User talk:Shadowowl

Constructive criticism is welcome. Templates are OK.

Looking for more guidance on Submission: Give It Back to You

Hi Shadowowl,

I'm trying to get some more insight on why it's not appropriate to have an album page for a band. Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Give_It_Back_to_You

Both you and Legacypac wrote: Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Give It Back to You instead. (this redirects back to the band's (The Record Company's) main page,

Plenty of legit bands have album pages separate from their main band page. Many legitimate citations were provided for this album page. Could you give any further insight as to why this album page isn't making the cut?

Writer1977 (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC) Writer1977§

It has been merged. -- » Shadowowl | talk 14:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Manasseh Leach has been accepted

Manasseh Leach, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Razer Edge (June 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bradv was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Razer Edge and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Razer Edge, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bradv 14:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Shadowowl! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Bradv 14:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: German Africa Prize has been accepted

German Africa Prize, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Emily Hester Brodrick (June 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Calliopejen1 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Emily Hester Brodrick and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Emily Hester Brodrick, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Need help editing my article

Hi! Thank you for reviewing the article on alexandr kachkin. The source material was not created by the subject its all from gallery pamphlets, gallery websites online, and from some articles written about the artist. As there is very limited source material about the artist i was limited to using these. Any recommendations you can make on how to improve the article with these limited sources available? Thank you so much for your time! Im super new to wikipedia and can use all the help I can get. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janna Kilimnik (talk • contribs) -- Janna Kilimnik (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC) Janna

Article Review

Hello. Thank you for reviewing the draft I submitted. Unfortunately I did not understand the comment you left on my article. Can you be more specific? What source is not by the author?

Thanks! AvalerionV 13:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@AvalerionV: Source 6 is the only independent one, all others are unreliable self-published sources. You need to prove the notability by adding sources that write about the product, not by people that made the product. -- » Shadowowl | talk 14:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Bargain Sale Article

Hello, I submitted my draft for Bargain Sale. You said I copied a URL which I did source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/170 in my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bargain_Sale. I need more detail. I want to be in compliance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattias13 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Copying text on Wikipedia is not allowed unless the license is allowed by Wikipedia. In this case , there is a The compilation of materials gathered here by the editors of the LII and the pages holding them are protected by copyright, with the copyright held by Cornell University. and a Creative Commons license that disallows commercial use. That license is incompatible with the Wikipedia license.-- » Shadowowl | talk 14:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mattias13: See Shadowowl's message above. --JustBerry (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Shadowowl: After chatting with Mattias13 via IRC, it seems as though they want to know which part(s) of the article were copied. Could you specify further? --JustBerry (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@JustBerry: I took a look at the copyvios report again ([1]) and the copied text is scattered along the page. It may be a false positive. -- » Shadowowl | talk 14:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Shadowowl: Even though a tool may highlight a confidence level that a particular page contains a copyright violation, it is important for the reviewer to make sense out of the tool's analysis. The tool seems to be highlighting the following: a) quoted material or, if this is not the case, b) copyright material that can easily be removed from the draft. Please note that the tool is not responsible for the reviewer's actions. Are you planning on un-reviewing or re-reviewing the draft? --JustBerry (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I un-reviewed it.-- » Shadowowl | talk 14:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Question

I noticed that jmg5041, Writer1977, and Janna Kilimnik asked for further guidance or clarification on your review, but there seems to be no reply to their inquiry on your talk page or their talk page. Is there any particular reason? --JustBerry (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Request on 17:17:38, 4 June 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Jonnycakez

• Jonnycakez (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Steven Swadling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

Who says imdb is not a reliable source? Where is the list from wikipedia that supports your claim?

Jonnycakez (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs, internet forums, the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), Ancestry.com, content farms, most wikis including Wikipedia, and other collaboratively created websites. In particular, a wikilink is not a reliable source. - WP:IMDBREF.-- » Shadowowl | talk 17:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Please, don't decline my draft. You have no reasonable and/or factible motive to do so

Hi. You hinted that the martial artist I'm writting about, is not of the "tier" high enough to have a Wikipedia page, as I understood; because "she doesn't have 3 fights in a 'top-tier' organization".

Who decided, and why, that 'Combate-Americas' isn't of the high enough tier/level, for the fighters of its roster to have an article in Wikipedia? There are many martial artists with less experience and less level (based on their ranking and martial arts belt grade) that have a wikipedia page; fighters that haven't competed in the "top-tier" organizations that were defined in the article "WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability". Combate Americas has several highly ranked fighters, by well-recognized webpages and organizations (like Sherdog, Tatpology, Fight Matrix, etc.); for examples: Érik Pérez, ranked #33 in the world at bantamweight; Kyra Batara, ranked #20 in the world at atomweight; etc.

And Melissa Martínez, the fighter I'm making my draft about, is a world-class kickboxer: Winner of silver medal at the 'World Games 2017'- Kickboxing world championships, panamerican kickboxing champion,, among other things...

Please, check out again the draft I'm creating Melissa Martínez (fighter), reconsider your decision. PLEASE. I'm basing on facts to argue that Melissa Martinez has the notability enough to have a Wikipedia page. I spent a lot of time and effort in creating this draft, and I know it doesn't deserve to be declined. Thank you very much for your time, and I hope you be comprehensive and empatic to me. Have a good day, Shadowowl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andymman (talk • contribs)

@Andymman: I did not decline the draft for that reason. I declined the draft for the youtube source, which you removed. User:CASSIOPEIA declined it for it failing WP:NKICK. -- » Shadowowl | talk 06:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Why again? What's the real reason to decline?

Hello Shadowowl. What's the problem again? I have used several Wikipedia's experienced editors help after previous rejection. I made huge revision and all of Wikipedia's experienced editors I used said that's OK and now article was ready for submition. What is the erason now to decline the article? I want to start another articles but I can not understand the rules than some say OK and than the moment for submition just No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:AxxonSoft — Preceding unsigned comment added by AzretTeberdiev (talk • contribs)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Arcadiy Harting has been accepted

Arcadiy Harting, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Deleting mail adress

I have just read your message, as for deleting my account I requested this many months ago. My time in Wikipedia has not been pleasant, I found it less than helpful, nasty and bully attitude by nameless and faceless individuals. This is not professional and not very courteous. I suggest that some of your colleagues should learn manners. All I ever wanted to do was tell the story of my former American football club, even my photos were deleted without my consent. They are mine, which I donated to the club. Some of the players of that team have since passed away, so forgive me if I don't send a kindest regards. Once again if your going to delete me, Get on with it. Kevinwsharkey (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Kevin. We cannot delete accounts. This was said to you 1 year ago. You can leave Wikipedia if you want, at anytime. -- » Shadowowl | talk 18:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

G13 spamming

Please stop spamming pages with {{db-g13}} templates, it floods the category and makes a boatload more work for the admins to address. Please limit the number of nominations you make in a day, maybe 50? Ideally a category shouldn't have much more than that many in it. Primefac (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac:. I will not tag so many anymore but I wanted to clear the backlog in 1 day. 50 is unrealistic and will only increase backlog. 100 is a better idea. -- » Shadowowl | talk 19:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Shadowowl What backlog are you talking about? Stale drafts that are not currently submitted and awaiting review have absolutely *no* impact on AfC. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Database_reports/Stale_drafts, Category:G13_eligible_AfC_submissions.-- » Shadowowl | talk 19:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

And has no impact on AfC. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

In that case I will comply to the edit restriction of 50 G13 tags per day. -- » Shadowowl | talk 19:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it's more of an advice than an actual editing restriction. The editor whose username is Z0 11:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for informing. I thought because Primefac (admin) said it it was a editing restriction. -- » Shadowowl | talk 11:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It was a request more than a demand, but thank you for obliging. Primefac (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

AfC Decline of Draft:Raphidiophrys drakena

Hello! I saw that you declined the draft Draft:Raphidiophrys drakena about a year ago with the rationale that the topic may not meet WP:GNG. I moved it to mainspace per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Species. The common outcomes page speaks specifically to plants and animals, but in general it seems the same is applied here to all published species. Sometimes it can be hard for a reviewer to check the refs since too many biology journals are behind paywalls. So if you ever stumble upon other pages about microbes that look fishy, I'm happy to take a look if you ping me. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Stephen Maitlnd-Lewis

In response to your recent decline of Stephen Maitland-Lewis’ page, can you please clarify your comment regarding “published sources and materials produced by the creator” since I provided published, reliable articles and sources including the NY Journal of Books, Kirkus Book Review, Historical Novel Society, Midwest Book Review (all four of which have their own Wikipedia pages) as well Connie Martinson’s nationally syndicated column & links to numerous newspaper articles in New York , California and Louisiana. In addition, I provided many book reviews (as requested by a previous Wikipedia reviewer) and links to interviews with Mr. Maitland-Lewis from various print publications and from the NPR radio stations in New Orleans, LA and San Bernardino, CA. All the references provided in the article are from published sources and none of them are materials produced by me. Thank you.

Booklover213 (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Booklover213

Remove legendary and please correct your references to show up as inline citations, see WP:ILC.-- » Shadowowl | talk 10:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking for more guidance on Submission

Dear Shadowowl. First, thank you for reviewing. I have edited my draft with creation help desk editors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:AxxonSoft after your rejection. Does the draft meet Wiki rules now? In advance, sources 4.5.7.8 (IPVM and Benchmark) are absolutely and completely independent cctv market sources, and the independence is first rules of this publishers. As well, I have deleted dubious materials and links. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AzretTeberdiev (talk • contribs) 12:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Anticaucasus mountain system

Hi Shadowowl. Can you defend my article from RоySmith's harassment once again. He is saying not Truth about citations on the article, falsely stating that there only citations from Encyclopedia Britannica, but there, as you know , 3(three) other citations. He is realy trying to destroy article by any means. RoySmith acting like he is from "J.Stalin's heritage protection agency". This is really unspeakable. Please help to fix this situation. Thank you.

• William Gifford Palgrave A Tour in North-East Anatolia // Cornhill Magazine. —London, England: Smith, Elder & Co, 1872. — Vol. 25, no. 150. — P. 662—673.
• William Gifford Palgrave The Turkomans and other Tribes of the North-East Turkish frontier // Cornhill Magazine. —London, England: Smith, Elder & Co, 1868. — Vol. 18, no. 107. — P. 539—550

Sharma, Hari Shanker (1981). Perspectives in Geomorphology. Concept Publishing Company. Эльбрус Казбекович (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marcin Rygiel (June 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Domdeparis was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Marcin Rygiel and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Marcin Rygiel, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dom from Paris (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Request on 14:41:03, 7 June 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Sivan Shalev

• Sivan Shalev (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Inbal Amirav (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I edited the article. Information which wasn’t adequately supported by reliable sources has been removed. Sivan Shalev (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Response to your comment on my draft: Kopparapu Poets

With reference to your comments on my draft: Kopparapu Poets, I request you to go through the earlier discussion on the same points that you raised in your post. Unfortunately new editors/administrators keep on visiting the draft and repeat the comments of the earlier editors/administrators who have been duly answered on the same issues. Kindly note the following points before you argue any further.

1. At the time of your declining my fresh resubmission, the discussion on the suitability of the draft: Kopparapu poets has been moved to TEAHOUSE for expanding the discussion on contentious issues raised by User: Robert McClenon,User: Legacypac, User: Paulscrawl, User:Discospinster, etc.

2. Sufficient links and references have been incorporated in the text as well as references on the notability of the poet duo.

3. Independent verifiable external links have been added to support my draft, and articles similar to this draft posted on wikipedia have been cited to suggest to the editors/administrators to go through such posts on English wikipedia to arrive at informed dicisions. See the posts Tirupati Venkata Kavulu, Nanduri Sambasiva Rao which are not based on any strong independent verifiable sources or references.

4. As I went on pointing out the inconsistent policies the editors/administrators have applied to various posts at different times, the new editors like you enter the field and repeat the issues which have been settled during discussion.

5. User: Robert McClenon raised the issue of quality of English of the draft. But, it seems you and User: Legacypac, User: Discospinster, User:CambridgeBayWeather did not appear to have any such problem. As User: Robert McClenon repeatedly raised the issue of quality of English, User: Paulscrawl suggested that he too felt the need of a co-author. He even suggested to translate the Telugu draft in Telugu Wikipedia to be posted here.

6. I responded to all the comments of the User: Robert McClenon,User: Legacypac, User: Paulscrawl, User:Discospinster, etc in Teahouse talk page. Meanwhile, you have posted your comments on my drat page:Kopparapu Poets.

7. Please develop a mechanism to resolve the issues of draft rather than complicate it. Presently editors/admins are quite whimsical in their posts declining a draft much well written and supported by independent verifiable sources and references on one silly pretext or the other.

MUMACHA2203 (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

1. User:MUMACHA2203 - I have repeatedly asked you not to top-post. I have moved your long comments to the bottom where they belong. If you don't know how to post to talk pages, ask for help rather than guessing that you should top-post. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

2. Our comments were not inconsistent. The fact that other reviewers did not mention the poor quality of the English does not mean that they thought it was good, only that they did not mention it. The draft is not "much well written", and that phrase does not read well for an American. (I don't know about a Briton.)

3. I tried to centralize the discussion at the Teahouse and keep a record of it on the draft talk page. You are complicating the discussion by asking a large number of questions on the talk page of yet another editor.

4. I will comment more later. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher): @MUMACHA2203: Just curious, if (quoting your statement) "new editors/administrators keep on visiting the draft and repeat the comments of the earlier editors/administrators," how about you post these concerns on the draft talk page and ping/reply (Template:ping; click edit and see how I have pinged you if you want to see an example) to editors there? I just want to help you centralize the discussion a bit. Cheers, JustBerry (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Stephen Maitlnd-Lewis

Thank you for your response. The word “legendary” has been removed from the reference to Louis Armstrong and all the sources/references have been numbered in the article and in the footnote section. I will re-submit the article now. Thank you for your consideration.

Booklover213 (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Booklover213