Jump to content

User talk:SwisterTwister

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bcrisler (talk | contribs) at 18:23, 18 August 2017 (→‎Re. Ronnie Green). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 BOTTOM and 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.


13:24:38, 5 June 2017 review of submission by Rhish

I've added a range of published articles about her could you review these? —Preceding undated comment added 13:24:38, 5 June 2017

22:26:40, 19 June 2017 review of submission by Helen1921


I'm not sure why you are saying that the newspaper articles are not reliable sources. Many are too old to be found online but they definitely exist and are published sources. This organization has a very long history. What kind of sources are you looking for?

06:12:28, 21 June 2017 review of submission by Queensonu


{{SAFESUBST:Void|}

I have submitted my Wikipedia page 28 days ago by the name "Farah Siddiqui Matin" but till now it has not been published or reviewed? can I know the reason please?


13:50:18, 28 June 2017 review of submission by Lukendo


Hi, I am confused, this has not been accepted as it does not have independent recognition. In the United Kingdom since 1901 The British Psychological Society (BPS) is the recognised body for Accrediting Psychometric Tools and Training for publishing. Identity is a Personality Profiling Tool Accredited by the British Psychological Society and as such users have to have a Level 2 Test User: Occupational Qualification to purchase and to interpret the tool. The BPS have extremely strict criteria and ongoing accreditation reviews and would not give their Accreditation if the Identity Tool did not reach their standards and verification requirements. Identity has been Assessed by and is registered with the British Psychological Society Psychological Testing Centre (PTC).

Hope this helps, many thanks.


notability criteria for page Jubilee (DJ)

Hi SwisterTwister, I wanted to ask about your comment about the page for Jubilee (DJ). I included 12 sources, 11 of which Jubilee is the primary subject (either an interview with her or a review of her music). The sources include extremely reputable publications with very large followings, most of which also have a print publication- Brooklyn Magazine, The Fader, Spin, The Guardian, and Complex.

These are some of the most reputable sources that would cover a contemporary electronic musician, and I fail to see how they don't meet the notability criteria.

Luvtoucans (talk)luvtoucans

23:35:23, 6 July 2017 review of submission by Doramensah1971



What do you mean by the subject does not meet the notability standards. All the articles I added focus on the subject. I can add 100s more. This is one of the biggest stars in the Nigerian film industry!

18:20:13, 7 July 2017 review of submission by KBVI




I am genuinely confused as to why the article I wrote about attorney Catherine M. Stanton was rejected. I have seen many similar articles about many other attorneys on Wikipedia.

I provided legitimate news sources about attorney Stanton. The article is not an advertisement. It's about an accomplished, female lawyer in the highly competitive market of New York City.

Any additional feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

KBVI

18:58:36, 7 July 2017 review of submission by Poutnikl


I admit I am very confused now, if and how can I ever improve the references to meet the criteria, or if I should ever try.. :-(. Perhaps this my first attempt will be my last one. Why is the single source PC Magazine in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge_router considered better than wiki database of OpenStreetMap, combined with multiple admitedly less notable sources ?

19:05:13, 8 July 2017 review of submission by Heystack



Would you please review William M Gayton once again? We are not sure why there are other "Scouts" that have Wikipedia pages that haven't held Director of Scouting positions nor have they been involved w/ as many decisions. Thank You!

10:35:22, 9 July 2017 review of submission by Jamesrawson79


thanks for taking the time to review the draft. I have added reviews of the person practice and career written on significant, independant and mainstream news sources such as the Guardian Newspaper, Wired Magazine, Filmmaker Magazine and Creative Applications. These sources are both in their field and in mainstream media all significant third party and verifiable major sources that meet wikipedias guidelines for independance and significance. I have included references to works written about the authors work on the BBC, another significant independant news source and one such article was part of BBC's Best of 2015 list. In the exhibitions section i have included references to one of the works produced by the art group found by the person of note which was acquired by the Victoria and Albert Museum in London. I have also summarised the position of these mainstream news references and included them in the article to make it clear why the works are significant. Together with the existing extensive links and references all to verifiable thrid party sites like the Independant, Creative Review, a BAFTA nomination, and extensive profiles of the individual on major news and industry sites. I trust that all these changes demonstrate sufficent notability. thanks.

15:13:26, 9 July 2017 review of submission by MSmuzynski



Hi SwisterTwister, Thank you for reviewing my article! Unfortunately, it was declined for lack of notability on the subject. I cited 10 articles from independent, reputable national news and international publications that wrote about the attraction/company. It has been featured in many, many more so I am happy to provide additional sources. How many would you recommend including in the article to meet notability guidelines? Thanks so much for your help! This has been a great learning experience.

I have added five more sources and additional information to the article draft to improve notability. Would you mind reviewing it again and letting me know if more improvements need to be made? Thanks again for all of your help!

Request assistance for Draft:Unigma

User:CorbuleacM (talk) - 12:20, 10 July 2017 (GMT)

Hi SwisterTwister,

I've added several more independent sources to Draft:Unigma. All of them are unique now. I've read and followed Wikipedia guidelines and I am trying for more than a year to get the page published. Please let me know.

Best regards,

Mihai.

14:24:31, 10 July 2017 review of submission by Bronagh1


I am not requesting a re review, i AM JUST A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT THE COMMENT! IF I COULD JUST GET A BIT MORE CLARIFICATION THAT WOULD BE GREAT!

17:41:11, 10 July 2017 review of submission by Seporche


I am confused as to how the Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame, Texas Monthly, National Review, National Law Journal, D Magazine, and Dallas News are not considered significant sources for notability. The subject is a leading lawyer in her field and, although she is associated with notable persons, is an independently notable figure. Would you recommend expanding upon any certain sections of the article to better demonstrate this notability?

00:39:59, 12 July 2017 review of submission by Jamesrawson79

'

Hello, I dont know if you have had a chance to re review my draft submission but in lieu of your comments i have no added a series of articles that are directly about the subjects work/projects from independant and significant sources such as The Guardian, BBC, Wired Magazine, Filmmaker Magazine, The Independant, The Belfast Telegrapgh, Popular Science, Tank Magazine and IMDB in adition to the other web based references I had included previously. I trust this meets your notability criteria now. Thanks so much for your help through this process.

03:11:10, 12 July 2017 review of submission by 36.102.227.121


Hello, I Would like you to please advice me on a possible way to make my article look less like an advertisement. can you please point out some specific areas you would like me to change? Thanks

06:29:11, 12 July 2017 review of submission by Andreei


Hi! I am a user of this software that I personally find really fine. But also I found out that there is no Wiki page about it that was a little bit strange for me because the product is absolutely notable to be included into Wikipedia. That's why I decided to write an article about it. I spent more than 5-6 hours reading your guides and rules how to create a proper article. I stronly believe that the way I wrote it is neutral with no commercial or advertising nature. It's just the description that you can't write in a different way. What concerns sources. I found them in the Internet in a few minutes. It means that the product is widely presented on the Web with reviews from different people and sites. Yes, I agree that some reviews are similar. But those reviews describe the functionality of a product. If the product does have this or that feature, it won't be described differently. The description will be the same, words can differ a little bit. But still, as this tool was my reliable handler during several months and now I have some spare time, I do want to go on with creating Wikipedia page for it. Please, help me to improve it. I will appreciate it!

03:58:02, 13 July 2017 review of submission by Jamesrawson79


Thats fantastic!! Thanks so much for your patience and guidance with this. Do you mean i need to do something regarding the page move myself? Or is this now out of my hands now and I just need to wait? thanks again,

16:17:15, 14 July 2017 review of submission by 70.171.176.153

I am the person who gave the Omaha Black Music and Community Hall of Fame Awards in 2011, and was inducted for my work with many bands including Rhythm Machine. You can google Rhythm Machine Donald Harris for an interview I did years ago with Larry Grogan (music historian) on funky16corners.com - My information on wiki was incomplete and vague. I wanted to give concise information. I have never submitted a complete list to wiki of the recipients of the awards in 2011, but would be more than happy to. I am uncertain of who provided the information you have, but it is incomplete and leaves several people unmentioned who should be reflected as honorees on wiki. Thank you

16:44:55, 14 July 2017 review of submission by Trepanationsolution


Can you provide more info on why the newspaper articles and the edited book on his work don't count as evidence of his notability? The previous editor stated that the book IT'S ALL ALLOWED wasn't appropriate as a reference, even though it is published by Intellect and the Live Art Development Agency (and by University of Chicago Press in the US) and is a peer reviewed academic publication. This evidences notability, as does the number of obituaries in broadsheet newspapers (including one that calls him the subject a "legend"). Other references are all single-focus articles in peer-reviewed scholarly publications. Are there specific aspects that require additional evidencing?

17:27:13, 14 July 2017 review of submission by Vlaurentius


Thank you very much for your clear explanation. Would it be better if I write an article about his ancient nobility background? and leave out any business related activities. Maybe I could just mention his advisory role to key politicians?

20:08:22, 17 July 2017 review of submission by Gospitt


Hi there regarding

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_Evans_(Historian)

I have used 3 references that detail reviews of James's work 

Milton, Giles (Nov 2013). "Route to Riches". Literary Review. Retrieved 17 July 2017.

Jump up ^ Finlayson, Ian (28 Sept 2013). "Merchant Adventurers". The Times. Retrieved 17 July 2017. Check date values in: |date= (help) Jump up ^ Gulliver, Katerina (8 July 2017). "How the Puritans, not the Pilgrims, colonised America". The Spectator. Retrieved 17 July 2017.

These are 3 reviews from 3 of the most eminent publications in the United Kingdom.

Do I need to include further reviews?

As I could include.

http://geographical.co.uk/reviews/books/item/321-merchant-adventurers-the-voyage-of-discovery-that-transformed-tudor-england-by-james-evans

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/james-evans-as-arctic-ice-melts-an-old-dream-resurfaces-1.1990796

and he is featured at multiple literary festivals.

http://yorkfestivalofideas.com/2017/talks/why-english-sailed-new-world/

Your input is appreciated.

Best

Oli

08:04:01, 18 July 2017 review of submission by Captterra


Hi SwisterTwister, I saw that you declined my page on Basement Pong because I do not have any references. In fact, this is a game invented by me and some friends, we play it a lot. Therefore, there are (for the moment) no official references that exist. How can we solve this problem?

Regards,

14:08:58, 18 July 2017 review of submission by Coverdale1234


Please could you let me know which references are troubling you? I have sourced neutral and credible websites to back up my article. Please clarify what you mean by 'notability can not be inherited'.

Thanks

19:15:39, 19 July 2017 review of submission by Rebeccaswanson

I wanted a rereview because I want the notoriety of Michael Toombs examined as more of a community figure versus an artist, as he participates in more community upbringing projects and art projects that benefit Kansas City as a whole versus primarily contributing to his own personal practice, hence why his work is not in a museum's collection, but instead it is found as public art and murals around Kansas City.

Draft:Visar Mulliqi decline

Dear David,

The issue about the decline is, you will not be able to find any Balkans (South-Eastern Europe) artist with world-renowned Museums containing their art collections. Moreover, there is no major art review that can be cited as for any of them, since all the WikiPedia articles of the artists in the Balkans are based on local sources.

The source that you have declined is an Academic Personnel at the main University of the Republic of Kosovo, in the Faculty of Arts section. Moreover, he has recently held 2 exhibitions in Paris, which are well-sourced and documented, with a lot of pictures in the sources, text and even the Galleries confirming the events.

Please be aware of the circumstances before coming up with such decisions.

I have added another source from the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sports of the Republic of Kosovo (Governmental official source), and resubmitted the article.

Thank you.


P.S. The person in the article (Visar Mulliqi, painter) has also held an exhibition in the Museum of Kosovo in 2011, if that helps. It is cited in the CV of the official website of the Faculty of Arts at the University of Prishtina, where he currently lectures 'Painting'.

06:04:04, 20 July 2017 review of submission by Asmita93


Hello sir, Please help me in improving this article.

12:39:16, 20 July 2017 review of submission by Jogideep



Hi,

I have updated my article as per wiki guidelines. It would be great if you can review my draft again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Assetz_Property_Group

14:54:31, 20 July 2017 review of submission by Minerva567


Hi SwisterTwister, Thank you for reviewing my submission so quickly. I am submitting this draft for re-review after taking into account your edits. I looked at your comments and saw some flaws in the draft with the references, as there were some interviews and two paragraph profiles. I have since taken those sources out and replaced them with reliable sources or deleted them entirely if they weren't able to be backed-up by clear evidence. In your comments you said, "Overly suggestive of an advertised business profile both in information and sources", I hope my edits show that I improved the draft in this area. I searched many other CEO profiles such as "Jeff Immelt" and believe this article is of the same notability as far as sources and has the same tone as many CEO and President pages. I understand that the business executive articles are tough pages to write as they often come off as advertised business profiles because of the type of information. Hopefully the updated version is strong enough, let me know. Otherwise, I am willing to do more edits as I believe Isaac Rodriguez is extremely notable and others would like to know about more about him, as I see his name everywhere. Any advice on how to improve this article is greatly appreciated. Thank You.

Submission by Furious.lion declined on 17 July 2017 by SwisterTwister

Hi SwisterTwister. I am learning the process and sorry for multiple resubmission. Regarding your comments, I've edited the reference section and added several 3rd party sources such TV channels, newspapers, magazines that cite Oktay Arslan's work. Since this is my first wikipedia page creation, I've mainly inspired from similar Kurdish scholars' wikipedia pages such as Azad_Bonni, Nadir_Nadirov etc.


12:51:16, 25 July 2017 review of submission by Tkhandelwal


Thank you for reviewing Electrical Transient Analyzer Program Page. I tried to make this page based on the content that seems to be approved for Ansys. Can you please let me know which parts need to be deleted and improved in order for this article to remain on Wikipedia? My goal is to link all references and resources for ETAP software to this page.

13:40:57, 27 July 2017 review of submission by Trainkid4449


Hi, I would just like clarification on what sources are reliable and can prove notability. I tried to used other motorsports venues as a guide, but they seem to be using sources similar to those I used, or in some cases no references as all. Here are a few that I used:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Ohio_Sports_Car_Course https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Ledges_Road_Course (No Refrences) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summit_Point_Motorsports_Park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lime_Rock_Park

Could you give me an example, perhaps from another track, of a reference that proves notability?

Thanks, Michael

23:27:19, 27 July 2017 review of submission by El Capitano81


I am a Newbie and the instructions have a lot of jargon that i am not familiar with could you please explain exactly what is wrong?

15:54:26, 29 July 2017 review of submission by Narayanan, Ananth


Could you please define what is meant by "not suitable for Wikipedia?" Does it mean that Wikipedia does not list such people? We have gone through a number of revisions from notability to technical fixes. However, this comment that "This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia" does not indicate the requirement for any specific fix as the criteria.

The section on what Wikipedia is not is very broad: 2.1 Wikipedia is not a dictionary 2.2 Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought 2.3 Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion 2.4 Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files 2.5 Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site 2.6 Wikipedia is not a directory 2.7 Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal 2.8 Wikipedia is not a crystal ball 2.9 Wikipedia is not a newspaper 2.10 Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information 2.11 Wikipedia is not censored

Please identify which section in your opinion this content does not meet?

Thank you for your time and effort.

Review of Bram Bessoff Page 31 July 2017

Hi There,

I see that you reviewed my Bram Bessoff submission. He is a noted music industry professional, of which I took the time to demonstrate via the sources provided. Could you elaborate on why you do not believe the article meets the notability standards?

Thanks 375mon (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

375mon It would still benefit from all other existing major independent significant news. SwisterTwister talk 16:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:38:41, 1 August 2017 review of submission by Jakemadoff210


I need clarification on the word "significant'.

I have linked to notable sources that cover this company. Another company of the same pedigree, "Birchbox" has a Wikipedia page with similar content and quality links.

Thank you.

15:34:05, 2 August 2017 review of submission by UpsideLMS


Dear SwisterTwister,

Thank you for such a quick review. Very much appreciated. However, sad to know that our page got declined.

Also, after review noticed that the Awards Section went missing. UpsideLMS has won a lot of awards and has a lot of valuable resources indicating the same. Request you to review once again and if still any changes are required, please guide us exactly what needs to be changed so that we can incorporate the suggested changes and get the draft approved from your side.

Awaiting response. And many thanks once again.

17:25:30, 2 August 2017 review of submission by Kaityrobertspr


I'm not sure why the references aren't considered adequate. Did I enter them incorrectly? There are links to Elle, HuffingtonPost, etc. Please help me understand so that I can resubmit.

New at AfC

I've recently signed on as a participant at AfC. I see that you do a lot of work there. My expectation is that for the near future, I will mostly see articles that I can only comment on, the case for accept or decline sufficiently unclear for my inexperienced eyes. I hope that my adding comments strikes you as consistent with the goals of the project. If you think I'm off base in my comments or confusing the submitters, I can back off. Just let me know. Thanks. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jmcgnh Yes, and you're welcome to ask for any help on anything. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09:09:27, 4 August 2017 review of submission by UpsideLMS


Hello SwisterTwister,

Thank you for your suggestions although I am not quite convinced with the "credible source" comment you have made for the awards as the references mentioned are those of the Awarding bodies itself, which is the most credible source.

Also regd. the "promotional content" comment, while it has not been our intent to do so (and we have referred to and written in line with many competition pages with approved Wiki pages to see how the content is to be written) I am happy to know how we can change/tweak it to make it fit for approval.

Thanks in advance.

Draft:Global Cryosphere Watch

I understand your comments on the draft Global Cryosphere Watch (GCW) entry regarding notability and promotion, but I'd like to point out that they are inconsistent with many other Wikipedia entries. See, for example, the entries for the Global Atmosphere Watch, the International Association for Cryospheric Sciences, and the Global Climate Observing System. I'm sure I could find hundreds more that are promotional in nature and have few, if any, links to "major independent news". They are, nevertheless, very important and having Wikipedia entries is completely appropriate (in my opinion). The Global Cryosphere Watch was approved by and is part of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), which is a United Nations organization with about 190 countries as members! That alone makes it worth having a Wikipedia entry for GCW. Having said all that, I added many links which I hope will satisfy the requirements. Jeffreyrkey 14:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Swansea City A.F.C. season

Hi there. Just wanted to let you know you might want to be more careful about accepting AfC submissions in the future. I saw you accepted 2016–17 Swansea City A.F.C season a few days ago, but we already had an article by an albeit similar title at 2016–17 Swansea City A.F.C. season. Just thought you'd like to know. – PeeJay 18:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Draft:Purposeful Organisations

Thank you for helping me on my afs Purposeful Organisations swistertwister. I have added a whole heap of new content. I'm still learning the ropes here, but I look forward to any advice or feedback to get this one out to the wiki world!! colin Colin iles (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm, I seem to have picked up the links from the jupiter theatre by upsidelms. not sure how that happend and sincere apologies.

Colin iles (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:22:14, 7 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Lisa Hannam


Hi there,

I've changed the sources a few times to be more inline with the standards. But for some reason it's not saving my changes. What am I doing wrong?


Lisa Hannam (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPI requests

Thank you for reported suspected sockpuppet accounts over at SPI. CUs will greatly appreciate and process these cases faster if in future you can add some diffs to allow for easy comparison, especially those where the evidence is the strongest when paired. In the meantime, keep up the great work at AfC. :) - Mailer Diablo 19:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:48:04, 7 August 2017 review of submission by SpokenReasonsFF


Hello, I am requesting a re-review because information on John Brenkus is factual, and to my knowledge, complete. If there is anymore that needs to be added, I would love to know what that would be. Thank you in advance.

Request on 21:57:40, 7 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Jakemadoff210


Hey, I see what you're saying and have made the necessary changes, including major independent news stories about the company.

Jakemadoff210 (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 00:24:26, 8 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Vanessalua


HI. I tried to create a page and I have failed several times. I was wondering if maybe the page I am trying to create is not relevant yet. I am trying to create the page for director Xan Aranda. If you look for her on wikipedia you can see that there are 7 topics that mentioned her but she doesn't have her own page. Any advise would be appreciate it.

Thanks Vanessalua (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Vanessalua (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

View, Inc.

There seems to be an unusual COI, there are two sock groups, one is trying to promote the company's former founder Dr. Paul Nguyen (left in 2009) and another group is trying to add the recent products of View, two groups with two different goals. The page has a history of edit war and needs the attention of a senior editor to create neutral content and fixing history. Can you look into this? Also opened a Sockpuppet investigation to block the farm. Sundartripathi (talk) 04:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and it's the usual signs of such activities. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SwisterTwister, true, added a few more probable sock accounts right from the creation of the page. Sundartripathi (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Sundartripathi seems to be related to the accounts Jmplaton and 14kawadat who seem to be working for View. They have been trying to replace existing contents in a sweeping manner with inaccurate information under the guise of neutrality, while making legal threats and violating copyrights. Please review their history. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkrause038 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Hi SwisterTwister, thanks for your recent thanks, ive been looking at some cleanup lists in relation to Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge, and doing some easy fixes.

Coolabahapple (talk) 06:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on my AfC drafts

Hi SwisterTwister, I'm a bit confused by your comments on my AfC draft (Gelsey Bell). Would you mind explaining? Do you mean add more citations to both? There are many more reviews of their performances out there, but I didn't cite them because they didn't have any additional information that I thought would add to the article - usually just a synopsis of the show/their role, and some praise, both of which I'd already gotten from other references. Paracosmstalk 18:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Paracosms add more and emphasize the best ones at least and this will give the page some extra weight. SwisterTwister talk 18:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:06:51, 10 August 2017 review of submission by Acmetoys



Thanks for your notes. Friedman's work was produced in the pre-internet period where artists were alternative video artists were largley ignored by main stream media sources. Thereafter stalwart museums such as MOMA have exhibited his work in major shows such as Pacific Standard time

Per your recomendation I have added several references re art galleries, shows, and exhibition reviews of Friedman work (see below) Each one of these articles mentions Friedman's work by name. I have also included several link to U Tube videos that Friedman created for Berlin, Stacy Q, and several other bands. Each band that Friedman directed had a number #1 hit after Friedman directed videos for them.

In addition the LA times also reviews Friedmans's work as follows "Bradley Friedman directed an 111/2-minute video of the Screamers in 1981 performing "Eva Braun," a synth-punk song named for Hitler's mistress, in front of TV monitors. He also shot the stern and synthesized Anti-Sex League in 1980 playing a song with an unpublishable title enhanced with blurred-out images from a porn film. It directly related to the name of the band and the lyrics of the song and the performance, and the video was a response to a perceptions of sexual restrictions at the time," says Hyman. "Filmmakers were [manipulating video] to add to the music or add political commentary with the alternative imagery they were bringing. The period between Nixon's resignation and Reagan's inauguration is unique for more than artistic experimentation, but for an overlap between visual arts and music not seen since the Dada movement of the '20s," says MOCA chief curator Paul Schimmel. "I think the punk generation and the artists came through the Vietnam War and Watergate having a very different relationship with the government. There was this antiart art and that was also true with the punk bands … it wasn't intended to be stylish, but to capture raw energy."

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/12/entertainment/la-et-guidefeature12-20120112

[1]

https://sites.google.com/view/bradley-friedman-external-link

https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/169463935/

https://books.google.com/books?id=YCQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT45&lpg=PT45&dq=ucla+international+visual+music+f...

https://books.google.com/books?id=ieUoCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA304&lpg=PA304&dq=eva+braun+friedman+screamers&source=bl&ots=IgHP8XUC_a&sig=09eBva4DnDVgXAfJHILFF1XWf_I&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjptLOv_8rVAhUT52MKHRaZB-QQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=eva%20braun%20friedman%20screamers&f=false

https://www.alternativeprojections.com/screening-series/strange-notes-and-nervous-breakdowns-punk-and-media-art-1974-1981/

https://www.alternativeprojections.com/screening-series/

http://autre.love/journal/2012/01/12/experimental-film-in-los-angeles

References

  1. ^ {{cite news|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GCQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT83&lpg=PT83&dq=bradley+friedman+music+video+director&source=bl&ots=kXaBNCmHip&sig=IBcppoQaeGnqzr16qH4QqBUDwMg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwij3vSH6crVAhWowFQKHQcpC4UQ6AEIOjAD#v=onepage&q=bradley%20friedman%20music%20video%20director&f=false

FxPro Article

Hello SwisterTwister,

Thank you for the review of FxPro draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:FxPro

Please note that this article was created based on the structure of the articles of other brokers, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMC_Markets, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Group

Could you please advise what could be done with the article, so that it gets approved?

Mcmikhedoff (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Helping out here) Most of our articles on Fx brokers need to be deleted. Unfortunately, it will take a while until we get all of them done, tho we did delete an earlier article on this company. There's lots of junk still in WP, and copying it doesn't help. I will look at the two articles you mention..
I can tell you an excellent way to get an article on your company in WP. Wait until the company is important enough that someone unconnected with the company writes one. Take care of your business, and advertise somewhere else. DGG ( talk ) 13:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hello DGG( talk ). Thank you for the comments. Do you think those two articles that I indicated above should be nominated for deletion? Or should they remain? What is the line between the forex articles that can remain, and the ones that do not? Regarding the unconnected editor - from my point of view it looks like a way to encourage undeclared paid editions, rather than the person manifesting their “conflict of interest“. Anyways, could you please advise what could be done with the article, so that it gets approved? Mcmikhedoff (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the way to get an article approved is to wait until the company is important enough that someone unconnected with the company writes one.
As for the present version, if it is moved to article space, I would advise nominating it for deletion. If it remains in draft space, it will probably be automatically deleted in 6 months. If you want it removed sooner, place a line reading {{db-author}} at the top of the page. DGG ( talk ) 14:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I got your point. However, could you please answer the question regarding IG and CMC pages, and the line between the forex articles that can remain, and the ones that do not? Moreover, CMC article was created by CMC Markets PLC user, and IG article was edited by IGwikiedit user.
Hello SwisterTwister, could you please give your opinion on this issue?
Mcmikhedoff (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:50:37, 11 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by ReturnZero


I modeled the article off the already published article about Boosted (company). This article is much like an "advertised business profile" which you said is means for not publishing; however, the Boosted article has been accepted. Also, you said the sources were inadequate, but they are virtually no different from the sources on the Boosted article. There doesn't seem to be a reason the Boosted article should be accepted but not mine.

ReturnZero (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:53:33, 11 August 2017 review of submission by 1398Hygeia


Hi, just looking for more direction on this feedback "we actually need significant independent news, but the kind we need is rarer in company executives. Also, notability cannot be inherited. "

Having a hard time understanding notability as inherited here.

06:55:22, 14 August 2017 review of submission by Valuation1997


I am requesting a re-review because this is not an advertisement. This is a page to make peple aware of the organisation which is a government body and provides help to public at large.Accordingly the idea is to disseminate the information on this office of the government to peaple at large. Kidnly note that this wikipage is for awarness not for any commercial prupose as it is related to a governmetn agency. Its a nascent governmetn body so it can not be termed as advertisement. This will certainly enrich wikipedia by adding information on government bodies. hope you will re-review this. Incase of any query i will be glad to provide the same.

14:34:00, 14 August 2017 review of submission by Jakemadoff210


Hey SwisterTwister, just following up this. I made the necessary changes. Let me know. Thank you!

18:19:37, 14 August 2017 review of submission by Stephanie.sanz1932


I have added another review/reference from Time Out New York. How many references would you suggest? The articles of similar subjects only have a few references, so far fewer than the 19 I have now included on this subject. Examples of similar subjects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Smith_III https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Bergonzi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seamus_Blake Stephanie.sanz1932 (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:42:26, 14 August 2017 review of submission by Robertmooers


The reason given for the rejection of the post was, not enough noteworthy citations or references. One of the problems in the manufacturing industry is, there's quite a bit of tribal knowledge especially when it comes to the development and adoption of technology. The timeline submitted as reference is a best account of the development of MBD (Model-Based Definition) that I can come up with. Verisurf is the first company to develop the concept of MBD for use in a PC environment. Once this claim is approved and posted to Wikipedia we welcome anyone who would like to challenge the claim. There is a small circle of metrologists within the CMS (Coordinate Measuring Society) we have reached out to for possible additional references. Our attempts in writing the post have been as objective as possible, avoiding any adverting or promotional descriptions - just the facts. We will continue to research sources/citations about the subject and post additional references. In the meantime, we would appreciate you approving the post so we and the industry can continue to refine the page going forward.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Robert

21:37:49, 14 August 2017 review of submission by Nealpolitan


I am requesting a re-review because I am a college student and we had an assignment to create a wikipedia page on a person you were interested in doing research on. I have edited and resubmitted my page multiple times but no further feedback has been given. My project is due at the end of August so I would love advice on how to get my page up as soon as possible! Thank you.

Nealpolitan Guinness World Records is not an immediate factor of notability here, but please add all other existing significant independent news and not simply announcements or notices as (wherever published), they won't count. Also, as with all subjects, notability cannot be inherited. SwisterTwister talk 21:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-review of Cassantec AG

Hello SwisterTwister,

You recently reviewed my Cassantec AG page. I made the necessary additions and changes-- would you mind re-reviewing the page?

Best, Daninguyen0 (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Daninguyen While I see the article has information and sources, we would still need all other existing major independent news in independent publications, and we also cannot accept anything influenced or tied to an announcement, notice, etc. since these wouldn't count into notability, even if we considered the publication's name. SwisterTwister talk 18:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Horace Mann Educators Corporation

Hi SwisterTwister,

Thank you for your feedback on our page. I've gone back and added additional independent references and feel that it is ready for review again. If not, I'd love to get some more information on what else I can add to make the references ready to go. I appreciate it!

HM Aaron (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • HM Aaron Yes, and this helps on a start, but please still add all other existing ones to enhance the article; also, keep to mind that anything still tied to mainly announcements, notices or similar won't establish the needed weight in notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:11:42, 15 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by RobRombouts


I put together a page on the Faculty of Social Science (University of Western Ontario), which was declined with a comment about not generally allowing pages on individual faculties. I was not sure why this is the case for this article when there are other examples of faculty pages which contain less information: University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Toronto_Faculty_of_Arts_and_Science University of Waterloo Faculty of Arts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Waterloo_Faculty_of_Arts

What type of additional information might be necessary to make the page more notable?

RobRombouts (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23:28:04, 15 August 2017 review of submission by LaLoo


I edited the product description to include reliable news sources that support it. Hope this helps.

Sumana Secondary School

Hi. Can I ask why you accepted Sumana Secondary School at AfC, when none of the references verify the material they are claimed to support? Surely that is a clear reason for declining a draft? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08:43:33, 16 August 2017 review of submission by Jogideep



Hi,

Thanks for reviewing my submission. As you said '3 of the sources are repeated announcements', it would be great if you can tell me which one you are referring to. As my resources are unique and from reputated sites giving different pieces of information

ET realty M&N Acritique India Infoline Other are two sources are citing company info having good authority. I have seen in other wiki articles citing info from Bloomberg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Assetz_Property_Group

Article declining reason clarification

Hi!

Just wanted to clarify some things regarding the declining reason for Luminar draft

On my talk page you said that "Currently all things considered, additionally available reviews would help here."

Did you mean that I need to:

- add reviews only as references to the already written text, or

- add new text and reviews that support it, or

- add more references to the "Reviews" section

?

With this information, I will be able to make the text closer to the required Wiki guidelines.

Thank you Jenyajc (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revised Aptar Stub for Review

Hi,

Per your instruction, I have revised the Aptar article. All sources are independent and journalistic in nature. Please take a look when you can.

Again, disclosing COI.

-- Delgadilld (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delgadilld Unfortunately, in this case, the sources are still too suggestive of simple announcements or notices and not major independent in-depth news coverage we need instead; also, note that even republished announcements or notices or ties to this can still be considered unacceptable for notability, given it wouldn't be significant in weight. SwisterTwister talk 21:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:01:16, 17 August 2017 review of submission by AlfredGoodach


Hi, I am requesting a re-review as the artist related to this page (Papamitrou) has performed some notable acts. The album that his music is part off called: "Wins and Losses" by Meek Mill, was No. 3 on Billboard 200 the first week it was released (7/21/17). Also, the 1st song of the album is the tile of the album and it is one of the songs that Nik Papamitrou produced. According to the Wikipedia rules of a notable song writer/producer, this should satisfy that requirement as this song made the top 100 hot song list on the Billboard also. Please review and notify us of your decision.

Thank you, Alfred.

"All sourcing"

You need to stop requesting "all sourcing" from editors. I've seen this a bunch lately, and I'm not quite sure why you're doing it. Including all sources is a great reason for declining an article, not for accepting it. Quality over quantity; we do not want a billion first-party sources or trivial mentions. We want only reliable sources that support encyclopedic information found in the article. Assuming this is just an issue of wording, I'd recommend asking for "more reliable sources which support notability and verify article contents". This better explains our inclusion criteria and other core content policies to new editors. ~ Rob13Talk 02:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually based on even the sources I've witnessed in recent AfC Drafts, they included literal press releases and republishers company notices; by saying "more relibale sources", it wouldn't actually be relevant since such forementioned sources wouldn't fit that. As for the sources, I actually mention how such press releases are unacceptable regardless of where it was hosted. Quality, not quantity is actually not relevant since the quality of sources was both far too few and empty on showing Notability. I've never at all claimed we need a billion sources, instead I've said "all other existing news that isn't tied to the company itself". As an ending note, I never at all said "all sourcing" but instead a serious focus on meaningful sources and this is exactly what WP:Notability cites as its text. SwisterTwister talk 02:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're replying as if I'm commenting on a specific article. I am not. I'm commenting based on a pattern I've observed for myself over the past month or so and which has been pointed out to me going back much farther than that. Search "Draft: add all sources" in your search bar. You will find nothing but your own comments asking editors to add all sources (with various different choices of phrasing, of course). For one example, see Draft:Gontães, where you acknowledge notability but ask for "all additional major sources". This is just incorrect advice, any way you slice it. Does it need more sources? Yes. More reliable sources that support the article content. Not "all additional major sources". While I'm trying to approach this in the spirit of critical feedback rather than something "formal", I do want to be clear that this is a warning to you that a particular pattern of incorrect advice must stop. Giving incorrect advice to new editors on a consistent basis and failing to adjust your advice to feedback may be disruptive and could be sanctioned as such. There's no reason for this to go in that direction; this is as simple as adjusting how you phrase things. ~ Rob13Talk 02:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I have rephrased things and yet I got another criticism within instant time; therefore how would it be disruptive if I'm getting the same message? In the linked Draft above, I meant major to signify major published sources. I can't see how this can be rephrased anything differently beyond maybe "significant" instead. SwisterTwister talk 02:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, your example is from January; the last message I got about this was a coup weeks ago. Therefore the above example is highly non-relevant. Can you find any examples of concerning comments in a recent context, especially since the last thread which can be found in the talk page history? SwisterTwister talk 02:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen things about recently, but I don't keep track of them in a notepad or anything like that; I'm commenting generally. I provided one example to show you what I mean. Focus on either (a) additional sourcing needed for notability, or (b) additional sourcing needed for verifiability when you're communicating to newcomers. The emphasis should be on policies/guidelines, not adding sources for the sake of adding sources, and it's the job of the reviewer to explain the policies. The word "all" should never be used. ~ Rob13Talk 04:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see from any review I've made in the last 2 months, I've explicitly stated "all existing" or "other existing" and I never have inserted anything else. In fact, I should note I actually rotate my statements ever other month or so (as I always have for years now), so something from January is especially outdated. As for (b), I actually currently use a variant of that and it's "additional sources overall" or "additional sources for enhancing"; I've used this because they not only comment the article is currently supposedly verified, but whether it still needs any changes for final acceptance; therefore, because some pages are in fact verified, but there's simply not enough accompanying sources. Vice versa, there are articles where they were notable, but indeed additional sources would've enhanced it. There's been criticism and even AfD nominations simply because the article wasn't enhanced enough. This is also because there have been AfC authors who state "I have other sources that I can add if you need them", and this happened so frequently, it became clear they would only understand it if they were told to add all of them; simply saying "additional" hasn't ever answered their question because they'll actually ask for a specific number. Because I can't know how many sources they actually have access to, I therefore use "all". After all, WP:Notability says multiple. A lot of the pages where I would've commented about this was where there was either 1 or 2 simple sources as either "sentences" or a "quick line" of a source. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. "All existing" is still wrong. If there is confusion, it is your job as a reviewer to explain to them what the actual requirements are (WP:GNG and WP:V). You obviously shouldn't be taking a shortcut by delivering incorrect advice just to avoid that more detailed explanation. You may wish to type up a detailed explanation, save it in a text file, and copy-paste if you dislike typing out the detail. ~ Rob13Talk 16:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:John C. Pollock

I saw your note at Draft:John C. Pollock. I declined because there were almost no inline citations. Regardless of what WP:PROF says, WP:BLP supersedes it and inline citations are necessary. Now, if you really did mean "the comments themselves" then I rescind my statement, but my decline had nothing to do with PROF-related issues. Primefac (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac. WP:PROF is an independent criterion for inclusion. It is of course still subject to BLP--there needs to be documentation ofthe claims. There documentation must come from a reliable source, not necessarily a third party source. It has been consistently held in dozens of discussions at RSN and AFD that the official school website is a RS for the plain facts of a career, and that if this shows something that meets any of the specifics at WP:PROF, nothing more is needed. If it is necessary to show being an authority in one's field, this is based upon citations, and Google Scholar (or ISI Or Scopus) for the citation information necessary to show the importance. But, let us say that you disagree with these statements. The way to upset them is to do so in a discussion, usually done of the basis of some test AfDs to see the community feeling. It is not appropriate to not repeatedly hammer on individual instances, especially on individual instances created by a single editor--an editor whose articles on academic faculty have almsot always been approved by the community. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I have genuinely no idea what your point is. This post is eight days old, was already archived, and your reply has almost nothing to do with my decline or ST's reply (via edit summary). I commented here because I misinterpreted that ST was commenting on my "lack of inline citations" decline, which he wasn't. This means that everything after It is of course still subject to BLP in your statement above is basically moot. I'm happy to discuss the merits and detractors to PROF as they relate to BLP, but hijacking an archived post from another user's page isn't really the best way to start that discussion. Primefac (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Re. Ronnie D. Green

The source of the photo uploaded previously, http://www.unl.edu/chancellor/administration, includes the statement "All photos this page available via CC BY-SA license." If I re-upload, will the photo be deleted again? Bcrisler (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SwisterTwister&oldid=796133713"