No dramas please! Unpleasant and heated comments including vulgar names and other heated criticisms are not welcomed. SwisterTwistertalk
Please sign your messages with four tildes ('''~~~~''') and please be as specific and concise as possible. If I reviewed your Articles for Creation submission, please read the message(s) at the draft page clearly before adding a message here. As this has happened multiple times, please ensure your message is only posted here once (not doubled).
PLEASE ADD YOUR MESSAGE AT THE BOTTOMand generally, I will reply here so please watch this page for a response. Unless it's an AfC page, where I'll usually comment there and you will get a notification for that.If I have taken time reviewing your draft, please be patient and I will get to it as I am quite busy with other tasks but am certainly willing to look at it and will not need reminding.
New users: If you want to learn the basics of Wikipedia, my page for new users here contains useful information. Information such as citing sources, submitting images and changing & deleting username. If that page hasn't answered your question(s), contact me here.
Thanks for your suggestion on Draft:MiniTool & Requesting to Review the changes
Hi SwisterTwister,
Thanks for your suggestion, I have added the resouce from GOOGLE NEWS and highbeam as your suggestion,
Also I want to know that what can I do to get my submitted Article accepted soon, as its taking so much time,I posted this around 20 days ago but its still waiting for review. --Keybord-Man (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, just wanted to say thanks first and foremost for your review and for your feedback. I've taken it on board and significantly expanded the third-party criticism and sources section, adding just what was requested to the point that it is now the longest section in the article. Hopefully that should satisfy the reviewer. If it's possible to proceed with the re-review, I'd be grateful. Thank you!
Request on 16:38:12, 2 September 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Jhannafin
Hi! Looking for help on why this page keeps getting rejected. The page I created for indie director and writer Logan Sandler's first feature film, Live Cargo, was accepted. All the sources I use in Logan Sandler's page are independent from the artist himself. What is lacking in notability? Thanks!
I am requesting a review as the source material is unavailable online from an independent source. The only existing material is a scan from a newspaper article taken from the subject's own website. I have outlined where the original article was first published but all attempts to verify it from an independent source have met dead ends. Please advise on the exact steps needed to get this article approved. I appreciate your help with this matter. I look forward to your response. 92.238.62.98 (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
92.238.62.98, perhaps I can help out here. The simplest way to put it is that, based on the available sources, he is just not yet notable. There is no real chance of an article until his performances or recording have been reviewed in major publications of national reputation. ' DGG ( talk ) 07:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
hay swister, i called for help because, as i said its way too late for me to be editing. additionally i'm not planning on doing any editing just now but don't want to leave this article. i've a neuro disorder & not real confident with my old & barely functioning computer. i simply don't want to spend 3 hours trying to delete a sentence only to get scolded. & yes, it can take me 3 hours. so i wanted a second opinion. its disheartening to think someone has responded to find that i've been told to ask my question somewhere else. i have done some reading & added more info at the treahouse. if you're able to help, thnx in advance.Mausbug (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Help for creating page
Hello dear,
I have just this information for Ermine(Organisation) which is:-
"Ermine is a British educational management organisation.
Ermine's Motto: δῶς μοι πᾶ στῶ καὶ τὰν γᾶν κινάσω
It is distinguished affiliate of The Pimley Foundation, UK and also the Institutional member of the College of Teachers, UK and abides by their Code of Professional Practice.
It has been founded by Mr. Colin Wrigley, MBE and Lt. Col. The Hon. Osborne Wrigley-Pimley-McKerr III.
Ermine Owns and manages Pimley School, Austrey School and Albert Polytechnic."
Hi SwisterTwister! I did as you suggested and kept digging for more notable references for Aaron Chang, and I found out that he is indeed featured in a permanent exhibit in a museum! The bathing suit from his clothing line, Aaron Chang Clothing, that he gave as a gift to Bethany Hamilton, famous surfer and shark attack survivor, is featured in the exhibit titled Courageous Inspiration: Bethany Hamilton at the California Surf Museum. So this totals 3 exhibits, 1 permanent, and 1 art critic review of one of his galleries, along with multiple other references including his entry in the Encyclopedia of Surfing. I also found the article on Forbes about him, but I don't think it has relevant info to add to the Wikipedia page specifically, so I just included it as an addition. Could you take a look at the draft and see if you consider him notable now that I've added the new info?
I understand Wikipedia's notability guidelines but wanted to present the below argument on why our references should be considered significant, given that a competitor of ours, GolfNow, has been granted a Wikipedia page.
Within the golf industry, the biggest golf publication has under one million unique visitors a month. We've been covered and interviewed by major publications such as The Examiner (2.5 million unique visitors a month), USA Today affiliate, Argus Leader (120K+ unique visitors per month), Dujour Magazine (47K+ unique visitors a month), GolfNewsNet (55k+ unique visitors a month), ESPN Radio, CBS Radio, Golf Channel Sirius FM and Golf Channel (video). These are major hits within the golf industry, but they aren't going to be covered by the Huffington Post/Forbes, which I believe what Wikipedia is looking for. The Huffington Post also mostly covers the professional game and lacks golf technology coverage.
Lastly, I wanted to mention that a majority of the coverage that GolfNow received from major publications (Forbes/GolfWeek - no longer active/Business Insider) was about either their competition with a slight mention to GolfNow or acquisition by Comcast. They have no coverage other than that in major publications. Their Forbes piece was focused on EZLinks and had some mentions of GolfNow being a competitor.
I just edited a draft you accepted on August 30th, Victor Anoul, and I just wanted to give you some unsolicited bits of advice, if you don't mind. I'll try to make this as painless as possible.
Always fill out the living= parameter of {{Wikiproject Biography}}. As a specific example, if the person isn't living, put in living=no. This reduces the workload on people like myself who go through Category:Biography articles without living parameter, and also helps us keep track of how many BLPs we have.
Biographies have to have more information than non-biographical articles to not be considered stubs.
Hey, as you're a draft guru, I wanted to shoot you a query. I have a draft under development at Draft:Cul-de-Sac (2016 film), which concerns a brand new short film by an Oscar-winning film crew and a cast featuring an A-lister. Though I personally don't believe it is suitable for mainspace inclusion yet, I wanted to hear your thoughts for when it would be suitable. I anticipate it will win a vast multitude of awards and may even be an Oscar contender, so please give me input! I hope you're doing well! :) DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont21:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Partial AN/I close on ibans
Hi SwisterTwister, I have closed this section of the ongoing AN/I discussion with the following warning:
User:SwisterTwister is prohibited from trying to impose "interaction bans" or "keep-away orders" against other users, and from implying that such interaction bans exist unless a ban has been formally enacted through a community process. This does not apply to requests that users not post on SwisterTwister's user talk page (see WP:NOBAN). Violations of this will result in temporary but escalating blocks.
If you need any clarification or have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me personally. While reading the comments there I got the impression that there were editors "in your corner" who want you to succeed, but who couldn't support you saying that bans exist when they don't. Best of luck in your editing, and I hope you have some less-stressful times ahead of you. ~Awilley (talk)01:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I need your help to understand why my article does not match the notability criteria. I have given the reference link from below
1. References of books where his name is mentioned.
2. Reference of news papers where he was in focus.
3. Reference of his all international concerts is also given.
4. Also note that achieving "Pandit" title itself is greatest achievement in Indian Music.
5. His name is also referred in other Wikipedia articles but I understand this does not match to your criteria.
6. Wikipedia also has database of flue players which are less notable than him in terms of achievement. but I understand I can not use this as a argument to publish the article as per Wikipedia guidelines.
Please let me know what exactly I have to do to proceed with my article. I found your comments are very useful and helpful in many other articles. So looking for your help in fixing errors in my article.
Hi SwisterTwister,
I reached out to Sh33na, who recommended I contact you. I'm new to wikipedia and found Sh33na's name as an editor on the Duodenal Switch page - as someone who had the DS, I'm curious to help edit medical articles too. I just got my start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Surgical_Care_Affiliates and was wondering if you could check out my work? I would really appreciate it. Thanks so much!!
--Lisacatherine (talk) 03:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gala Wilton F.C. until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Joe Roe (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article for review Rattan1912 (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Just re-posting for review
Hi David,
How is it going? Rattan here again. Can you please review this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:1-day.co.nz for me? This is one of the very popular online shopping website of New Zealand based on daily deals concept. Let me know what changes need to happen in order to get this approved. I hope the references from news websites would be enough for notability.
Regards,
Rattan
22:43:19, 14 September 2016 review of submission by 2600:1012:B04E:C7D4:7C28:B3C4:2D98:5368
Thank you for reviewing my submission but I do not accept this. Jihan is first and foremost a proven notable artist, and designer. Her balloon designs have sparked many companies all over to copycat her. Her company Geronimo has now become a coined term for her particular balloon design as well. If you google Geronimo Balloons you will not only find her company but also a multitude of online stores selling "Geronimo balloons", not on behalf of Jihan's company but as the style of balloon. I am happy to add more references to support her and her companies notability but if that is not enough would you suggest I develop a page for the company with a section on the creator that is Jihan instead? I do not believe her talent is not acceptable under Wikipedia Standards.
Thank you for reviewing the article, your comments are well noted, wikipedia source has been removed and more citations and references were added as well, thank you for your support. Laithabdallah (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide more specificity as to why the article about Theresia Gouw was declined for lack of notability backed up by significant sources. Theresia Gouw is widely considered one of the leading venture capital investors in the technology industry. In an industry with few female investors at all, she is a standout regardless of her gender. The sources used in this article are highly reliable--New York Times, Fortune, Forbes, CNBC, Time, etc.
There are other Wikipedia pages about similar people in the tech industry--Aileen Lee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileen_Lee), Diane Greene (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Greene). Please provide some insight as to how these profiles meet the notability standard whereas Theresia Gouw's does not. I appreciate any specific guidance you can provide. Thank you!
Hello David, I would first like to thank you for taking the time to review my article. With that being said, I'm finding it difficult to believe that the information provided does not sufficiently account for Credico's notability. It's, of course mentioned in the article, but in terms of its size and controversy, Credico is a 400 firm company, spanning 19 countries, with a current class action involving hundreds of opt ins, and an extreme level of notoriety in the UK. Aside from this I believe, I believe the article is rather unbiased and factual. As a point of reference, the Cobra Group, a direct marketing firm of almost identical construction, save its East Asian base of operations, achieved publication and its size and controversy were not really as notable from an objective point of view. Again thank you for your review, but I feel you are have a difficult time understanding the scope and influence of the company.
Hello David. Thank you for your review of my piece on Daniel Noah. I know you receive this question all the time, but I would appreciate some advice. Respectfully, you say Mr. Noah is not notable enough to receive his own Wikipedia entry, yet the movie (Max Rose) he created, wrote, and directed has its own page, and the company (SpectreVision) he co-founded has its own page as well. I am truly at a loss as to why Daniel is not deemed worthy enough as the projects he created. I would truly appreciate it if you could share the thought behind this, and if there is a way for me to revise that might make you reconsider. Sincere thanks, Michael.Mek457 (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Mek457 (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Review of ThreatModeler page
ST,
Please note that the section entitled "Additional Outside References to ThreatModeler" does, in fact, contain a press release. It is mostly filled with outside/non-related mentions of ThreatModeler from verifiable secondary and tertiary sources. Overall there are 21 references used in the article, 15 of which are outside / verifiable / notable sources. I was in the process of making the links in the "Additional Outside References to ThreatModeler" live when I received notification that the article was declined. Since you didn't notice the press release about ThreatModeler or notice that the article was about Argawal's contribution to threat modeling, I am resubmitting in the hope that you will actually take time to review the article and its references. This is not, as you suggest, an advertisement. It is an article about moving the field of threat modeling forward. If you have specific, helpful comments I would be very happy to receive them; the general template comments I've received thus far simply do not seem to apply in a helpful way....
Hello Dear,
You have declined the article i've prepared with the comment "the company is not yet notable because there's simply not yet enough substance for a convincing notability". But in fact, the page isn't about company, it is about one of the mostly used FEM (CAE) software on the plants around the world. So, please, put me on the way i should edit the article so it could be published. Thanks a lot, have a nice time.
Mskpetrov (talk) 08:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Request on 10:27:13, 19 September 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Slim cop
Hi - I'm struggling to understand what else I need to do in order to have this article approved. You say "For the best enhancements, this would still need all [sic] additional amounts of in-depth third-party news sources overall which also includes reviews; please no press releases, interviews or trivial passing mentions." Yet I have included citations from Time Out, The BBC, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Spectator, and the Evening Standard - are these not "third-party news sources"? As for reviews, the word 'review' appears six times amongst the citations! So please, can you tell me clearly and specifically what more I need to do to get this article published?
Hi SwisterTwister, I just wanted to reach out and get a bit of clarity on why the Draft was rejected based on notability. I added a lot of very credible references (Wall Street Journal, Barron's, Reuters, New York Times, etc.) throughout the Draft to help solidify Rafay's notability, also, added extra references at the bottom. Thanks!
23:21:17, 19 September 2016 review of submission by Pollyst
hi, this page was modeled somewhat after Marketo's, and we did include several reputable third party references to the info. So, just trying to understand the rejection, aka why this is not noteworthy/credible, while that of Marketo and other tech firms is...thanks for the help.
Pollyst (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for September 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Justice Zakaullah Lodhi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BRILL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I would need your serious support here cause I am unable to understand which links are referred as press releases. The article tone is also very neutral and shares only information about the developer. Can you help me understand which statement is referred as a advertisement.
Also, all the references shared are news articles released by respective publisher and is not a PR. Can you highlight which references are considered as PR.
Further, I was checking few other developer articles to understand what wrong I am doing and was suprised to see a similar article with less relevant references being approved. You can view the same here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acme_Group#
Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Inspire_(company)
Thank you for your review. You wrote, "Let me be frank and say this is still too soon for any actual notability, I would not resubmit because there's simply not going to be enough substance for establishing both a convincing and notable article."
I have tried to follow earlier guidance from reviewers to stick to just-the-facts, neutral language. I included a reference about Inspire in this most recent submission from a Mayo Clinic cardiologist who is known nationally. I included cited references to Inspire's work--presented at medical meetings--with Novartis and GSK, two of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. It is information like this I believe demonstrates the noteworthiness of Inspire, without peacock terms. I cited an NPR story that described how lung cancer patients on Inspire self-organized to literally change a specific national cancer treatment guideline -- again, something I believe is noteworthy, and described in a neutral tone with a link to the NPR piece.
As I wrote earlier to a reviewer, I have identified approved Wikipedia entries of private companies close in mission and business model to Inspire, and I have tried to follow those entries closely. Here are three examples:
The Inspire submission demonstrates as much if not more noteworthiness, and has as many or more and better sources than the above company-focused articles. In the case of HealthBoards, its single source is a dead link. Am I missing something? I respectfully suggest that if HealthBoards, MedHelp and Daily Strength are in Wikipedia, then Inspire should be. My boss, Brian Loew, was one of the only healthcare social network execs invited to meet in closed session with VP Joe Biden in June at the Cancer Moonshot Summit, and we are involved in Moonshot-related projects. Inspire and Loew are finalists currently in two categories of a major digital health contest run by a premier conference company and publisher, Health 2.0. This past Saturday, Loew just presented alongside GSK at Stanford Medicine in a session devoted to innovated social listening for pharmacovigilance. Those are just 3 recent examples that I believe demonstrate noteworthiness literally over the past few months, not 10 years ago.
I welcome any guidance, and I appreciate your feedback.
First, thank you for taking the time to review the proposed article.
I was hoping to clarify and ask for guidance on how I might improve the draft. My interest is in writing a decidedly neutral article, and if I have written an 'advertisement' focused on 'puffery' I have overcompensated for my personal bias. While most viral marketing strikes me as mild or irritating, devoid of interest, the marketing at Priceonomics is remarkably, perhaps uniquely, widespread. Personally, I consider this a terrible thing, and not something I would advocate. A small failing startup pivots to advertising how viral it can be, and is then widely used as a notable source in every respectable news org except the BBC. They explicitly say their blog is self-promotion, and yet that self-promotion is quoted as meaningful research by NYT and others, is a reliable source for Wikipedia articles (are reliable sources inherently notable?), and (though I haven't put this into the article yet) is used in academic journals, law journals, and even pre-med courses. News organizations generally have a strong motivation not to confuse journalism with advertising, it continues to be a very contentious issue. At Forbes, Priceonomics is a listed contributor with a 'full bio'. Priceonomics, in my mind, has found a back door to hack the press, because, presumably, their advertisements are "data-driven" and journalists also need to be viral.
Let me give you an example of the data driving the articles, the example that introduced me to the company. Wikipedia has a list of selfie-related deaths and injuries. In my opinion it deserves to be deleted, but no consensus has been found so I (now) often edit for accuracy and completeness and avoid deleting content or sources. Historically, many reliable sources (CBS, The Guardian, CNN) used in the lead to justify the articles existence ultimately link back to an article Priceonomics wrote on the topic. The article features various graphs, which represent data gathered from a google news archive search and Wikipedia. The data-driven article used numbers which, at that time, matched what a few wikipedians had posted. The list then decided to cite major news sources who cite an advertisement which cites the list. Not only is this circular, every part of it is questionable/unreliable.
It is not notable that Priceonomics is a viral marketer, it is notable that Priceonomics produces adverts which get printed as reliable research in mainstream news. If I was a web developer who posted a blog post about bees to advertise my skills as a web developer, that's not notable. If Reuters cites my self-promotion as input from a qualified source on bees or anything else I want to write about, that's notable...even if I, personally, find it deplorable.
Please advise me on how I might edit the article to move away from puffy advertising without moving out of a neutral point of view. Thank you again for your time and efforts. ~ Fiachaire (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that was helpful. I rewrote from your stub and found more structure doing so. I am still interested in User:SwisterTwister's understanding and reasoning. Indeed, moreso now, building up from your stub I don't want to hit my head again on puffery and advertising. ~ Fiachaire (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reference errors on 20 September
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Hello! Thank you for your recent contributions to John Cupido. I did have one note for you. I am working on a maintenance project to clean up Category:Pages using infoboxes with thumbnail images. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:
Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:
|image=SomeImage.jpg.
There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks!! Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
21:03:39, 21 September 2016 review of submission by Hornlaur
I have made updates to the Gabrielle Kurlander draft page and would like to request a re-review. Per your direction, I have updated the language used to read more like an encyclopedia entry from a neutral point of view. I have also removed all external links in the body of the text and have updated the references used to include external sources. I feel very strongly that Gabrielle Kurlander, President & CEO of the All Stars Project, should have a page up on Wikipedia and appreciate your consideration of this request. Thank you.
Hornlaur (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hornlaur: The proper way to request another review of your submission is to click the resubmit button at the top of the page, rather than asking on the reviewer's talk page. Pppery22:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Close reason
Hi, I noticed you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tons of Rentals as "Speedied". The reason's was edited now by someone else. This isn't a rare mishap but just letting the word get out to people that bots can't parse "speedied" as there is also speedy keep, so if possible refer to speedily deleted or something like that. Thanks. Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SwisterTwister, i was looking at the above mentioned page as its one of very old pending drafts, and it seems like they addressed many of the concerns from when you last reviewed it. So i wanted to approve it, but am new to AFC and didn't want to overstep. :-)
Would you mind to take a look and let me know if it can be approved? -- Ntb613 (talk) 06:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's me Screamborn. I have decided to re-post/recreate my article in a new page, so basically it will be a new account, will remove the current page later. Reason for this is, I just realized how all my previous edits even the oldest ones show up in view history, and I didn't know that, it simply annoy me to see those alterations at hand, visible enough to those who wish to edit the article. It's very unprofessional indeed. May I ask you a favor, and hopefully you will approve the same article once made in a new page, as you can see nothing much has changed, just minor changes has been done. From now on, I'll be very careful of my edits. So, how can we get this done? I'll be waiting for your response. Thank you. -Screamborn (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just resubmitted the page on Anil Kashyap that you rejected with the comment "Certainly notable, but please also add third party sources such as reviews for his works." If you search Anil Kashyap inside Wikipedia the first five hits are the subject of the proposed page. Also, anybody reading the proposed Kashyap page will realize that the journals he has published reviewed work in and also been chosen to edit are the tops in the field. I don't think the Kashyap page is the place to benchmark those journals and use them as a validation of his importance -- the publication acceptances and venue speak for themselves. He is a chaired professor at the University of Chicago, which is also a review of his work. The last section of the proposed Kashyap page lists External Awards and Activities, which are both numerous and important. Also, Kashyap (an American) was recently appointed to serve on the Bank of England's Financial Policy Committee, which is a huge external validation of his impact and policy relevance. (This is why I sought to have a Wikipedia page on him -- he is of interest to a relatively wide audience. Not Robert Plant, but a wide following for the unique combination of an academic economist and an applied policymaker.) If you do a Google search of "Anil Kashyap citations" you will find a staggering number of published papers referencing his work -- but it would be tacky to put this citation count in the Wikipedia piece, and it would be wandering afield to reference the papers that cite him. I have included references to several prizes for his research in the new Kashyap page text as explicit reviews of his work, along with the implicit reviews I have itemized above.
I need your support in understanding the criteria for the reference links and press releases. As per the previous comment shared by reviewer Abdullah, the tone of the content has been changed to a neutral tone. Also need your help in understanding which part of the content looks like advertising.
The changes mentioned by you are very broad in terms of understanding. Request you to give some examples or suggest exactly what needs to be changed.
You accepted this draft, yet all the wording is copyvio from this textbook. Some of the sentences have been moved into different sections, but the whole thing is theft. It's part of a pattern of very poor articles from a student course - this is one of last year's. I had a heads-up from knowing the course, so Googled a nice obscure group of words, "aspect of the larynx which is worse on phonation", and got a direct hit. PamD13:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ATM Industry Association (ATMIA) submission
Dear David
Following yesterday's chat and previous comments, I have updated the submission by
a) deleting mission statement (although note that this is present in the Futures Industry Association 's wikipedia entry)
b) Removing URL's to Linkedin, pr notes and most of the links back to the ATMIA website (only left those such as membership which require update through own content).
c) Made sure there is third party content to demonstrate its its own independent notability by:
c.I) Sources in which ATMIA features notably span for several years and include several sources from
c.I.i) ATMmarketplace
c.I.ii) Finextra
c.II) Sources of high repute but where there is only one or to references include
c.II.a) Wired
c.II.b) NY Times
c.III) As noted in the article, ATMIA has been active in coordinating member's action in Australia, Canada and the USA as well as the annual benchmarking study with Accenture. There are URL to freely available third party sources supporting these statements/documenting these activitiies.
c.IV) As I explained yesterday, a number of ATMIA members already have an entry in Wikipedia and make specific mention of their ATMIA membership (e.g. KAL Software). Most of these have been named in the member section of the proposed entry for ATMIA. Having a Wiki entry will enable to cross reference back to these entries.
Hi there. The Bentley Systems page was deleted by SwisterTwistertalk back on July 2016. This same admin also rejected the new article where I provided many examples of notability through the outside references I provided.
I disclosed that I am an employee of Bentley Systems and went through the existing article and found references to outside resources and provided citations for everything. I am not understanding how a $600+ million company who has been referenced in books and news articles is not considered notable. Every single citation/reference in the article references an outside source not related to the company and should prove notability.
I would like to kindly ask why exactly the page is not considered notable. Supplying links to the Wikipedia guides on notability is helpful but I really would like to see how this company is not considered as notable. Real examples, please.
I'm not trying to be difficult, but the Bentley Systems article was up since September of 2004 and suddenly gets deleted after being on Wikipedia after 12 years? I worked on this for weeks to make sure that every reference was verifiable and accurate. I would like to take the next step and request a formal appeal of the deletion of this page and also kindly ask a different admin review this please.
Could you please advise on how I may move forward with the appeal process?
(talk page watcher) @MBouch16: You should talk to the admin who deleted the original article: this was not SwisterTwister but @MBisanz:. I'm not sure that it's appropriate for the editor who nominated the article for deletion last time round to be the one reviewing it at AfC this time, as he is clearly WP:INVOLVED in the topic. It also seems strange to suggest "wait a few years" for a company established in 1984 whose article has been in the encyclopedia for 12 years. PamD15:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, PamD. Thank you so much for your response. You are right, @MBisanz: deleted the page back in July and has been very helpful in this process for me. He/she brought back a copy of the page for me to work on and was kind enough to respond to all of my questions. He/she even helped me resubmit this article for review. It was SwisterTwistertalk that reviewed the updated AFC and rejected the article. I'm just so confused as to how I can help get this article back up. I don't want to break any conflict of interest rules. I took the old article, fixed a couple of sentences, updated everything on that article with citations and references to external sources so there were verifiable resources. I just find this whole thing to be so odd. I'm just trying to help restore a page that mysteriously disappeared after 12 years. So, I'm not sure what @MBisanz: can do for me at this point. I am new to all of this and really tried hard to make sure I followed the Wikipedia guidelines. Would you suggest that I ask @MBisanz: to approve this article or should I go to an appeal to have it reviewed by others who are not WP:INVOLVED? Thanks!--MBouch16 (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I hadn't realised MBisanz's involvement since the original deletion. I guess they'll come along to this page now after the pinging, and they can best advise how to proceed. Good luck. PamD20:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for responding so quickly, PamD. This Wikipedia stuff has been a learning experience for me. I appreciate you responding. It helped just to get another person's opinion :-). --MBouch16 (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PamD Hi, again. This is the recent response I received from SwisterTwister [[User talk:SwisterTwister|talk]: "Regardless of whether I was involved at the deletion, which I only then noticed when it alerted me the article had been deleted before, this is still quite unlikely to be accepted, because articles that were deleted so recently, are quite unlikely to be any different, and in some cases, anyone who would restart it after it's been deleted, would suggest they perhaps either simply want it restored or added again without considering why it was in fact deleted. SwisterTwister talk 16:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)".[reply]
Does this seem fair to you? I cannot update the article with the citatitions and references that they couldn't find with a simple Google search? So, that's it? I'm not allowed to ask for reinstatement of the article because it is "too soon"? This response is unacceptable and seems very opinion based. All I want is someone to review the article with the updated references and citations which PROVE notability. So this company was notable for 12 years on Wikipedia and all of a sudden isn't? Any thoughts from an experienced Wikipedian like yourself? Thank you :-) --MBouch16 (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SwisterTwister, Could you reopen and relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gundu English Secondary School, Suryavinayak, Bhaktapur as I'm not seeing any consensus to keep nor delete at the moment, There's been alot of discussion on schools lately and one thing that's been cropping up is that these schools should be reliably source regardless of SCHOOTOUCOMES,
Only one source was provided for that article which was a PDF - It's a source which is great however within the next year or 2 that source will become unavailable and we'll all be back to square one,
Thanks & Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk00:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You speedy closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Airy High School on the grounds that high schools are de facto notable. This close was erroneous on two fronts: First, it plainly contradicts the applicable guidelines, NSCHOOLS and ORGSIG| ("No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools."). Second, "speedy keep" closes are only permissible in certain highly limited circumstances; it is not at all apparent that this is such a situation. Therefore, I request that you revert your close. Thank you. Rebbing04:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is Speedy or Snow Keep, whichever, in that the Keep vote largely outweighed the Delete votes, and thus it was quite unlikely any other consensus would have formed; the one Delete vote simply stated "per above", whereas the Keep vote stated clearly and fluidly what their thoughts were. SwisterTwistertalk05:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A snow keep is not a speedy keep. Please re-read WP:SK#NOT, which states this explicitly, and consider amending your close to state "snowball keep." There are important policy reasons why these two should not be conflated. That aside, I believe a snowball close was itself inappropriate: the discussion had only been open four days, and the voting was 8–2; that's clear consensus, but it's not a landslide, and there is no reason the discussion should not have been allowed to run its course. Thank you for your consideration. Rebbing05:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You commented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt King (producer) on September 18 with a delete vote. However, there were two people batched in the nomination, but fully half the commenters (including you) only addressed one of the two — with the result that while one of the two articles has been deleted, the other one is still open and has been relisted another two times because nobody else has participated in the discussion since. Could you please return to express an opinion one way or the other about the remaining article? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 07:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Request on 13:43:29, 28 September 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Vijayraj S Nadar
Hi SwisterTwister, Hope you are doing good. Appreciate your honest feedback on the Coverhound Draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:CoverHound) that has been submitted. Well i understand that the draft might still need further improvement in terms of the references that has been provided However, i have tried to include as many references as possible that to national references such as Wall Street Journal, NYTimes & other notable references like Siliconbeat, Techcrunch. It may be possible that i may be missing out on something here, hence it would be great if you could let me know the exact thing that needs to be done with regards to this post so that it goes live. Any help from your side specifically would be really appreciated.
Vijayraj S NadarPerhaps I can help. The NYT and the WSJ references are about Google, and merely mention in passing that this is one of the firms they have formed partnerships with---they aren ot substantially about this company. Telecrunch & Siliconbeat are notorious for covering each press release or announcement from any tech company--they are indiscriminate and thus unreliable. Such reports are helpful to those in the industry who want to know about every fundraising success and the like, but are not of general significance. (Telecruch also publishes serious reviews, and those do count for WP) The GNG requires references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Stratajet page comments
Hi David, I hope you're well. Thank you very much for your additional comments on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratajet page. They are very helpful in helping me to position the page correctly.
My question to you is as follows ... the media coverage of Stratajet - as you have seen - has so far been positive towards the platform. It is therefore only these 'assets' that are available to accurately 'reference' the launch details of the platform. However, as you can see by the coverage, the business is a major player in the private aviation space, much like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetJets and I would argue, therefore, warrants a page. Should there be any subsequent negative press on the platform, this can naturally be added in.
I'd welcome your thoughts, though for the time-being I have added in a less 'PR-y' webpage that references the extent of the funding Stratajet has received, which can be seen here: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/stratajet#/entity.
perhaps I can help. There is no evidence the company is notable by our standard ,which is that there are multiple references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. The material cited in the article is mere notes about funding. That does not show notability . DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Decline of Solodev:Draft Wikipedia Page
Hi David, hope all is well. Since our founding in 2006, Solodev has had a presence on Wikipedia like all competitors in our space, that of content management providers. The newly updated Wikipedia page features references to nearly a dozen third party references from Amazon Web Services to the State of Florida Governor Rick Scott announcing our expansion. Your comment was that Solodev was not "notable" enough for a Wikipedia page and looking at our competitors, none of whom have partnerships with Amazon or have been endorsed by a state governor, I do not understand what we are missing, i.e. why we're not notable. We are, as a matter of fact, the only GSA-approved CMS Vendor in the U.S., which I've added to the article, we're listed on the Amazon Web Services Marketplace and a dozen + other third party websites. Please give me more to work with to get this page approved. I really am lost here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattmclaren (talk • contribs) 15:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know you mentioned major news sources, what sort of sources would you like specifically. Especially with Anavex Life Science's recent news (Biogen - a major U.S Pharma player - testing their chemical compound)there are now a WIDE base of major news sources reporting these events. It is important to note that this IS a small biopharmaceutical company. Therefor before aligning themselves with a major player it is/was difficult to acquire independent sources. The relevance of the company is its unique and so far impressive pipeline. But it is small and generally unknown (until possibly now). I do believe the article is justifiable as is, however, I am willing to look into sourcing these major news sources. Just let me know what you consider to be major.
10:24:51, 30 September 2016 review of submission by PriyankaD
I have modified the article by deleting irrelevant or trivial mentions. I have also removed the section which talked about notable accomplishments as it made the article look like an advertisement.
I believe your suggestions are addressed, if in case I have missed anything then please suggest.
Hi there. I can understand if you want us to remove some references that might be to PR, but you specifically cited reference #1, which is a third party article about the company, independent of funding.
Can you please explain? I think we have a lot of coverage here... independent of funding and blog page announcements. Could you elaborate please on how many more independent references we need? Additionally, I didn't see anything about funding being out of bounds in the initial guidelines. I feel like the fortune article is highly newsworthy. Thank you for reviewing.
Resubmission of Onshape Cloud-based CAD
I have reworked the Onshape submission, reframing it to focus entirely on the actual software product, rather than the parent company.
I believe that it merits a Wikipedia entry given that 10 other Wiki pages currently reference Onshape (ie, the CAD system), and it makes sense to offer an answer should someone ask, "What's the deal with this Onshape?"
Twister, I would like to seek your guidance. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia but wanted to start my learning by taking a page that was previously deleted years ago (I noticed it on one of those deletion wiki sites) and update it in order to get it approved. I'm reaching out to you because you're part of the reason I chose this article. I noticed on a few other pages where you stated that a person was notable if they were 'widely held' in libraries. After searching Laura Stack on WorldCat, she has impressive stats there. Yet, her page has still been nominated for deletion because of the past attempts (even after I updated with current references and performed several copy edits) and my mention of the "widely held in libraries" was omitted by another user. Can you help me in this by consulting me on what I should do or by weighing in on the deletion discussion? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Laura_Stack_(2nd_nomination)) Thanks for your time. Glen Miller Fan (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This has been deleted and locked by admins long time ago. But a lot has changed since then. CupcakKe currently has her own issue of Fader Magazine thus she meets the criteria. Fader is a very well known magazine usually making issues with high profile celebrities. You can check her interview and see it for yourself.
Not sure how wikipedia works but I saw your name there and messaged you! I'd be happy if you could help. Is it possible for you to remove the protection? Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.159.231.227 (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's enough currently outweighing, however, that the large number of deletions, it would not be enough or convincing to allow a new article yet, because, even with a few news now or magazine appearances, it's simply not enough. It weighs better if you simply wait longer and then we can have a larger amount of news, then we can perhaps consider something and also then know enough time has passed. SwisterTwistertalk19:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please read articles and think before proposing deletion
I agree with you that the article about Vera Muzzillo should be deleted, but you used the words "businessman" and "his" in the rationale, which implies that you didn't even clock the name "Vera" or read the article before writing the rationale. Please slow down and be more careful, because such mistakes can cause offence. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestion on Draft:MiniTool & Requesting to Review the changes
Hi SwisterTwister,
Thanks for your suggestion, I have added the resouce from GOOGLE NEWS and highbeam as your suggestion,
Also I want to know that what can I do to get my submitted Article accepted soon, as its taking so much time,I posted this around 20 days ago but its still waiting for review. --Keybord-Man (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria, are quintessential to good reviewing - you know this as well as anyone. You have patrolled 219 pages today in just over two hours. This is absolutely not humanly possible - several of us have tried. There are instances where you have patrolled at a rate of 7 a minute - that's just blind button mashing.
I don't care what our backlog is, no one, not even DGG or me together have time to verify the quality of your patrols so you have to stop. I'm limiting your patrols to a total of 50 patrolls/reviews in any 24 hours or I'll block you without further warning and we can hold the ANI debate afterwards to unblock you on condition that you limit your daily reviewing to 50 articles.
Kudpung In case you miss the message at the other link, I explained there nearly all of these are by the same user, and you can see for yourself. It would be nice to WP:AGF especially since you'll see I am also tagging for deletion the questionable ones. Also, if you ever want to talk about Wikipedia, come to the UTC help channel, I could certainly notify you about other serious situations. SwisterTwistertalk16:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I submitted an article about a new App developed in New Zealand that is doing well and supports connection within families. It has been declined twice
as the reviewer believes the company is too young to have notability. It has received good press, including a new article.
Should I resubmit? Or when does a new company gain enough notability to be included in Wikipedia?
I'm having trouble finding any comments you have on why you nominated our page Journyx for deletion.
I looked on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journyx and couldn't find any recent comments. I can see that there
are external links that are broken and need to be removed or fixed, but I'm unsure of any other reasons. Could you
please clarify? Thanks, Kf0317 (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to say hi, and tell you how much your helping enwiki by removing spam and adverts and g13's. I hope you continue to stay! --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WebPT Page Deletion
Hello--I believe you marked the WebPT page for deletion. I wanted to reach out and see if you would be able to provide guidance on the best way to improve the page and keep it from deletion. I also added this comment to the talk page. If that is the best place to continue that discussion, I can remove section from your page. Appreciate the help and just FYI, I'm a bit of a Wiki beginner--so I apologize in advance for anything that I do wrong while learning. I just promise that I would like to learn Wikipedia and make sure the WebPT is no longer uncompliant. Oh and forgot to mention--I did not create this page, but I do work for WebPT. Hope that helps to know that info. Xstjimmy25 (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
09:35:46, 12 October 2016 review of submission by 195.222.14.179
Its been more than 40 days since we last submitted this article for a review, no responce.
We kindly ask to review our article and point out places for improvement if there are any.
perhaps I can help here. This is an encyclopedia and there is no deadline. perhaps there might be a need to have it for promotional purposes, but we don't do that. DGG ( talk ) 07:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Request on 21:17:11, 12 October 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by LittleGold
In the world of speculative poetry publishing, the websites that the rejecting Wikipedia reviewer is calling "trivial" are actually reputable online magazines with long histories of publishing and paying writers for their work. Additionally, Odasso has a co-editor (Sonya Taaffe) at the magazine where she edits, Strange Horizons, that was somehow approved to have a Wikipedia article devoted to her with no more reputable or "significant" sites as proof than offered for Odasso. Not all writers of note within their communities are published by NYT-level or POETRY-level publications, and not all of them work for such publications, either. It seems to me that it's illogical to reject the subject of this article given that speculative poets and editors have entries of their own with far less content, and not even "reputable" content at that. This is, therefore, a polite request for reconsideration. This writer's work is, to my knowledge, held in a number of university libraries in the United Kingdom as well as in the US. Poets get the short shrift to begin with, and this kind of resistance by Wikipedia of all sources seems particularly puzzling.
174.50.71.169 (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I know why you left and so do many others. I'm sure people will miss you, I don't understand why there must be so much hate, hostility and blatant uncivility on this Wiki. I do know however that experienced editors are leaving due to other troublesome editors thinking their always in the right. Honestly, I think that one day someone will realise enwiki has a problem and maybe an wiki admin will fix it, until then.
WE WILL MISS YOU SWISTERTWISTER
Add your signature to the list to say farewell to my dear friend SwisterTwister
Hey SwisterTwister I think everyone, including those who were in conflict with you recently, know how great your work has been, despite what happened. I think there were some misunderstandings and really hope you'll come back soon. Appreciative of your great help to the project, -Darouet (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully you'll come back soon bud. Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC#
Come back soon, I'll miss your quirky turn of phrase and humour. Theroadislong #talk# 20:05, 14 October 2016 #UTC)
Thank You!
Thank you for all that you have done here. You have done more than anyone knows, I'm sure. I understand the need for a break from this place. It used to be a fun place to edit, and now all people want to do is nit-pick and complain.
You have done an excellent job with helping me and others. Be well. Be happy. Come back if/when your batteries are recharged. Sh33na 22:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Hi SwisterTwister, sorry to hear about your retirement (i hope it is a temporary one), take care buddy.
I created this article as my first stab at contributing. Curious why this was rejected when similar people are included
(eg, Clara Jeffery who edits Mother Jones). Is it simply a matter of including more articles written?
Question About Future Looks Good Draft
Hi. I wrote an article about the OneRepublic song "Future Looks Good." I notice that it has not been accepted on grounds of not being notable enough, but another OneRepublic song off of the same album has warranted an article (Kids (OneRepublic song)). Considering this, I was wondering if you think it could be accepted if more sources are added or if the subject matter is just not good enough for Wikipedia.
Hi User:SwisterTwister!, i'd foreseen your comment to Draft:Ilaya National High School-which you mentioned about the citation/sources of information of this draft, that you will accepted the requested if i'll removed the sources from Wiki and add the source from news or journals, but i'd tried that step for a more than attempts but its doesn't work anymore. because every time that i'll do that process of editing, there are a notification flash from the page that it wouldn't be save the edits because of external sources.
Please take a look this issue. I've appreciated your effort on this :) Thank you!!! Tornado18 (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In April last you have voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worldwide energy supply with a rationale Keep as this may and need to be improved but it's imaginably acceptable as a subject somehow. From that time multiple editors (but mainly me) were trying to convince the author to add reliable and precise sources. Something he point blanc refused. So the suspicion of WP:OR is still not gone. Could you throw in an effort to convince the author to put in the requested precise and reliable sources? The Bannertalk17:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!! Sh33na 17:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
information about shoppingpak
dear there are lot of ecommerce business working in pakistan and as the shoppingpak is one of those we are providing its information to wikipedia as other lot of ecommerce websites have their history.
so its not for advertisement or marketing purpose. its just for providing information to pakistani people
Hi, not seeing a purge button and unsure what you mean regarding "purging." I click on the link at the bottom of my contribs page and the edit counter thing doesn't load. South Nashua (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reference errors on 24 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
You deleted the proposed article for Brandon del Pozo, a public figure in Vermont. Consider Wikipedia's definition of notability:
"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]"
Del Pozo receives ongoing and significant coverage in the largest independent weekly publication in Vermont (Seven Days), in the state's largest daily newspaper (The Burlington Free Press), in New England's largest public radio network outside of Boston (Vermont Public Radio), and on television (WCAX, WPTZ, WFFF and WVNY). These are multiple sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. His work as a reformer in policing has been covered in these venues and recognized in forums such as the White House. He has also appeared on the front page of the New York Times. He is the chief of police of the largest city in Vermont, and one of New England's principal public figure in law enforcement.
Within the profession, del Pozo has received the same national award for police leadership and innovation that was awarded to Bill Bratton, Charles Ramsey, and Edward Flynn, other American police chiefs who have wikipedia pages: the Gary Hayes Award. The award was given by the Police Executive Research Forum in recognition of his peer status with these individuals as a leader.
Because of his role in American policing, the public would benefit from a bio.
google the name michael christopher brown and scroll through the links and pages, read them and tell me why he doesn't warrant his own page as opposed to the many other photojournalists (hw is not an art photographer, so he does not attempt to submit his images to major museum. he is an associate photographer at magnum photos, so what is he doesn't have a permanently collected work, that is not what he does and he has no ambition towards that interest at the moment.
Hi, thankyou for reviewing my Draft:StarLeaf article. I take your point about press releases, interviews etc, and have stripped all of these out of the article. It now mostly consists of a notable (within the communications industry, at least) point about StarLeaf's transition from making video networking infrastructure to being a Cloud service provider; and cites 2 independent third-party articles which give a view of StarLeaf's position and 'role' within the video communications industry. Many thanks.
Abesharp (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, thanks for the latest comment. I have found and added 3 more independent sources describing StarLeaf's cloud-based video platform, I hope this is acceptable for meeting notability criteria.
I have been doing the best I can to call folks attention to the issues. As the person who reviewed Tonsil carcinoma and passed it to main space would you please recheck it - especially for COPYVIO? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After combing the article, I have not noticed any blatant copies and only fixed 2 which seemed somewhat closely pasted (but were not so concerning, so it was likely simply influenced by similar phrasing). The article currently seems acceptable now that I'm not seeing any blatant copyvios, and I have noticed the other Drafts either have not been submitted or have barely any contents. SwisterTwistertalk04:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because I still especially work at the essential areas such as removing advertising, copyvio and making sure competent AfC, new pages and AfD work is being made. Also, it's been a while since you last came to a meeting. SwisterTwistertalk16:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I left you a reply on the Draft:Caryn Marooney page. I want to see if it convinces you to reconsider the submission or at least think it's worthy of getting a couple of other opinions. We could post it to the Teahouse for a second opinion. I admit this is a close case. You'd expect someone of her prominence to have had more stories written about her. Thanks. BC1278 (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
Hello SwisterTwister. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator.
Administrator note You have been grandfathered to this group based on prior patrolling activity - the technical flag for the group will be added to your account after the next software update. You do not need to apply at WP:PERM. 20:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Your Opinion
Hi SwisterTwister, I see you know quite a lot about Wikipedia article deletion so I wanted to ask you whether you think that this article, Darren Barefoot is notable. I wanted to have an AfD for it but wasn't sure if I should. Thanks. (ps. please don't retire) NikolaiHo☎️01:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed your request that day but, because it was something needing time and effort, and I have several nominations set and launched, I chose to wait. My thoughts are still for deletion regardless who nominates it. SwisterTwistertalk05:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
30 October 2016 review of submission Henri Michel-Lévy
Hi,
Thank you for reviewing the draft I am proposing. I have added a section on the works of Henri Michel-Lévy ans some material as insert. This is a 19th century artist whose paintings can be found in several museums including the Orsay museum in Paris, which is THE major Impressionist and 19th century painting museum in Europe. Michel Lévy is also important because of his interaction with many of the most famous French painters of the late 19th century. let me know what you think.
Thank you for your assistance- understanding my COI, I have been trying to advise this agency on what you described as their issues. They have been using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butler,_Shine,_Stern_%26_Partners as a model, who they view as being a west coast version of themselves. I see the main difference appearing to be credible, 3rd party articles written about that agency specifically, and philosophy of the founders. I would appreciate if you can confirm what I am seeing as the difference, or advise on how best to explain what they need to do to prove they are worthy of a Wikipedia entry.
I wanted to check that the sources are not advertising and is not paid for - there are many other sources that we can reference including the Financial Times and The Economist - I was trying to be as factually accurate as possible and not be promotional. In term s of notability ThinkMarkets is a very well known brand which is why I felt it deserved a page - when I requested a page I was not refused and I have been completely transparent about the y process and my conflict of interest.
Hello. I think I need some guidance. Thank you for reviewing the page. Rachel Zeitz is a 15 year old who was recognized as one of the most influential teens in the USA this year. She has a multi-million dollar company and is consistently reviewed by and on television by numerous national outlets such as Time, Forbes, ABC etc. SHe is a future "Steve Jobs" type of person. She has a partnership for a product line endorsed by the #1 Lacrosse player in the world, Casey Powell. Her company is fairly massive at this point. Can you pinpoint specifically what you are looking for from an approval standpoint? What needs to be changed in the article. Thank you in advance for the help.
23:01:29, 31 October 2016 review of submission by CJM123
Thank you for your feedback. I hope you can help me better understand how the Larry Rand bio can better meet Wikipedia's "Notability" requirements.
Solely on the basis of Mr. Rand's notability as one of the world's most eminent communications experts, he has been cited at length in articles by Barron's, Dow Jones,The New York Times, and Harper's Magazine, and cited in three books by award-winning journalists, as indicated in the footnotes to his bio submission. His actions as mayor of a New York municipality received ongoing press coverage during his tenure in that position. Mr. Rand is the co-founder of one of the most influential corporate communications firms in history.
By virtue of comparison, Mr. Rand's notability and the substance of his media exposure seem vastly more significant than that of these communications experts, most of whom are his contemporaries:
Wikipedia seems to have a void of coverage of the biographies of the heads of global communications agencies. According to the Holmes Report, the size of the global PR agency industry in 2014 was $13.5bn, up from $12.5bn in 2013. It would seem a lack of reference material to the leadership of a sector of the economy this size is remiss.
In terms of overall notability as defined by Wiki, the bios of these individuals in other sectors seem weak in comparison to the public record citing Mr. Rand's involvement in some of the biggest news events in business history:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walkover Technologies
Hi,
I'm Pallavi and am looking for a little help from you. You have nominated Walkover Technologies for deletion citing the reason as the advertisement of its products and services. I'd like to know what changes you think should be made to make it more appropriate for Wikipedia.
Your guidance and help would be truly appreciated!
@SwisterTwister - thank you so much for your reply, I appreciate it. I would like to discuss your comments, which are that encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view (which my Article for Submission is), and also that it should refer to a wide range of independent, reliable source - which this article has. Furthermore, none of them are trivial, or discuss financing or funding. There are multiple other published articles for similar businesses, so I'm unclear as to why this particular submission continues to be denied, when a multitude of others are accepted? Can you please advise, when you have a moment? I thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration of this. With appreciation, ARouleau (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Slow down
Please slow down with your CSD tagging of drafts. Yesterday you tagged a number of borderline G11 cases, but also tagged most with copyright infringement, of which few of the ones I've checked actually are - one turned up 0.0% in the copyright detector! Sam Walton (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please slow down with 'everything'. Speed of reviewing whether at New Page Review or AfD is NOT necessary at all. A backlog is always better than poor reviews. After all that has been said and done, please remember that the community has been very generous in the past, but may not be so kind in the future. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also on the topic of your CSD nominations, I noticed that you have not notified any of the authors that you've nominated their drafts for deletion. This step is important for a couple of reasons; firstly, the user has a right to know where their draft went and why, and secondly, we need to educate people that copyright violations are not accepted here. Please go back and notify the authors now. — Diannaa🍁 (talk)
Samwalton9 Yes, there was a large amount of copyvio found last night, but looking at it again closely, The European Surgery Draft is in fact a copyvio of this. As for the copyvios, I have not notified authors because either the authors were advertising-only accounts some of which were now blocked, inactive users or it was so blatant, the user had to know it was unacceptable copy and pasting the entire website into the Draft. I also believe the post-deletion notice "Deleted WP:G12 Source URL: " suffices in showing it's unacceptable. I have taken care of the majority of it now, so it will be calmer now. Thanks to all for looking and deleting, SwisterTwistertalk15:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SwisterTwister: One of the authors was me (the 0.0% case)! It doesn't matter if you think they're advertising-only accounts; many newbies write in an advertisement-like way until informed of the correct way to write for an encyclopedia; you should AGF and let them know anyway. Sam Walton (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many people don't know that we don't accept copyright content, since they can freely post whatever they want without consequences at Facebook, LinkedIn, and so on. Many people in India are completely unaware of copyright law itself. Please take the time to let the user know in every case. It's the professional thing for you to do, and it's easily and automatically done via Twinkle. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
11:02:29, 3 November 2016 review of submission by Helgsim
I have resubmitted Dr. Hassanein's page for review after adding his television appearances, newspaper interviews, and notable research contributions. This page now has 26 reliable, independent sources including academic publications and a major newspaper. Additional scholarly sources have been added to expand on Dr. Hassanein's research and lend more credibility to his page. I believe this article now clearly demonstrates significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic.
In researching other physicians on Wikipedia, I have found several with limited sources who do not appear particularly notable (see: Gustav Ipavec, Robert Neubauer, Ken Evoy). Dr. Hassanein has made a significant and valuable contribution to liver disease research and medicine and based on Wikipedia's criteria I believe his biography warrants inclusion in this database.
Hi. You left this message on a page I created Draft:Soo Yeon Lee , but I don't understand what I need to do to resolve this. Could you please help me to understand exactly what I need to do to resolve the issue(s)? I have copies of all of the accreditations and awards that were referenced in the article. Also, there are many other table tennis players with articles here on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_table_tennis_players
Thanks for your comments. May I please ask for more detailed insight into the elements of the article which read "more like an advertisement", or perhaps how to fix this issue? I do not dispute it, but I would like to correct the article rather than abandon it.
Regarding the provision of independent, reliable, published sources, I would respectfully disagree. Six sources are from recognized national newspapers (Globe and Mail, National Post, Toronto Star); four are from independent charitable organizations (EGALE Canada, United Way, NAPPC); two are from governing architectural bodies (CAGCB, CMHC); one is from an independent body within the field of architecture (American Institute of Architects); and only four are from independent, though perhaps unreliable, architecture publications (Canadian Architect, Architecture Magazine, ArchDaily).
Thank you.
Deletion nominaton with no notice to editor
The editor of Draft:SMS Equipment Inc was surprised to see the draft gone with no explanation. I see that it was deleted as a copyright violation but I don't see any sign that the editor was contacted. I think that standard practice — do you know why it did not happen?
I chose not to because it was so blatant given both the G11 and G12 that I questioned whether it was likely notifying them would help (I had to honestly think it was an advertising-only account). What was the person's username? SwisterTwistertalk17:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
user:svadakkan
It may be possible we will eventually conclude this editor is only interested in advertising but I still think we owe them an explanation of why a draft just seemed to simply disappear.--S Philbrick(Talk)19:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please be specific on what type of sources need to be cited (instead of saying what not to source). I've seen Wikipedia pages with the only sources coming from discog.com (example: DJ Marley Waters) and theirs was approved and I've provided way more than that on Kacey Khaliel's page. For all intents and purposes, I also added a Discog.com link to Kacey's article. He's a notable and significant person in the music industry.
Cnjohnson88 (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cnjohnson88 Yes, and I will nominate that other article for deletion considering it's not acceptable and it should not have been started in the first place; now, as for your article, the links you showed me earlier are not convincing and the ones listed are not convincing for notability. We need actual in-depth third-party news and reviews, and not trivial passing mentions or interviews. If you find other articles with only discogs.com listed, list the name here and I'll examine. SwisterTwistertalk20:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!
Hi, you reviewed my Draft:StarLeaf article a couple of weeks ago and mentioned that 2 sources were not enough. I have since found and added 3 more independent sources describing StarLeaf's cloud-based video platform, I hope this is acceptable for meeting notability criteria. Many thanks. Abesharp (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft
I just received an email notifying me that my page [ [2]] was deleted. Why was this? Everylin k I try to go to thathould give me more information tells me that the page cannot be found.
Kreneem It was deleted because it was not actively touched in 6 months therefore deleted as housekeeping; I also found it unlikely it was notable since the current sources were not establishing notability nor were there signs of it happening. If there aren't any suitable sources, it's too soon. SwisterTwistertalk18:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you voted to delete my article, on Kevin Anderson & Associates, for the following reasons:
Delete as completely damned as an advertisement, from the advertising information which cares to state clients and published PR, to the said published and republished PR, there is literally nothing close to an acceptable article here and certainly nothing suggestion anyone has cared to fix it since the one account is an advertising-only one.
Many agencies (Creative Artists Agency, for example) have pages where a list of prominent clients is featured. The vast majority of clients and authors featured in this article have Wikipedia pages themselves, and the Kevin Anderson page offers a fuller picture of these authors works by providing information about their careers -- just like the CAA page does for Ben Afleck, by listing him as a client.
Kevin Anderson & Associates is the most widely-cited firm in the ghostwriting industry, and, as such, it seems to merit an article in an encyclopedia. I am very willing to make changes, or to expand/delete the article in a way that might make better satisfy community guidelines. I'd appreciate any suggestions you might have.
Hello SwisterTwister,
I am writing to ask for help with getting my page about Michael Christopher Brown live on wiki. You said there was insufficient information about what makes him notable. Is there a way to prove that he is more notable? Do you have any helpful hints? I have added some more information on my page as well as a few more citations. Please let me know if there is any help you can offer. Thank you!
Alynetam (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Request on 18:36:53, 9 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Ron Duprat
After the first rejection, I reformatted all references, cited several sources that verified nearly everything I mentioned, with all third party sources, i.e. magazines, talk shows, TV shows, etc. I still do not understand why the notability of this person is being disputed. I believe all my references have been third-party sources -- there is nothing written by him or from his own website (with the exception of his book, which I would think would further speak to his notability, not detract from it). I do not understand why a press release isn't considered a verifiable source. It tells facts about a particular event. Interviews are worthy in that they show the person in question is indeed who he says he is and backs up what was said in the text. Can you flesh out what you mean by "trivial passing mentions" and "other triviality?"
When you say "anything else published or otherwise largely influenced by him" do you basically mean just the book he authored? Because that's the only thing I can see that was authored by him.
I am at a loss here and really would like to understand what you meant in your rejection email so I can rectify this. Thank you for clarifying and for your work on this.
Ron Duprat (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
M.E.[reply]
Hi SwisterTwister, thank you for reviewing my submission for ArenaCube. The article was written after detailed research of how other similar companies are included in Wikipedia.
Therefore, i clearly don't understand why this was not got accepted since the language is overall neutral and it doesn't use any promotional language and everything is mentioned is backed up from references that are not ads.
Thanks for your comment on draft:The Tumor (short story). I have added a Reception section to the article including multiple positive and negative reviews of the book. I hope this satisfies your comment Would still need all additional reviews overall. If not, would you please explain further what you mean? 24.101.31.180 (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments on Charles Daniel Tenney
Hi SwisterTwister,
Thank you for the comments on my draft on Charles Daniel Tenney. I've added additional citations as requested. Quick question. I'm making this post based on information found in a collection at Dartmouth College Library, and I am an employee of the library. Would this be considered a conflict of interest? I will delete the post if this is the case.
Letting you know that I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of this article as blatant advertising and have instead removed the promotional and opinion sections. I notice that you did not inform the editors who had worked on the article about your speedy deletion nomination (nor the editors of the article you took to AfD shortly before). I'm going to drop messages on the talk pages of the Pecel Pitik editors now, but please inform major editors of articles you nominate for deletion, especially speedy deletion. It's only fair to give them a chance to argue for keeping the article they have worked on, and they are often in the best position to fix it up so that Wikipedia doesn't lose coverage of the topic. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SwisterTwister for promoting this draft to a page. I expected do a bit more work on it before submitting it as a proper article - is this the usual process or can I expect kind, experienced editors such as yourself to pick up drafts and launch them anyway? Its fine either way, but its my first article so wanted to understand the process better. Many thanks
Stevet-l (talk) 14:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello SwisterTwister, I have removed your speedy nomination from this article. An AfD nomination for this topic is already underway, and neither A7 nor G11 do fully apply in this case (imo). Just a quick note for your information, in case you'd like to comment in the current nomination. The article certainly fails the regular notability criteria and will likely get deleted anyway. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 08:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Javier Sanchez Lamelas
Hello SwisterTwister, Thank you for reviewing the article draft:Javier Sanchez Lamelas, which you rejected on 17 September 2016. I reworked the article to show his importance and improved it with reliable sources: the provided ones are now top media publications (newspapers, magazines, interviews) and third-party conference/awards websites. Javier Sanchez Lamelas is a very notable person in the Spanish marketing industry both because of his work and talks. I am willing to resubmit it and would not like it to be declined again. Could you please take a look and let me know how to move forward? Really appreciated.
Guillermosainz (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Request on 02:25:53, 14 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Gangactor
I want this to be deleted: 'Draft:Gangadhafr Panday ' as there is a spelling mistake.
an unwanted 'f' character at 9th position.
The correct spelling is 'Gangadhar Panday' and a separate article is being created [ now DRAFT status]
gangactor (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello.
I'm a new writer and I'm trying to write about a nonprofit foundation working in Israel. The reviewer commented that the article is written like an advertisement. I would really appreciate any help I can get.
Thank you,
Roni
Hi there, I created this wikipage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Lloyd_Mahaffey. It is now considered for deletion because the sources are not good enough for wiki standards. I was wondering what sorts of sources would I need to include make it up to wiki standards.
Thank you.
Hi there, I created this wikipage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Lloyd_Mahaffey. It is now considered for deletion because the sources are not good enough for wiki standards. I was wondering what sorts of sources would I need to include make it up to wiki standards.
Very grateful for your time and review of the material. I appreciate the work of all volunteers to make Wikipedia what it is today. So thank you!
I concur on the fact that high standards must be kept. Your review has helped me to further enhance and clarify the page. I have made corrections and improvements, and as you will see, I added exhibitions and articles/interviews.
If I may, I want to make a comment which will, hopefully, help to move things forward and further clarify some issues that you cite.
You mention the need for the artist to have collections in Museums to be an acceptable candidate. Sincerely, that may be an extremely high bar, particularly for living artists - and more so, if they come from developing art markets-, and one which does not seem to be held across Wikipedia as far as I gather.
For a start, there are many famous artists which still have not landed their works in major Museums. Banksy comes readily to mind, unless you count his prank of hanging his works briefly and in a clandestine manner at the Tate and other Museums. If while Van Gogh was alive you had asked how many collections in Museums he had, the answer would have been “none”. Berni, one of the great Argentine masters of the 20th century was shunned by most mainstream collectors during most of his life. Again, during most of his lifetime, there were no paintings of his in museums. These are just examples that come readily to mind.
This is even more so in the South American tradition, where most artists enter Museum collections once they are dead. They may be very well known and respected though, but they may not yet be in Museums.
If Museum presence were to be the litmus test, the truth is that most artists alive today would not qualify, and the same could be said of hundreds of existing artists´ pages on Wikipedia.
To illustrate this, I had a look -in a very summary and superficial way, mind you-, at living artist biographies within Wikipedia, particularly from South American origin. Just in 15 minutes I found all the pages below. If you peruse through them and compare them with Alperin´s well known credentials, you will immediately see my point. At best, some may be similar, while in many cases these biographies are much less substantial as well as much less substantiated (and almost none of these have Museum presence as far as I know):
By no means this is critical of these artists whom may be fully deserving a Museum acquisition by now as well. I am just making a point about the nuances I mentioned above and how different artistic environments behave (in this case, in South America).
Please feel free to let me know your thoughts.
I hope this helps. Notwithstanding your decision at this point, I will endeavor anyhow to constantly keep improving the information on this exceptional artist as well. That can never be a bad thing!
Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable:
...
2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honorat a national or international level.
...
For the purposes of Criterion 2... Some less significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige also can be used to satisfy Criterion 2. Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts (e.g., the Guggenheim Fellowship, Linguapax Prize), etc. Significant academic awards and honors can also be used to partially satisfy Criterion 1 (see item 4 above in this section).
I'd respectfully suggest that receiving the 'UN 21 Award' for service 'beyond the call of duty' for 'outstanding contributions to the Chinese Summer Study Programme at Nanjing University' from the United Nations and the Secretary-General himself is notable under the above criteria. Dr Ho received this UN 21 award twice in recognition of his contributions to UN Officials' study of the Chinese language. Am I incorrect in saying that the United Nations is certainly a notable organisation?
Unless I am missing something, if Dr Yong Ho is not notable, then I would respectfully say that the notability criteria sets the bar too high.
I was wondering why the articles in Prima Magazine and Woman Magazine on Sara Alexi weren't noteable enough as they are national media coverage of her career.
SwisterTwister, I've already cautioned you about this once, and am not happy to be doing so again. If an article survived an AfD, regardless of when the AfD was or if you "accept" its validity, it is not eligible for speedy deletion. Period. Do not again nominate an article for speedy deletion without first checking if it survived an AfD. If it did, the article may not be speedied, period, end of story. You may, of course, renominate any such article for AfD if you feel that should happen, but it isn't, under any circumstances, speedy eligible. You make a lot of good speedy nominations, and I certainly don't want to reopen the discussion of topic banning you from the process, but you must understand how it's actually meant to work. SeraphimbladeTalk to me11:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Request on 14:59:42, 16 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Makeorbrake
This regards the inclusion of automotive artist Ken Eberts in Wikipedia.
You suggested this entry might be saved by citing permanent exhibitions of his work in museums and inclusion of published reviews of his work. I am not being contentious when I point out the following:
The continuity of Eberts work appearing in the two biggest Concours d'Elegance events each year for 20 years equate to a permanent exhibition of his work. It is akin to a museum. Secondly, in studying other artists' entries in Wikipedia, like Norman Rockwell, I did not see any published reviews of his work.
I think the following verifiable and broadly believed fact gives Ken Eberts the notability to enter Wikipedia: he started and nourished a new art genre: automotive art. He is widely acknowledged as the progenitor. I'm at a loss as to why the review of my entry would not acknowledge that he satisfies notability. It may be that we could have a more fluid dialogue on what would better communicate his notability.
The article you created is titled Arie Gill-Glick, which appears to be the name he used while competing in the Olympics, but all of the sources appear to use Arie Gluck. Do you see any reason not to rename the article to use the more common name? Alansohn (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, thanks for taking the time to look over my latest changes. I have since added 4 more references from independent news sources (major sources at least in terms of the business communications industry). These are references 2,3,5 and 6, and they serve to illustrate the relevant points in the article. I think this is what you intended when you said 'Add all additional news overall'? I have also added a reference to one of the technical white papers from StarLeaf's website, I believe this is relevant because it gives details about StarLeaf's firewall traversal methodology, which is one of its unique differentiators and (for technical readers) quite possibly the most interesting part of the article.
Abesharp (talk) 05:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you left a message on my article Draft:Wraith_Games a couple of weeks ago and gave some great feedback. I've gone in and found more sources and took out the irrelevant ones and would very much appreciate you having another look at it when you get the chance in case I need to further improve it. Again, I hope I am messaging correctly as I am new to this whole Wikipedia thing. Thanks again!
Sirkidd2003 (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. North America1000 10:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Thank you for your recent contributions to John Cupido. I did have one note for you. I am working on a maintenance project to clean up Category:Pages using infoboxes with thumbnail images. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:
_by_Ron.jpg)
ElGatoSaez | Meow me 04:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
Coolabahapple (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Administrator note You have been grandfathered to this group based on prior patrolling activity - the technical flag for the group will be added to your account after the next software update. You do not need to apply at WP:PERM. 20:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
