had independent articles printed by publications such as New Musical Express, Melody Maker, Uncut, The Guardian & The Independent broadsheet newspapers plus many others. I see that the sources of discogs and IMDB are unsuitable & will be removed. I am looking for some more assistance if possible as I have spent a long time on this submission. Any further advice you feel you are able to give as to how to improve the chances of this article being approved would be gratefully received.

Many thanks

Natalie Hitchcock

Nathitchcock, first, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. One thing that you can do is to give full information for the albums, including the label. That could help support notability. Simple lists of titles aren't very informative. Also, link to any professional reviews of the albums or cuts that show that the work got the attention of music reviewers. (Fan and amateur reviews should not be used.) It is better to reduce the article to what you can source rather than use poor sources, as those somewhat tarnish the notability. You don't need to have every work that the person recorded, just some that gained the person notability. Wikipedia is not a CV or a personal web page, so including only highlights is not only fine, it is preferable. LaMona (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:54:40, 10 August 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Wiki.isimm2


Dear editor/reviwer,

I appreciate your (and the previous reviewer) care about the initial version of the page for ISIMM (International Society for Interaction between Mathematics and Mechanics), but I indeed do not understand what we should make more to put it into life. Yours comments that "References must be 1) about the organization 2) independent of the organization 3) linked inline to the text they support. No unreferenced material is allowed." does not give me any hint what I should improve at this moment. Reflecting the previous comments, I included many links to other wikipedia pages and some other serious web pages, and thus reduced unreferenced material as much as I could, expecting that some other distinquished individuals around this distinguished organization with several decades tradition can later continue completing it. It is now much richer than many of existing wiki-pages. I start feeling it as a certain discrimination of ISIMM in contrast to some other similar organizations as Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Amer. Math. Society, ASME, etc, etc. which have their wiki-pages. I would really ask you for being more specific why you do not approve the (initial iteration) of the ISIMM page.

Hoping that I will evnetually start this page lining, at this occassion, I would like to ask you for a hint how the language mutation of this page can be created. I did not find any hint for it. (It would be relativel easy for us to translate this page into Italien, German, Polish, Czech and some other languages as this organization is truly international.)

Many thanks in advance for you help and your toleranace.

prof. Ing. Tomas Roubicek, DrSc.


Wiki.isimm2 (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki.isimm2, you have a list of "references" at the end of the article, but they are not linked to the inline text they support. Think about an academic article with numbered footnotes throughout the text - that's the form that Wikipedia uses. The instructions on how to do that are at referencing for beginners. If that does not suffice, you can ask for help at the TeaHouse. That's the first comment I have. The next is that you should read about notability, which says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." That means that you need sources that are about the organization itself. What matters on Wikipedia for notability is what reliable sources have said about a topic. Also look at Verifiability, which is that all facts on Wikipedia, much like in academic writing, must be verifiable. That is what the references in academic sources provide. Last, there is no automatic process that produces articles in the Wikipedias of other languages. You can of course create articles in those languages for those Wikipedias, but I should caution you that each Wikipedia has its own set of standards and culture, so it is not a given that what is appropriate for one will be welcomed in others. It is a good idea to visit those Wikipedia's and see what the help pages say about accepted topics. LaMona (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:31:12, 11 August 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by 74.62.240.37



74.62.240.37 (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no message here - if you have a question, please ask. LaMona (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:56:35, 13 August 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Bandspace


Thank you for making contact. I have recently edited my declined submission following reviewers' reasons for not accepting it. I am new to wikipedia so hope I have done the right thing. I was wondering if reviewers could simply remove passages they felt did not meet the criteria.

Bandspace (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bandspace, sometimes it is possible to just remove some extraneous paragraphs and "fix" an article, but often it would require a whole re-write. Given that there are often around 600-800 articles waiting to be reviewed, we wouldn't get far if we spent hours on each article. So the work reverts to the creator -- it's discouraging, but we hope it also is a good learning experience. LaMona (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving?

I'm very sorry to hear that you are leaving Wikipedia. I just wanted to say that you've done a very solid job in reviewing AFC drafts, and your work will be missed. Also, you've consistently beaten me to reviewing

No matter what transpires online, I wish you the best of luck. Regards,

GABgab 17:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

21:21:23, 17 August 2016 review of submission by Bfait


Hello. First of all, thank you for your comments. I have added more sources to underline the importance of Johann König as an art dealer. It is true that fame cannot or should not be inherited, but I think the many sources show that it is König himself who indeed meanwhile is an important art dealer. At least he appeared in two articles in New York Times. As now added, in 2011 he won the Prix Lafayette due to "the best exhibition project presented by an emerging gallery". I also added that König is partially blind since a childhood accident what makes him exceptional as an art dealer. I removed the reference to MoMA and Centre Pompidou — you're quite right in assuming that this information is hardly available (except from König's own site, but I do not want to take this as a reference). Just one last thing: There is already an article "Johann König". I thought that originally I labelled the draft "Johann König (art dealer)", but I just didn't figure out how I can change that — can you help we with that? Besides that, I just hope that the article now suffices. If not, please let me know what I can do. Anyway, thanks a lot!Bfait (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bfait, unfortunately the editor you are trying to get in contact with has decided to leave the community, by her own admission. There are a variety of reasons this, but, unless the editor comments to you on them I will not be the one explaining it (also for a variety of reasons). I recommend you take your draft to any other draft reviewer, or, perhaps a talkpage stalker might come across this and help you out. Side note; to the owner of the talk page, my apologies for commenting here, this is not some victory lap, I am only commenting here to help another editor out and on the presupposition that you will not be able to help on account of your leaving. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because I care, I will continue to respond to those new editors with whom I have established a relationship. (You might have inquired, and if no reply was forthcoming, then take action. Advice for the future.) I find your reference to a "victory lap", even though you deny it, is inappropriate. I ask you to not post on my talk page in the future. LaMona (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Best of luck in whatever you choose to do in the future- your contributions will be sorely missed at AfC. jcc (tea and biscuits) 09:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

01:29:50, 19 August 2016 review of submission by Nghungdo



Hi Mona, I would like to ask if I have source on these websites:

http://e.vnexpress.net/ http://english.vietnamnet.vn/ http://vietnamnews.vn/ http://english.thesaigontimes.vn/ http://www.thanhniennews.com/ http://tuoitrenews.vn/

Are they enough to be reliable sources? Thanks you very much.

Yes, if they are regular newspapers they are good sources. LaMona (talk) 06:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patti Grace Smith

Hello LaMona. Just wanted to let you know that I have found and removed some copyright violations from the above article, which you created back on June 24. I see that you have left the project, but decided to post this reminder anyway, in case you decide to return, that all content you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words. Also, since this is the second time I have found you violating our copyright policy, I need to remind you that repeat violators are blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Diannaa - you must believe me that I thought I did all I could to reword the obits that I was working from, and believed that I had done so sufficiently. Obviously, when one only has an obit, a lot of the data is going to be the same, a lot of the statements will have the same words (places, job titles, etc.). It's clear that although I think I'm doing a sufficient job, it's not satisfying the algorithm. Knowing more about that would help me, but I cannot learn because I don't get feedback that would show me what parts of the article are considered violations. I'd be happy to satisfy the algorithm if I knew what it wanted, and where it saw problems. I can learn, but I'm not being given anything to learn from. However, too late now. I'm tired of the overly toxic atmosphere, the threats ("blocked from editing"), etc., and the totally unhelpful dings. LaMona (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the point of waiting to do the revision deletion, since you seem firm in your resolve to quit the site. Not sure what you mean by "dings", but if you mean you are receiving unwanted email each time your talk page is edited, you can go to Preferences→Email options and change the setting to "do not send me email notifications". — Diannaa (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I mean is being threatened with "blocked from editing" when I'm not being helped to learn what it is that you are looking for. I know about algorithms; they aren't the same as people. My judgment as a person may be just fine, and still not have the same result as that of the algorithm. However, if I knew what the algorithm was looking for, I could adjust for that. People adjust to machines better than machines adjust to people. As I said, I very consciously did what I thought weas appropriate rewording. How can I do any better in the future if I get no information? Are you aware that I'm not doing a copy and paste, but trying to synthesize information from a very limited set of documents (2 obits)? That I know about copyvio? Yet you prefer to threaten me with "blocked from editing" rather than offering any help. This is what I mean. In my world, we help people. That doesn't seem to be the world here, which is a good reason for leaving. LaMona (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have a bot that is searching for all additions over a certain size and checking them against material already online. The results are posted at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol. This is where I found both recent examples from your editing. The previous article where I spotted copyvio was Donald Jelinek on July 14. I undid the revision deletion so that you could check my work and perform additional amendments if you wished to do so. You did that, and I re-did the revision deletion shortly afterwards. In the case of Patti Grace Smith, I went ahead and paraphrased the material from the NY Times obit and and removed one segment that was less pertinent, stuff you might find on a resumé, and is almost identical to the source webpage. I have undone the revision-deletion so that you can have a look. Here is the diff of the amendments that I performed. Unfortunately Earwig's copyvio detection tool, which I showed you back in July, does not work on the NY Times because the material is in "frames" but I assessed it using the iThenicate report and visual inspection.

You could check your edits with Earwig's copy vio detector tool but you will not be able to do so until it's already live and on-wiki. You could certainly check your work with it after it's live, and do modifications as required. There's also the Duplication Detector, which can access some types of web pages that Earwig's tool is unable to see (it's down right now, so I have contacted the volunteer who maintains that tool; hopefully it will be working again shortly). If you find you've messed up and want me to revision-delete any material just let me know on my talk page or by email.

One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. It's been suggested that not so much as three words should be together in the same order as the source. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This usually means that your version is quite a bit shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue. Please feel free to ask me via email if you are stuck and are not sure how to effectively re-word a passage. — Diannaa (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:Dianna - how I wish this had been the first response, and not the last. But I will tuck it away for future reference, if there is a future in which I need it. LaMona (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LaMona&oldid=735740107"