Jump to content

User talk:Curb Safe Charmer/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     Archive 1    Archive 2 >
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  ... (up to 100)


Welcome!

Hello, Curb Safe Charmer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  --soum (0_o) 19:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you help ?

I can see what you have done on the Talk:List of people from Jersey and was wondering whether you could help with regard to another Channel Island  page I have a problem with, Royal Guernsey Light Infantry. The individual keeps insisting upon his edits and despite posting a note to the talk page and reverting numerous times, with comments, he seems to want his name and all details of a trust in the article, even though it is not very relevant to the article. I am unsure how to proceed and would like support in any action taken. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC) Noted that your comments are to assist in getting multiple people to change real facts on this page with real references, the information to which multiple people have asked. Our intent is to report you for conspiring with another in an edit war to remove accurate data posted to the site.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisOliver (talk • contribs) 07:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:CA_Sahil_Singla review

Dear Curb Safe Charmer thanks for your review of my new article Draft:CA_Sahil_Singla. I have added the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, India reference that enlists all the companies where Mr. Singla is a director. Request your kind relook and approval Spindoctorindia (talk) 07:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09:54:51, 24 April 2017 review of submission by Nwach

African traditions are at a cross roads, the intercession between being ossified in the past and catching up with the changing times. Prof Munoz' life work was on tradition especially Nigerian civilizations like Yoruba and Efik. He is thus notable not only because of his work but for the fact that being originially Spanish, he lived in Nigeria for more than 40 years and died here. Thus was his love for African tradition, though being a Catholic priest, yet he took up Nigerian nationality and was further given a national honour for his life time work. Munoz, together with [F. Ade Ajayi] (both were tight friends) worked assiduously in reinventing Nigerian cultures. If Munoz cannot be considered a 'notable' Nigerian intellectual, I really wonder who will? Therefore, I respectfully seek a reconsideration. Thank you.

Jersey highest temperature

Hello, the original problem was that the August highest temperature was higher than the yearly highest temperature. If 36.0 °C is the highest ever temperature in August then it is also the highest ever yearly temperature : this is why it needed to be changed.Carlo Colussi (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Cohen AfC review

Hi there. I was a bit surprised to see Draft:Simon Cohen (communication expert) accepted without any changes required to the draft from the author. The article includes text such as "Cohen was involved in shaping the conversation on faith and tolerance after 9/11", which is not supported by an independent source. In general, the article is written rather too much like an advert for the subject for my liking. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am following the flowchart and guidance in the reviewing instructions and didn't find the article to violate copyright (checked with Earwig), the topic was encyclopedic, notable and sourced, including inline sources. I was satisfied that the subject had indeed been involved in influencing religious tolerance after 9/11 (eg. event at Georgetown University) but I agree it should be worded differently according to WP:BLPSTYLE. After reading the article several times I didn't find anything (else) that stood out as puffery, though. On reflection I think 'accept' was still the right outcome, but I should have tagged the article for improvement, as you've now done. If you think it should have been a decline, please do let me know, as I am still in my first month of AfC and open to coaching! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. I'm not that familiar with the formal standards for AfC. My sense from the questions we get about declined drafts at the Teahouse is that the standard applied in most cases is quite high (i.e. higher than the requirements you mention above), but perhaps that's just some reviewers being more rigorous that they are required to be. Pinging experienced reviewers Robert McClenon, KGirlTrucker81 and Primefac, who might be able to give a view or advice here. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's a borderline case. If I were feeling uncharitable I might decline as essay and/or containing too many trivial details, but I can see why Curb Safe Charmer accepted it. It looks reasonably well sourced (I haven't actually checked them all) and doesn't contain any obvious copyvios. If I had accepted it, I probably would have trimmed down some of the excessive detail, but small stuff like that isn't the end of the world. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I basically agree with User:Cordless Larry, but also with User:Primefac that it is a borderline case.  I would have declined it on the grounds that it contains peacock language in the voice of Wikipedia to let the author rework it.  (Unlike some reviewers, I very seldom fix drafts that need fixing.)  Also, I would have renamed it by removing the disambiguation, but I see that has already been done.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is borderline acceptance here, but I would have declined the draft for questionable sources and tone issues. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 18:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty Oaks Review

Thank you for your feedback, it is truly very helpful! My goal was not to make a promotional page for the program. As many of the links are interviews with the founder I built the Chad Robichaux page but am having some issue with it as well. I would greatly appreciate your feedback on that page and any pointers you might have to help me out. The page has been accepted, however it was immediately tagged for deletion and is in debate now. I'm continuing to edit it, but need your insight. Thank you again.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morrisowen8 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing Draft:Jocelyn & Chris Arndt

Hey, Curb Safe Charmer! I noticed that you had placed a tag on the top the article I'm writing, titled "Draft:Jocelyn & Chris Arndt," a couple days ago indicating that you were in the process of reviewing it. The next day, another user removed the tag, but I never got any feedback as to whether or not it had been approved or denied. Under their guidance, I have resubmitted the draft for consideration. I was just wondering if you had any feedback for me? I'd feel bad if I had resubmitted without changing anything just because I somehow couldn't view your feedback. Any advice on this would be greatly appreciated! And thank you for taking the time to check out my draft. (: Happilycleverafter (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happilycleverafter, I've marked it back as being under review by Curb, for what it's worth. Primefac (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Curb, there's also Draft:Jeremie Harris, which was un-marked as under review. I've restored it to you. Primefac (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And Draft:Morgan Simon. If you don't feel like reviewing them, that's fine, but since you originally marked them I figured I"d at least give you first crack. Primefac (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I started tackling these borderline-looking articles, and then fell ill, and I think there's some process (whether admin or bot) that unmarks them after a while? I've spent quite a while cleaning up Draft:Jeremie Harris, and it is clear to me know that notability hinges around the first two references. What I am unsure about is the reliability of the publications - I have no particular reason to believe they are unreliable, but they magazines rather than for instance national newspaper articles. A second opinion would be appreciated.
Happilycleverafter sorry for the delay! There are quite a lot of references in your draft that I need to sift through to be able to properly consider it for acceptance as an article.
Thanks for everything you do here, by the way Primefac, much respect. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Help!

You reviewed my Draft:IRhythm Technologies article today, and can I just say, Thank You! I've never been so pleased with getting an article declined. :) Your comments about the difficulty of getting companies to meet Wikipedia standards because the third party resources need to be talking about *the company* and not *the product* made tons of sense! I think you are right, most of the resources are about the product and not the company, but I don't think there is enough information for the product alone to be able to stand on its own feet, so moving it into a related subject is probably the best route. I've been declined before, but always felt like the reasoning behind it was cryptic. So thank you so much for providing such great feedback! I'll look into merging this information into another article later. Seriously, thank you! (Just can't say it enough) VoodooEconomics (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the positive feedback User:VoodooEconomics! It's a pleasure. For those of us that voluntarily review articles with the aim of maintaining the quality of Wikipedia content, we come across a lot of people who are just determined to have an article to promote their product, company, band etc. but aren't interested in the wider objective: we're here to build an encyclopedia. It is nice to meet someone who shares our aim :) I hope you enjoy your time here. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hear ya, I've seen some real nasty stuff written on people's talk pages. I saw a ton of it while reading other comments and talk pages to learn from other people's company articles. I've been trying to figure out what makes a good company article and I'll admit, it has been really hard to figure it out. But I'll get it figured out yet! How rude I've seen other people be is part of why I figured you deserved an extra thank you. I know it can be rough reviewing company articles that aren't notable enough and then have to face backlash from those who think differently. So cheers to you, sir! Thanks for volunteering! VoodooEconomics (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Goal Of The Season

Hi there ! Regarding my above declined article, could you please explain me what more should i do in order to be created correctly ? I checked out your observations and re-submitted my article without redirections, which was the specific reason you declined it. I even wrote my explanations in the field "describe what you've changed". I thought that was enough. UEFA Goal of the Season is an 100% existing award, with a voting procedure, officialy awarded by UEFA since August 2015. You can kindly check that on your own searching for reliable sources all over the web. This award is a fact and does have the necessary sources and links. It is no less official than FIFA's Puskas Award (Goal of the Year by FIFA). I would really appreciate it if you or any other from Wikipedia could create this article instead of me :) Many thanks, Dimitris  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dim. Nor. 86 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Loitering Munition

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Loitering Munition you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.  Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Loitering Munition

The article Loitering Munition you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Loitering Munition for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still reviewing?

Hey, just saw that you've marked this draft - Draft:Erin Elmore for review more than 12 hours ago but didn't review it finally. Need any help? Yashovardhan (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yashovardhan Dhanania yes, still reviewing. I left it overnight and will resume reviewing shortly. What's your take on the article? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WikiProject YouTube

YouTube Barnstar

The YouTube Barnstar
Thank you for your tireless work in WikiProject YouTube in the last day, creating your notability guideline. You are a well-deserved owner of this barn-star, and the first one I have given this out to. Thank you for your hard work. Jamesjpk (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New WikiProject YouTube Style Guide & Notability essay!

21:12:58, 1 June 2017 review of submission by 67.133.97.98

Dear Sir, you mention that the source references in our article aren't substantial enough to adequately show the subject's notability. I just want to understand whether you think that the sources we have lack credibility, or whether the sources are fine, it's just that there aren't enough there yet. The sources we cite are the Financial Times, Vanity Fair, Spectator, NYU and Focus Online, all of which, I would assume, are very credible sources from a variety of fields (journalism, entertainment, education) that generate millions and millions of daily unique visitors. Or is the problem with the content of the articles that come from these sources? Please help me understand, so that we can address this and move on. Many thanks!

I have replied here. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Goal of the Season

Hello again, As you can see in my draft earlier today I added some new 100% reliable sources, ESPN and Daily Mail. In your last comment you said that "only UEFA knows about this award" and that "only CBS Sports is somewhat substantial". But what about FC Barcelona ? You did not say anything about FC Barcelona's official website. Why's that ?? Still, you said that my sources are only refered to the winner of the second season (2015-16). But you can see that I added a new source clearly mentioning the winner of 2014-15 season. In addition, I want to believe that your constant declines have nothing to do with the fact that, BY COINCIDENCE, Lionel Messi, a player of FC Barcelona, has won the first two versions of the prize (2014-15 and 2015-16). Or because you have realised that my most edits concern the player Lionel Messi. I honestly do not want to believe that :) As I wrote in my previous comment, UEFA Goal of the Season is as official and real as FIFA Puskas award. No less, no more.. To conclude, in UEFA's website it is very clearly described the purpose and the procedure of the award and its voting. I don't think that it is needed to find its purpose via other sources. Isn't it enough that those other sources verify and make references to this award ?? I'm letting you know that last year I created the article "Trofeo Aldo Rovira" in the same way and I didn't have any problem at all and it was never declined. I will resubmit my draft today and I hope that it is finally accepted. I would suggest that you check it out with other volunteers too. I believe that all the sources, references, links and of course the most famous footballer of our time make it VERY NOTABLE. Bottomline, if you (and your team?) have doubts about my new article, then you should go to Wikipedia's article/page about the player Lionel Messi and tell the editors of Lionel Messi to delete the "UEFA Goal of the Season" honour from his "Individual Honours". As you see, Wikipedia itself has accepted to include this award in Lionel Messi's individual honours... Regards, Dimitris Norton (Dim. Nor. 86)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dim. Nor. 86 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply to your comment on the draft's talk page here. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Wikipedia Expansion

Draft:Maytech

Hi Curb Safe Charmer, Hope you are well. I see you've declined my Draft article. It is so short, and the references I provide are independent and reliable, I would like to name a few:

  1. Finance Monthly - independent news magazine  
  2. UK government Digital Marketplace
  3. MXC Capital - London's Technology Merhant Bank
  4. startups.co.uk, www.comparethecloud.net - news sources.

In total that is 7 links and 5 sentences. Isn't that enough? I want so much to contribute to Wikipedia. In your mission statement you wrote "Wikipedia has a lofty goal: a comprehensive collection of all of the knowledge in the world.". I believe the article I'm writing about is a notable subject as it brings benefit to the readers because and makes them aware about the services with help of which they can send securely to China (as it is pretty hard to send files to China because it is all blocked there because of the Great China Firewall). If my article isn't notable, would you be so kind to explain why our competitors are notable to be published on Wikipedia?  

All this companies I have listed do very similar services like we. Why they are notable and we aren't? Anastasiia09 (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:14:57, 19 June 2017 review of submission by Tracyalicious

I understand what you wrote when you rejected my entry but I was wondering if you could help me to fit the requirements you described. I thought it was all pretty factual and backed it up with quotes from reliable sources.  Can you help make this entry good enough for submission, please?

Recent Review of Zebronics

Hi Curb Safe Charmer Thanks for your review on page Zebronics, I actually noted that you have mentioned that rejection because of notability, but the company has lot of notability when we search Google search engines show lot of coverage. Also bollywood superstar and highest paid actor Hrithik Roshan is the brand ambassador so i would like you to explain me what more notability you look for more than google references also i would no longer like to make edit to that page,since iam not able to concentrate on my other edits in wiki.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shusilence (talk • contribs) 11:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New news

As I dont want to crowd the revision petitions again with that article and you also seem to be over it, i think is a good idea to consult you here, you probably noted [this|https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Zabala_(candy)&diff=787458089&oldid=787457090] and this [this|https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Zabala_(candy)&diff=787458089&oldid=787457090] and I doubt that the article can go far further from there. If you are searching for relevance for those bland candies its probably the fist and the oldest candy in Uruguay and its production rate is of about 7 tons/month but second world war ended for another reason. Just tell me If I should keep going with it or search something more productive to contribute. Thanks for your care and your revision --Neurorebel (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Neurorebel and thanks for contacting me for advice. Wikipedia has guidelines to determine which subjects should and should not have articles about them included in the encyclopedia. In this case, the decision would not be influenced by how popular the candy is, but by how much has already been written about it by others. If multiple, independent, reliable sources have written substantial articles about the candy then it will be considered for inclusion. It is up to you as the author of the article to find links to such articles on the web (or details of books or journals with such articles) and to include these in the references. If you don't think you can do that then there's no point continuing with the article as it will never be included in Wikipedia. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already have this [source|http://www.elobservador.com.uy/candel-zabala-y-otras-marcas-uruguayas-pelean-contra-golosinas-importadas-n305450], may be there is another one more in google (havent checked yet), general rule is that Uruguayans dont write much.
The source is from a notable newspaper in Uruguay and talks about the Draft:Zabala (candy) and its permanence in the market--Neurorebel (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may be from a reliable, independent source, but it doesn't provide significant coverage. Two paragraphs isn't sufficient. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about now?--Neurorebel, eight references aren't enough for a simple candy? (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hi, CSC - wanted to invite you to participate in the primary discussions at Wikipedia_talk:The future of NPP and AfC#ACTRIAL as a research experiment and Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#Comments on Reviewing and Institutional Cultural Disconnect. Also, we're about to launch a drive to recruit more editors for NPP.  Really could use your help. Atsme📞📧 22:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed reply, Atsme. What kind of help did you have in mind? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - we're just trying to get more qualified reviewers to help with AfC and NPP.  If you know of any editors that would fit the bill and want to volunteer, send 'em on. Atsme📞📧 18:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:58:28, 30 June 2017 review of submission by Railwayfan2005

Can you help get a Czech and/or German speaker to improve the article?

Request on 13:44:40, 1 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Potholehotline

hi, i got the idea to translate the spanish wikipedia article on ms. garcía bergua from a wikipedia page full of articles that they requested be translated from spanish to english. unfortunately i can't find that page now on the mobile version of wikipedia, hell, with the mobile version i can't even figure out how to navigate to the draft i submitted. if you had the time to find that list of latin american women writers whose biographies they requested be translated and ask them to review the notability of the writers on the list it might save future editors submitting unusable drafts. thanks for your time Potholehotline (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC) Potholehotline (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing Draft:Home Accountz

Hi I tried to write the facts regarding the Home Accountz product. After reading through some of the links I think I understand why you think the page would be promotional and therefore declined. Would it be best to start on draft page for the company that makes the program instead? There are plenty of articles about them and the founder from valid sources: [1]. Thanks Hannahwin27 (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hannahwin27. Accountz.com was previously deleted because the company was not notable. I am not seeing that Home Accountz is notable either. Remember that we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to promote companies or products. If an article doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, it won't be accepted for inclusion. The criteria we use for what subjects should have an article about them and which shouldn't is notability. There are specific criteria we use to determine which companies are notable: Notability (organizations and companies). We have to have those rules because Wikipedia doesn't aim to have an article about every subject - just the notable ones. It is not a yellow pages or an index of companies or a sales catalog. So perhaps Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about Home Accountz or the company. You would have to convince me or another reviewer why either subject warrants an article, based on notability. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki love

The Articles for Creation barnstar
You do an amazing amount of work to turn promising drafts into great articles.  I just saw Eclipse Jazz but I've come across so many others.  Thanks for demonstrating what AfC can be.  JSFarman (talk) 06:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thank you JSFarman for the encouragement! That means a lot. Working on Eclipse Jazz was a bit of a treat as it was a refreshing change from declining articles by new editors trying to pass off a promotional piece as encyclopedic content :) Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Shahpur, Fatehpur district

The draft was like this when it was created by the IP. I've improved it based on existing Indian village articles. As per wiki rules, every settlement (village, town, city) is notable. I've provided Census of India, the official source of any settlement in India. It's very small village, may be it doesn't have significant coverage for that reason. Any comments?--Vin09 (talk) 09:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vin09 on reflection, having familiarised myself with WP:NPLACE I was wrong to decline the article. If you would like to resubmit it, I'll accept it. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Vin09 (talk) 05:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The Bedroom Tour Playlist

The notability guidelines for albums state that if it has charted on a national chart then it's notable. TBTP charted 39th on the Billboard 200. Do I have to add more sources?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ish Ya Boy (talk • contribs) 18:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ish Ya Boy please read the very first paragraph of the guidelines on notability of albums. It says "All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Has there been significant coverage in (multiple) reliable sources that are independent of the subject? If so, please feel free to update the draft with additional references to reflect this and then re-submit for approval. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:40:00, 10 July 2017 review of submission by Andrewraphael123

Hello. I hope that all is well. I am sending this re-review request on behalf of Jacamo Hakim. The information that submitted on his behalf was the result of an interview that was done with him. Are you able to lay out the specific errors and/or violations? (A.R)Andrewraphael123 (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andrewraphael123. If the article is based on your own interview with him then that is considered original research. Original research is specifically prohibited on Wikipedia. Everything written in an article must be verifiable through references that you add to the article. Those references enable readers to verify all the facts within the article. Please see Wikipedia:No original research for more details.
As this is a biography of a living person, it must use inline references to make it easy to verify every claim made about the person. See WP:BLP.
Additionally, the article is not written neutrally. Phrases like "innovative pioneer" or "premier nightclubs" are not used in articles because they are promoting the subject.
The article has to use an encyclopaedic tone, and Wikipedia isn't the place to write information that is personal in nature and not important to the subject, such as that Hakim is dating.
If you were able to interview Hakim because you know him personally, then you have a potential Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and should declare your connection with him on the article talk page. Similarly, if you interviewed Hakim because you are an employee of his business, or work for a marketing or PR company or in any other way were paid to write the article then you must declare this and who you are employed by, again on the article talk page. To not do so would break the terms of use of Wikipedia.
I hope this helps. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

References

  1. ^ https://www.ft.com/content/a422d75e-5c87-11e1-8f1f-00144feabdc0?mhq5j=e1
File:Https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Harvard Business Review article.pdf
Harvard Business Review Article

19:01:03, 11 July 2017 review of submission by Shellnyce635

Thank you for your response. Below is the Harvard Business Review article. Paul Sekhri is a prominent focus of the case study.  The article introduces the campaign with Paul joining his former firm and being given a “clean slate” to innovate. Each section then discusses the challenges Paul faced, essentially giving a “You are there” feeling by looking over Sekhri’s shoulders at each critical juncture. The reader sees how Paul devised new solutions that in their totality created a new model for the industry. If you should have additional questions, please let me know. I greatly appreciate your input! Thanks!

File:Https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Harvard Business Review article.pdf
Harvard Business Review Article

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shellnyce635 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shellnyce635 your attempt to upload a PDF was unsuccessful. However, given it is copyright, you should not try again to upload it. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

06:30:43, 13 July 2017 review of submission by Jud Hudon

I submitted two drafts on the same person: the first entitled "William Cecil Christmas" and the second entitled "Billy Christmas." I much prefer the longer "Billy Christmas" not only because it has more information but also because I took more care in the structure. I hope you agree. Jud Hudon

  Proposed deletion of Chitrangada Singh (disambiguation)

The article Chitrangada Singh (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A disambiguation page is not needed for 2 items.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –CaroleHenson (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Frank Salmon

Remember that articles for educators and our notability measures for them work differently; in their case, their own publications which can therefore be cited to show they are considered significant in their field as mentioned by WP:PROF. At best, there are cases where, if they're also a popular author, reviews may exist but it wouldn't be the sole factor in actually accepting. Please let me know if you any questions, SwisterTwister talk 01:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SwisterTwister. Thanks very much for pulling me up on that. I clearly needed to brush up on WP:NACADEMIC and have done so now. I have accepted that draft as he meets criteria #3. I will go back and review the other draft about an academic that I declined recently. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:23:49, 17 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Stanlocalfame

Hello, Can you please tell me what you mean by "The article contains no references" because there are a lot of links on it? Do you mean that you need a link with a proof that Henry is the owner of the music agency The Infinite Us? Thanks Stanlocalfame (talk) 11:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stanlocalfame do you see a pink box at the top of the draft article and the grey box within it? Please start by reading the links provided within the advice that is there. I think you'll find what you need there. If you still have questions, you can ask again here. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I found 1 proof that Henry is the owner of the company. I will add it and I will submit it again. Do you think that that will be enough? http://www.bizstats.co.uk/ltd/the-infinite-us-limited-10624149/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanlocalfame (talk • contribs) 12:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:21:46, 18 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Jud Hudon

I made a revision of Draft:Billy Christmas but I do not see that it is "waiting to be reviewed." Is it waiting to be reviewed or have I omitted something? Thank you. Jud Hudson Jud Hudon (talk) 04:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Jud Hudon (talk) 04:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About Copy rights of material used in Draft: Kanchana V Subbarathnam

Dear Mr.Curb Safe Charmer, My contribution draft page - 'Kanchana V Subbarathnam' on wiki was deleted. How can my work be deleted without confirming with me about the copyright of materials I used? Kanchana V Subbarathnam was my FATHER. He was a violin legend and truly deserved to be on wiki for his achievements. I had no personal benefits or any kind of selfishness in creating this page, but a lot of his fans in carnatic music world would have loved to read about him for many years to come. I had owned everything I posted and the website kanchanasisters.com was also created by me (Kanchana Sisters are my sisters). Please kindly help me get the deleted page back again and if any edits need to be done, I will do it accordingly. Thank you, Sumanasa (talk) 05:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sumanasa. Everything on Wikipedia can be copied by someone else - it is published on an open licence. This is only made possible by each editor, including you, ensuring that the content they add to Wikipedia is not somebody else's copyright. If you copy and paste content into Wikipedia from another website then you are violating somebody else's copyright to the work. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for the policy on this. If you took the information from your own website then you are the copyright holder, but you must explicitly give permission for it to be used on Wikipedia so that others may copy it. See WP:MYTEXT for how to do this. There is a further problem though in copying information from your own website. It isn't considered to be a reliable, independent source. Even though you know your father well, anything you write on your own website based on your relationship is original research and is not allowed on Wikipedia. Everything written on Wikipedia has to be a verifiable fact from a reliable, independent source. If some other publication like a national newspaper has written about your father then you can use that as a source.
You may think that your father 'truly deserves to be on Wikipedia' based on his achievements but that is not for you to decide. The way Wikipedia works is that other editors like me review the information you add and we decide whether it belongs on Wikipedia based on Wikipedia's established guidelines, policies and on consensus with other editors. We have guidelines on the notability of people which we use to decide who should be the subject of a Wikipedia article and who should not. Please read these guidelines to understand what the criteria are.
A further issue is that Wikipedia strongly discourages people writing articles about themselves, their family, their friends or the company they work for. This is because it is very difficult to remain neutral when writing about people we care about. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest to understand our policy on this. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Article

Dear Curb Safe Charmer, thank you very much for your feedback on my Article about Pyrates smart fabrics. I am not conflicted with the company, but rather found out about them through a research project for my thesis. Since I couldn't find a Wikipedia article about them for basic information I wanted to create one. I strongly edited the article and maybe you could have a look If its worth submitting? Thank you very much!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marie-Lilien Funk (talk • contribs) 09:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:17:04, 26 July 2017 review of submission by DJACOBS59

Hello, thank you for the initial review - before we request a re-review, how may we properly link to this person's name on the wiki page for "The Adventures of Pete and Pete?" On that page this person is mentioned and there is already a complete description for the character they portrayed. Thank you

Hello DJACOBS59. It is too soon to be concerning yourself with creating a link from an existing wikipedia article to your draft about David Martel. The issue in hand is whether there should be an article about him at all. Wikipedia has a criteria for deciding which actors and entertainers should be the subject of an article. WP:ENTERTAINER says that they must meet one of the following three criteria:
  1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
  2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
I have not yet seen any evidence that they meet any of these requirements, nor that they have been the subject of in-depth coverage in independent, reliable publications. You've added to the draft article that he's featured in a book about Nickelodeon. Unless perhaps he has a chapter about him, I don't think that helps much. The coverage would have to be significant. People that have Wikipedia articles about them usually have significant articles about them in national newspapers, or have been the subject of a 'This Is Your Life' type TV programme. Just being mentioned in a few websites isn't enough. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:32:15, 26 July 2017 review of submission by Argonstorm32

While I understand why a blog would not be a reliable source, the blog post itself has official images, which I feel qualifies as an adequate source. Otherwise, I have another online source (I wouldn't call it a blog) that might serve as a reliable source:  http://tokusatsunetwork.com/2017/07/kamen-rider-build-broadcast-date-initial-staff-plot-synopsis-revealed/.

Yes Argonstorm32 that is a much better source. I can see that it has professional editorial staff, unlike the blog. I suggest you replace the original one with that. However our criteria for inclusion of a topic in Wikipedia is that there must be substantial coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. So you'll need to go and find some additional sources that meet that criteria before you submit for review again. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:49:16, 27 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Fresh47

Hi, I wondering if you can hit with inline citations, I am having trouble figuring out how to place them in a article. thanks Fresh47 (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh47 did you read Help:Referencing for beginners? I've made a start for you. In the source editor, cut and paste the references putting them at the end of the sentence or phrase that the reference relates to, after any punctuation. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:57:14, 27 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Fresh47

Hi, can you check if I fixed the inline citations? thanks Fresh47 (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh47 it is a start, but there are still several sentences with no citation, and five citations that don't relate to any particular sentence. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:10:40, 29 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Fresh47

Hi again, I fixed the draft, is it acceptable for me to submit or do you see anything else to fix? Also in the same article how do i get a university name to be a link to a wikipedia page? thanks Fresh47 (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:11:45, 30 July 2017 review of submission by Azlanistani

I'd just like to start by saying that I'm not requesting a re-review in itself because you have made me aware that there is already an existing article. My question is can I copy and paste my own article onto the already existing one in order to improve it. I don't wish to delete the entire article and replace it with mine I just want to improve a particular section by replacing it with my own writing but I'm afraid the edit will be declined because it's copied and pasted so I'd just like to know if I can copy my own writing or not.

Hi Azlanistani and thanks for your question. For the section that you want to improve in the existing article, there are two approaches. You can start a discussion about your proposed changes on the article talk page, and you can invite other users who have contributed to the article to comment and arrive at consensus as to what the text in the section should be updated to be. Alternatively, you can be bold and just go ahead and update the text, and wait and see what happens. If your amendments are uncontroversial then nothing further will happen, but if others think your edits are not factually correct or have made the section less clear then you might find your edits are reverted. If this happens, it is important not to just make your changes again as that is considered edit warring and can get your account blocked. Instead, if someone reverts your edits you should start a conversation with that other editor on the article talk page and collaborate with them to come up with a version of the text that you are both happy with. Which of these two approaches to take might depend on how controversial you think your changes will be. If you know or reasonably expect them to be controversial, I suggest you start the discussion straight away rather than the bold approach. Either way, do make sure that the text you paste into the article is supported with good references that support the statements that it makes. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improving Didac Costa article

Thank you very much for the review of Didac Costa article. I will continue working on contents and sources to improve it and to upgrade it. I need to ask you for help. I was trying to add the links to versions of the article in the Spanish, Catalan and French wikipedias. I succeed to link the English version to them, however I didn't manage to add those links to the English version. Would you mind to advise me about how to do it? Thank you very much! nsanchoaNsanchoa (talk) 09:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Alex ShihTalk 09:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third Kamen Rider Build draft.

I've completed a third draft for Kamen Rider Build. The sources now include the official production website and Twitter page for the show. If that's not adequate sources, I don't know what is. Argonstorm32 (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BPSA rank pages

You rejected the various rank pages I did for the BPSA (example here: Draft:Tenderfoot_Explorer_(BPSA_in_Canada).  If I combined them all onto one page would that be suitable?  That is what is done here: Ranks in the Boy Scouts of America. Imasham (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Imasham. Yes, a similar page to the example you gave would be better than having separate articles for each rank. You should also be sure to address verifiability, supporting what is written with references that clearly indicate where the content was sourced from. The article should not contain any information which you cannot find a source for because you based it on your personal knowledge of the subject - see WP:OR. There also needs to be a balance between primary sources (i.e. BPSA) and secondary sources. A secondary source is at least one step removed from the origin of the content and would include, for instance, an independent book or article that discusses the ranks. Multiple secondary sources providing significant coverage on the subject is required in order to show that this is a subject which is notable - notability being the way that we determine which subjects should have a Wikipedia article about them, and which subjects should not. Lastly, bear in mind that the article doesn't have to cover everything in great detail. You can create a "Further reading" section with links to other sources that provide additional, more detailed coverage. Don't try to duplicate what is already in the BPSA publications - indeed, if you were to do so, you'd be in breach of the Wikipedia terms of use which specifically forbids replication of copyright material. If your article contains sections that are copyright violations the article will be deleted.
I hope this helps? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback.  Could you provide your insights then on this page: First_Class_Scout_(Boy_Scouts_of_America) which is an individual rank page.  It lists the rank requirements and sources a BSA publication.  The only difference I can find between this page and my original individual rank pages is that it has a couple of extra secondary sources.  If my rank pages had a secondary source would it then be OK? Imasham (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you'd want to compare against existing articles in very similar circumstances, but other articles shouldn't be used as precedent. See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Establishing notability isn't an exact science and is based on consensus between other, uninvolved editors. Ultimately, an article that has questionable notability might get nominated for deletion, and the nominator makes their case for why the article should be deleted by quoting Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and anyone who thinks it should be kept argues against it also by evaluating the article against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Those guidelines, and how they are applied, have changed over time, and also people apply them differently. It might be that an article has existed for years, whereas new articles get more scrutiny now because we're really keen to avoid diluting the quality of Wikipedia with lots of "me too" articles.
To answer your question more directly, it depends on the strength of the source. A lesser number of better sources (like a full page of coverage in a National Newspaper or a chapter in an academic journal) carries more weight than a couple of paragraphs in many niche or obscure publications. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A further comment, Imasham. Looking at one of your drafts, a substantial section of it is a direct copy and paste of materials from elsewhere which are presumably somebody's copyright. See here for a comparison. This is a direct breach of the terms of use so will need to be immediately deleted. I am not sure how you will generate the content for these articles without directly copying such content? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun the changes and no longer need the individual pages I previously created.  I cannot seem to find a place where I can delete those drafts.  Imasham (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imasham please blank them, and then I can tag them for deletion. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done...thanks for the help and advice.  Imasham (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

02:38:38, 6 August 2017 review of submission by Jonshelness

I actually don't want a re-review. I have a question. I was under the impression that Wikipedia is a cooperative effort for the gathering of valuable information? I have no clue how to take my post about Operation Identification to the next level. I figured that if I had a good start and a subject that dates back to 1963, and is backed by lots of research, others would jump on the bandwagon and help me make a coherent page. I have provided some research, but there's tons more easily accessible on the web. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be a collaborative effort?Jonshelness (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jonshelness. Yes, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. If your draft is accepted into the encyclopedia and is a subject that is sufficiently of interest then other people may want to spend time improving the article. While it is in draft, the article won't appear in search engines, and nobody will know it exists. It is down to you as the article creator to get it over the line of being accepted as an article. To do that you must include references in the article that clearly show that this is a 'notable' subject. Wikipedia determines notability based on whether reliable, independent publications have already written substantial articles about the subject. If the article's subject has not generated any interest elsewhere then Wikipedia won't have an article about it. All articles in Wikipedia need to have references that show where the content was sourced from. If there are no reliable sources then there won't be able to be any references. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for correcting and improving my edits. Are you like my guardian or something? Assigned to me to help me? LOL jk but are you though? Azlanistani (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Azlanistani: - LOL! Wikipedia is a collaborative effort so you'll see all sorts of random people contribute to articles that you have edited. I added your draft and the page you're merging it into on my watchlist as I was interested in how the article would develop. One of the great things about editing Wikipedia is I get to learn about a really varied range of subjects, and this was one I knew nothing about until I read your draft. I can't add any value on the actual content, but I can help with how to structure an article well according to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. We get lots of new editors here who have other motivations than to build an encyclopedia so it is always nice to meet someone who is! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Dear Curb Safe Charmer I have been working on an article on Richard Major the novelist. You reviewed it and I have been trying to improve it. I put in new references and in the process things got out of order - I was rather dreating grappling with the mark up language but on looking at the Article see it has been tidied up with you showing as the last editor: so thanks for sorting out my mess. Might I ask whether you think this is heading in the right direction. My next job is to try and upload a photo one of the books on saleach in a bookshop. Would that be appropriate? I can get a photo of the author from his website. Would that cause a permissions problem? Would it cause a problem of independence? Sorry for all the questions, but I would like to get it right first time rather than ping pong it back and forth. I ought also to express my appreciation of Wikipedians in general for the usefulness of the resource that has been created by your efforts. Psalamanazar (talk) 11:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC) Psalamanazar (talk) 11:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Psalamanazar. There are some 1,300 new draft articles awaiting review at the moment and not enough volunteer editors to review them, so most of those volunteers spend minimal time reviewing each draft and if the references in the article aren't clear they'll decline it and move on to the next. Having the references in an easy to follow format makes life easier for the reviewer and gives your article the best chance of being approved.
There are two issues you need to be fully aware of. Firstly, Wikipedia has criteria for which books might be considered for an article about them - see Wikipedia:Notability (books). If you are intending for there to be an article about either of Major's books you need to read the guideline carefully and be clear in your own mind how the book meets those criteria in order to ensure that comes across in the draft. If the book doesn't meet any of the criteria, it will certainly be declined. Secondly, as regards Major himself, as an author he would need to meet the criteria for notability of authors - see WP:AUTHOR. At the moment, frankly I don't see him as either a significant literary figure (think Shakespeare) nor to have attracted significant critical attention (think Richard Dawkins). Any efforts you put into improving the draft article about him in other ways (e.g. adding a photo of the books) are wasted unless you can include references that clearly illustrate how he meets these criteria. Focus on that first, and worry about finessing the article once the basic article has been approved.
To answer your other questions directly, generally if you photograph something it is your own work and you could upload it and licence it for anyone to use - that would be acceptable - see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. However if you photograph the front cover of the book you are making a copy of someone else's work and that would be a copyright violation - see WP:OWN WORK. Copying a photo from the author's website would almost certainly not be allowed - see WP:COPYOTHERS.
It is great that we are having this conversation as it shows that you're keen to contribute to Wikipedia productively. I am sorry though that my answers are probably not what you were hoping to hear. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for that Curb Safe Charmer. It will be a while before Major attains the literary significance of Shakespeare, but who knows what the next four centuries will bring? I would have him down with say Edmund Crispin - author of literary confections set in Oxford (and, oddly enough, composer of music for the Carry On films, something I could never have learned without WP!). I think I will have to wait and see whether he attracts a bit more critical attention.
The various guidance you have pointed me to includes origination of new techniques as a possible source of significance.  Major's 'schtick' seems to me to be a revival of the Milesian Tale (multi-narrator episodic fiction) in modern guise. There may be an ontological problem here in that this genre subsists at the level of unserious entertainment (albeit that the Article in Covenant points to a serious, theological reading of Quintember, which rather eluded me as a more classically minded sort of person): I will have to have a think about whether a Christianised Milesian Tale amounts to an innovation in technique or genre (and hope, for Wikipedia purposes, that someone verifiable and independent starts thinking in public along those lines). That looks horribly like asking whether entertainment is serious, something perhaps better left for another day.
That thought leads me to ask whether I would be  better advised just to do something such as adding a reference to Quintember as a modern Milesian Tale to the Article thereon (but is it, if it is has a 'moral' purpose?). It seemed to me better practice from an encyclopedic point of view to get a linkable article on the author or his oeuvre in place first. Any thoughts?
Thank you for taking the time to begin my enlightenment in the workings of WP  -  a few well placed pointers directed to the matter in hand do a great deal for my understanding of the comprehensive rules.
On a specific point, if I wait and see what attention Major's latest publication gets
a) will it be alright to refer back to you, please, when/if it comes to the boil (as I hope it will based on my view of the books' merits), and;
b) how frequently would I need to tweak the draft to keep it on the stocks?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psalamanazar (talk • contribs) 13:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are three questions in there that I can answer:
  • a Wikipedia article isn't the place for you as an editor to offer your own thoughts on the writer's work - that is considered original research. As I think you've concluded, you need to wait for someone external to Wikipedia to write an article about it elsewhere (in a reliable, independent publication) and you can then quote from and reference that. See WP:SECONDARY.
  • yes, feel free to refer back to me in the future.
  • If six months passes without you making any edits on a draft it will be automatically deleted, but can be recovered on request. See WP:REFUND/G13.
Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:43:41, 10 August 2017 review of submission by Helen.yu

Thanks for your valuable input Curb Safe Charmer. I have added several credible references and sources that reported on this event and feel this event is significant to the Canada Day celebrations that involve the community. (Helen.yu (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]

17:37:49, 11 August 2017 review of submission by Chloesnyder

Hi, i am hoping you can help me in re-reviewing my article for submission. The copy i used is Jared Paul's bio that is listed on his companies website. Is there a way to cite this correctly to be approved?

Chloesnyder as you'll have seen, the draft article has been deleted because it was a copyright violation. Wikipedia relies on the content added to it being free of copyright concerns as once it is included in Wikipedia, any reader can in turn copy it elsewhere. If it was included in Wikipedia without the copyright holder's permission then that model gets broken. If you have another attempt at writing a biography about the person it will need to be based on writing in your own words, with the statements you make about him backed up with references to reliable sources. By editing, you then grant readers the right to copy what you've written. Quoting from a source is ok, as long as you reference the source, but copying and pasting larger sections of text is not. Please see WP:COPYRIGHT for a fuller explanation. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22:17:14, 11 August 2017 review of submission by 24.197.205.83

For your consideration, additional sources were added. 24.197.205.83 (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied here. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My submission

Hello again Curb Safe Charmer! Could you please re-review my draft article because the article that you told me to merge my draft with has been taken down for whatever reason. Azlanistani (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eperoton: please could you help Azlanistani? He had written this draft which at AfC I proposed should be merged with the existing mainspace article Ahlus-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah and they had started to carry out that merge when you replaced it with a redirect to Sunni Islam. I read your explanation at User_talk:Tanbircdq#Ahlus-Sunnah_wa.E2.80.99l-Jama.E2.80.99ah but am not sure whether Azlanistani has done so. I have no knowledge of the subject, but clearly Azlanistani does and I think he wants to know whether he should continue to work on a separate article. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We've been discussing this at User_talk:Azlanistani#Sunni_Islam. Without RSs to back up Azlanistani's arguments, I don't see a rationale for having a separate article under that title. Eperoton (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:19:47, 15 August 2017 review of submission by Albedo11

Hello, I'm not sure at all what you seem to be asking me to do now, I have cited (i.e. provided footnotes to almost every sentence mentioning something important, which is practically every sentence), referring back to longer sources, and have hyperlinked almost every single item that I could find something for. I'm feeling really frustrated because I just need to post a simple biography for this individual and don't know why it's so complicated to get an approval (particularly when I've seen so many Wikipedia articles published despite problems that are far worse than mine). I hope you won't take this to be blaming you in any way, but I see no reason why this article shouldn't be published. If you could at least give me extremely specific instructions on what you'd like cited, removed, added, changed, taken out, or put in, I'll do it. But if you could please re-review this again, you will see I've put in so much substantial information and cited so many external sources it should be so simple and straightforward to see why this individual is a notable/public figure, and it's just an ordinary article submission. Thanks

Hello Albedo11. Those hyperlinks you added shouldn't be there. You need to remove all the external links from the body of the document, see WP:EXT for details. Then, go through the article looking for statements you make about the person that are not supported by a reference, for example "He has trained more than 1000 professionals and engineers in project management and leadership, and since 2002 has participated in more than 90 training courses in the public and private sectors, locally as well as regionally and internationally". Clearly you obtained that information about the person from somewhere, so you need to state where. If you can't substantiate it, it shouldn't be in the article. Please thoroughly read WP:V and WP:BLP as you'll feel less frustration if you understand why Wikipedia has these policies. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to leave a note and say thank you!!! I really appreciate your being patient with me and helpful as well, and accepting the article! It really means so much, so thank you again.Albedo11 (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted

Hello Curb Safe Charmer. 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. If you  need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • 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.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08:47:37, 22 August 2017 review of submission by Qudz

Dear Curb Safe Charmer, You were completely right in your comments on my draft for the Rolf Weijburg Page. I did not enforce my statements with objective sources. I have done so now, but am still not sure whether this is sufficient. It is not something that can be easily 'proven' with easy links. However, I did find some significant links that show that Weijburg is indeed one of the more important etches. His work (more than 10 pieces of work) have been included in the Amsterdam Rijksmuseum and various galleries mention his work. Hope this suffices, Best, Qudz

Request on 07:11:14, 25 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Rang25

Dear Curb Safe Charmer, I was trying to put information about Hindi Theatre Gourp " Manorang " based at Thane,India.There are not much links available about this group. Have tried to put information based on their website and facebook page. I seek your help to update this page and make it live.   Rang25 (talk) 07:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rang25 - Wikipedia doesn't have an article about every subject. The criteria for inclusion is that the subject of an article has to have had significant coverage in other reliable, independent publications. If the group has not received such coverage it cannot have a Wikipedia article about it. See WP:OVERCOME for an explanation of this policy. Links to their website or Facebook page don't help because those sources are published by the group itself. Coverage has to be from independent sources. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Curb Safe Charmer, In this case, organozation or group which are not having any online coverage will not be able able to provide information on wikipedia? Rang25 (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rang25 coverage can be 'offline' such as in a book or newspaper. The key thing is that it must be possible for others to verify the source. See WP:OFFLINE. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:13:53, 26 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Visionjohnny

The page was well arrange. The page Apostle John Okoriko is not entitle to be redeleted becus i was only ask to add references and i do so. But, they combined my old deleted page nor my userpage with the new one and decline it. Visionjohnny (talk) 07:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean, Visionjohnny. But looking at the page, there are problems with it that will prevent it being accepted as an article. You need more references and they need to be reliable, which excludes using the current one which is a discussion forum. See WP:RSSELF. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:45:12, 26 August 2017 review of submission by Najwacharif

15:24:08, 26 August 2017 review of submission by Najwacharif

I have cited all the references what else is needed?

16:20:17, 28 August 2017 review of submission by Andrewraphael123

Hello. I hope that all is well. I've made the necessary corrections to Jacomo's page and was wondering if it abide's by Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you for all of your reviews during the process Andrewraphael123 (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

428 North Delsea Drive

428 N Delsea Dr, Clayton, NJ is a single family home that contains 2,174 sq ft and was built in 1900. It contains 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. (This info was from Zillow.) Larsconks (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Hand Drawn Records, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Blanking an article such as you did goes against a myriad of wikipedia policies, considering it did not warrant a CSD. If you want to send it to AfD, feel free to. But the article has the minimal amount of standalone notability that it's place is valid and open to expansion. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sent to AfD here with the closer agreeing with the action that I previously boldly took of redirecting to Hand Drawn Pressing. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check

Hello... Pls help to check me Asanga Town, its seem like not visible in google search or was it not reviewed? Visionjohnny (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:48:55, 7 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Polevyk

1. Reason to reject was "News releases by the company are not indications of notability" - where did you find S4GA releases in my article? 2. What is " reliable sources" for you? Is EIT Plus and INN Poland not reliable enough for you? Polevyk (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Polevyk. I am willing to help you in regard to the draft about S4GA that you've created, but only once you have responded appropriately to the message I left on your talk page here regarding your conflict of interest. You appear to have created an article about your employer's company for whom you work in a sales capacity. As such, you are obliged to make a declaration disclosing your relationship with the company that you've written about. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure for how to do this. To not do so contravenes the terms of use of this website, which you agree to each time you save an edit - please do read the small print. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:51:26, 7 September 2017 review of submission by MPierson

Thank you for taking the time to review this page. The sources I have used include the https://www.spacefoundation.org and https://www.nasa.gov/ It was stated that there is a clear business relationship between NASA and Eagle Eyes, but that assertion is incorrect. NASA regularly mentions technologies inspired by those first created for NASA shuttles, space suits etc. I believe these are both notable, outside sources to support the inclusion of Eagle Eyes on Wikipedia. The use of this technology by Eagle Eyes has also been mentioned by Curiosity.com as a brilliant invention (unpaid and unsolicited). Please let me know how I can proceed.

Hello MPierson. I have struck out the word 'business' in my comment. There is clearly 'a relationship' between NASA and the company. NASA has a vested interest, in terms of its ongoing funding, of showing the spinoff benefits of its research. Please see WP:ORGIND for guidance around this. Those references can be kept, but you should supplement them with ones that meet the criteria outlined in this essay. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification - Liza Koshy (actress)

The above titled article is up for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion please go here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Liza_Koshy_(actress) Thanks Donald1659 (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft fixed

Hi, I fixed Xenerodiops, which you rightly declined as a draft, and have moved it to article space. There may be some cleaning up needed as I don't review articles for submission. I needed to do something with it because I look after taxoboxes, and the taxobox in the draft was polluting the error-checking categories. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Pls help to check Asanga Town i can findout that it is not as usual visible at google search again. why? Help! Visionjohnny (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:FIRST Power Up

Just a heads up, I reworked Draft:FIRST Power Up (I noticed you were the one who declined it). It still isn't ready for publishing, and likely still won't be until January 6, 2018 when the full game is announced. However, I thought I would just let you know. Elisfkc (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:07:31, 20 September 2017 review of submission by Slovo69

Many thanks for your assistance it is much appreciated. Regarding your concerns about the lack of online information about McCafferty, I cannot answer your question, I really do not know. I have contacted some of the sources I used and they suggested that as an underground protagonist McCafferty may well wish to limit/control his media output. However I have now found an online article, please see ref 15 in the draft. I belive that I have adjusted my draft in line with your very useful advice and suggestions. Would you be in a position to advice if the draft is now suitable for publication. Many Thanks Slovo69Slovo69 (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

URL edits to require registration

Hello, thanks for all the kind edits to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kurt_Pudniks but please clarify the need for URL link changes. It has rendered the links as padlocked. I have started a talk section about that on the page.Skinduptruk (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winters Brothers Deletion

Hello, I ask that you remove the deletion template from Winters Brothers, as I plan on adding more references and adding an entire section on their freight railway service in the Long Island region. Once I make these changes, I am sure that you will see how this company is worthy of a Wikipedia page, since it has such an impact on the Connecticut and New York economies. I recently added a construction template to the top of the page. Thank you. --AirportExpert (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

Hello AirportExpert. As you'll remember, I tagged the subject as falling short of the notability requirements back in July giving you an opportunity to improve the article, and you added a couple of references which you thought showed that the subject was notable. As you'll have seen by my nominating the article for deletion, I don't think the subject is notable despite those additions. Since we clearly have opposing views, the best route is to have additional, independent editors give their opinion.
Further editing of the article can't turn a non-notable subject into a notable one. The deletion discussion will be open for a week; you can either edit the article directly in that time to add references that show that the company is notable, and/or you can explain your rationale as part of the discussion. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 00:08:30, 27 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by S Furlong

Hi Curb Safe Charmer. Thanks for your advice, I completely understand. I think I’ll let this go for now and try again sometime in the not too distant future. Next time with all the relevant - referenced & cited material/articles and new relevant info thats in the pipeline now. Please delete. Best wishes, S S Furlong (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for checking my draft of "Portland Urban Coyote Project" so promptly, even though approval wasn't given (due to insufficient references), it helped me figure out the next step quickly.  Jonathan van Belle (talk) 06:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Self-awarded barnstars

I just saw your recent posting at the Teahouse, about a user who has awarded themself a bunch of barnstars. When you saw that user page, you probably formed an opinion about the user. Other experienced editors who look at the page are likely to form similar opinions. I think it's good to let the barnstars stay there, as they tell us all something about the user. Maproom (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:58:35, 11 November 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Steven Woods

Hi there, thank you for the feedback and for pointing out that I need to declare connection and how to do so. I have amended this immediately. If I need to submit the article through the articles for consideration, will I be able to use the article I have already created. And obviously looking at the guidelines for the references, I felt the references used met the criteria, so could perhaps expand on anything in particular that means they aren't providing enough notability? Thank you once again. Steven Woods (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC) Steven Woods (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:55:47, 13 November 2017 review of submission by Bree.argarin

Hi there! Thank you for taking the time to review my Wikipedia page for my musician client, Juliander. My question is for you, since I represent this client along with a few team members on Sony Music Entertainment, how would I include the Spotify link to his music successfully? As I saw that link I used was denied, Is there a letter of permission we need to send? OR would it be best to remove the link entirely? Please kindly let me know. Thank you.

Hi Bree.argarin. Before I help you, please can you read the note I left you on your talk page about paid editing. This applies to you as you've disclosed you represent Juliander. There are some steps you need to follow before you edit further, and some particular rules that apply to you going forward when you edit any articles relating to your employer or clients. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've looked at the paid-editing page but I'm just confused as to how I can execute this? I know I'm supposed to add {{connected contributor (paid)} at the top of my talk page, but how do I enter in information about Employer, Client, Affiliation etc? Please kindly let me know how I can get this done properly. I appreciate your help!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bree.argarin (talk • contribs) 22:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for Morse Micro  ILikeChips (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)ILikeChips

Thank you, Curb Safe Charmer, for your comments explaining the reason behind the status of the Morse Micro page.  Maybe you can make some suggestions that would enable this information to comply more clearly.  I am sensitive to the rules of impartiality and promotion in the page content. There are several more references to Morse Micro's funding and participation in start-up technology accelerators in Australia.  Would more references to those sites help? I understand the mere existence of a company may not qualify it for a Wiki article.  However, I believe the goals of the company and its members, are notable enough that people should be aware of these things.  Professor Neil Weste  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Weste is  highly-regarded inventor in many fields, including Wi-Fi technology.  He works for Morse Micro now, where they are inventing a new kind of Wi-Fi to reduce power and make Wi-Fi and IoT devices more useful than they have been for the past 10 years.  Can you make suggestions about how to annotate the article to show this?  Does editing Neil Weste's page to include his current position working for Morse Micro make Morse Micro more notable? I liken this to the existence of noting an organization that might have the desire to affect future behaviors or decisions, and which is comprised of people who may be quite renown in their field. You can search the list under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States#Minor_political_parties and there are dozens of parties that have pages, but which do not have any traction in the US government.   Thanks in advance for your help.   ILikeChips (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)ILikeChips   (aka the grammar police in my family)[reply]

@ILikeChips: the concept of notability as relates to Wikipedia articles is different to that which you might expect. A company doesn’t become notable through its association with notable people, places, clients etc. Nor does having lofty goals, or whether you or I think a company’s inventions will change the world. The criteria is more a case of whether other publications have written in depth about the company. Please take a look at this explanation and let me know if it helps. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Curb Safe Charmer:   Thank you.  I will gather some more appropriate sources. ILikeChips (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)ILikeChips        @Curb Safe Charmer:           Resubmitted.            ILikeChips (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)ILikeChips[reply]

AfC criteria

Hello, a while ago you declined the creation of the article Philippe Fix and commented: "Please add further references that show that multiple reliable, independent publications have written in-depth articles about him." This author and illustrator wrote and illustrated dozens of books published in renowned publishing houses that were translated to more than a dozen languages, and created one of the most popular characters of French comic books. The wikipedia entry for him already exists in three different languages. The are no online in-depth publications about him as a person, which may be explained by the fact that he was most famous in a time when the internet was inexistent. I would like you to rethink if it isn't double standards to have articles on every major league baseball player - certainly not about every one of them multiple reliable, independent publications have written in-depth articles - but to exclude a prominent author. In the english wikipedia there is also the option to have stubs, and these can be quite valuable. Crotopaxi (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Crotopaxi: one of the key tenets of Wikipedia is notability. Wikipedia only includes articles about notable subjects. In Wikipedia biographies, notability is assessed not by what the person has done in their life, but the extent to which other publications have already written about the person. This principle is enshrined in the General Notability Guideline. Please familarise yourself with it, as you will need to have a sound understanding of it as you go forward as a Wikipedia editor. It is not my rule - it is the accepted principle that all editors work to. As the GNG says, the reliable sources do not need to be online. You may have books which have a chapter or substantial passage about Fix, in which case you need to provide the title, author, year, publisher and page numbers of where you've sourced the content from. That gives readers confidence in what the article says about him, and they can obtain a copy of the book if they want to verify the information or read more about him. Note however that references need to be about him. You can have references that cite books he wrote, but for the purposes of establishing notability you need to cite sources that are independent of the subject and have in-depth coverage about them.
Your suggestion about double standards is a familiar argument put forward but doesn't hold any weight in Wikipedia - please read WP:OTHERSTUFF for an explanation. Similarly, if other language versions of Wikipedia have an article on a particular subject it doesn't necessarily follow that the English version of Wikipedia should follow suit. The reasons for this are explained here.
I hope this helps? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are dozens of indices that list him as author and illustrator of dozens of widely read books that were translated to more than a dozen languages, and he created a very well known French comic character. He was awarded two international prizes for which there is online evidence and multiple sources say he won two further awards for which I cannot find reliable sources. But you tell me, no, find a book or newspaper article (probably of the 70s...) that covers him extensively and who cares if there are zillions of articles about unimportant subjects like sportsmen of lower leagues of all sorts, you are just unlucky that in this case I play the gatekeeper. In the German wikipedia for example an author is regarded as notable if they published several books with well known publishers and reviews of them were published, even if there is no extensive coverage of the authors themselves. Seems much more reasonable to me. Crotopaxi (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if you don't know Perlentaucher, Lambiek and babelio but rather than jump at conclusions the next time maybe inform yourself. Your decision is ridiculous. Please stay away from me in the future. Crotopaxi (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13:24:13, 20 November 2017 review of submission by Bubbleleg96

Since it is a newly described species, there is no other source to support the article. It is not open acces, but I can send a link to an website where the article is summarized in detail http://novataxa.blogspot.de/2017/07/arquatopotamon.html I also found an open acces website with the whole article. Until now, it is not cited anywhere, so impossible to get another source. A. jizushanense is still not included in any species database. https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio/318119138_Chu_Kelin_Zhou_Lijun_Sun_Hongying_2017_A_new_genus_and_new_species_of_freshwater_crab_Decapoda_Brachyura_Potamidae_from_Yunnan_Province_China_Zootaxa_42862_241-253 I changed the link on the Page to the one you see here, because it is the same article, only now you can access all of it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubbleleg96 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

13:57:20, 26 November 2017 review of submission by 79.222.171.210

{{SAFESUBST:Void| I refer to the draft of the English Wikipedia article about Menachem Kipnis at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Menachem_Kipnis Perhaps you have overlooked that there is a large article about him in the Polish Wikipedia: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Kipnis Please rethink about your decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.222.171.210 (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 79.222.171.210. Please consider creating a username rather than editing anonymously, as that way you will receive an email when someone needs to contact you as is the case here. Regarding the draft article about Menachem Kipnis - the presence of an article about a subject in another language version of Wikipedia doesn't automatically mean that there should be an article on the subject in the English Wikipedia. Different language versions of Wikipedia have differing inclusion criteria. Please see this explanation. Also, it is not down to me as the reviewer of your draft to add proper references - that is your responsibility as the author. Please see WP:BURDEN. In this case, what you might do is copy the references in the Polish Wikipedia article into this draft, and then re-submit for review. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Curb Safe Charmer, I followed your suggestion to create a username and added a reference. Soksov64 (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:20:42, 26 November 2017 review of submission by Thyrien

I am asking what do I need to put in my draft because it keeps getting rejected.

@Thyrien: There are two main issues with Draft:Di Moze. Firstly, the links to Callisto Di Moze and Marco Di Moze refer to articles that don't exist. I can see that in the case of Draft:Callisto Di Moze you have created a draft article about them but it was declined. You deleted the message from the reviewer, but you don't seem to have taken their advice, and the only reference is a ComicVine page about something entirely unrelated. Secondly, Wikipedia only includes articles about subjects that have already been the subject of significant coverage in other publications. Have any books or newspapers written about the Di Moze surname? If it just something you're interested in, but has never attracted the attention of anyone else then Wikipedia isn't the place for an article about it. Please see WP:N to gain an understanding of the concept of notability and how it forms the basis for deciding what subjects should have an article about them in Wikipedia, and which should not. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh ok I get what you are saying now that I need to do my research before I send it well my bad I wasn't understanding why it was declining and I was frustrated and was in a hurry I didn't mean to delete the reviewer I wasn't paying much attention and I've been trying to research this surname because my dad has this surname and I haven't seen this surname commonly on the internet or anywhere else I will put more research in and thank you for the right back. Thyrien (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The Lowest Pair

I see that you declined Draft:The Lowest Pair. I don't care about that; but its creator, Suppafly (talk · contribs), had already bypassed the AFC process and copypasted it to mainspace at The Lowest Pair. I tried getting it speedy deleted with {{db-band}} (see User talk:Suppafly#Speedy deletion nomination of The Lowest Pair), but was denied. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:40:07, 3 December 2017 review of submission by Gwrhst

Please can you tell me what I need to do to improve my article.Gwrhst (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gwrhst: Being a well-known blogger isn't enough to warrant there being a Wikipedia article about them. Wikipedia has criteria for inclusion - see WP:GNG. Have multiple reliable, independent publications wiritten in-depth articles about the person? See also Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Alberto Lescay

significant coverage added to adequately show the subject's notability. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ydeya (talk • contribs) 23:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:18:00, 7 Dec 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Chrisking1977

Hi, You recently posted on my draft page Draft:Karl_Nerenberg that my external links to not meet guidelines. I was just wondering since I'm new here if you could help me identify which ones? Do they need to be placed in an external links section? Thanks so much for your help. Chrisking1977 (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrisking1977: the external links are the ones with a little arrow to the right of them e.g. in the "Filmmaking" section the first occurrence of Never Come Back is an external link. There's one more under "Notable work" and two under "Awards". These belong in an "External links" section. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 01:32:27, 11 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Apathy100

Hey, I have a small understanding of the issue with my recent submission, but am not sure how to go about correcting the issue.  Is it just a matter of using more references for this page?  Or do you need an actual biographical website?  To my knowledge and what I have found, the band doesn't really exist anymore and do not have their own webpage.  Would I need more websources related to their first two albums? Apathy100 (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Apathy100. I recommend this article: User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable. If, after reading that, you cannot find any suitable sources then I think you have your answer. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ceramium pallidum

Thank you for recovering/saving (or whatever) my article. Happy New Year. In Haste.Osborne 17:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Why does my draft keep on getting declined?

Ascanius and Lulus aren't nessecarily identical, They can be considerd seperate figures, I even have references to Lulus cited, what exactly to you take problem with the draft?! Nuclear Dragon (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nuclear Dragon: Wikipedia is based on the principle of WP:CONSENSUS. The correct course of action here is to start a discussion on the Talk:Ascanius page and to ping the main editors who have contributed to that page, to alert them of the discussion. You should propose there what you think should happen to your draft (linking to it) and what content changes should be made to the Ascanius article. You can also tag the discussion as a request for comment, which will bring it to the attention of a wider group of editors.
If other editors reply and agree with your proposition then we'll go ahead and create the Iulus article. If the other editors disagree then we won't. If there's no response after a period of time then we can assume there is no objection and the start of the discussion will remain on the talk page to document that. If we were to go ahead and create the Iulus article without such a discussion then the other potential experts will not be aware, and something controversial becomes part of Wikipedia without readers being fully aware, contrary to WP:NPOV.
I am also concerned that you continue to refer to the character as 'Lulus' when all evidence that I have found points to the name being iulus. That leaves me doubting your knowledge of the subject. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I respect the advice, i think the reason i thought it was lulus was because a lowercase L and an uppercase i look almost identical, any ways i apologize for bombarding you. Nuclear Dragon (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Róbert Kreutz

Thank you for your comments however I diagree with them. I have stated my reasons on the article's talk page, which I think is what you requested. --David e cooper (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Cambridge University Law Society

Hi, I was looking at your helpful comments on other pages and was wondering if you could advise on whether this page meets the standards of Wikipedia articles or how it can be improved? Much appreciated! Arjundhar (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19:55:40, 7 January 2018 review of submission by AskMK

Hello CSC! I appreciate you taking the time to review my draft. Most of the article was missing at the time you reviewed it because I am new to this and made some rookie mistakes with attributions so another Wiki Editor had removed it. Oops! Anyhoo, I fixed those problems and re-wrote the portion of the article that had been removed which, as it happens, is where all the stuff that makes this person notable resides so I think it is ready to be reviewed in its entirety. Sorry to be such a newbie about all this! Thanks again. AskMK (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serial recreation of Exonucleophagy

Regarding your recent Afc decline of "Exonucleophagy" at User:Tdebouches/sandbox, please note that this appears to be a 3rd attempt at creating this.  The previously existing article has been deleted before, and recreated by the same user, then prodded, and is now a redirect to Entamoeba gingivalis since October 17.  (Improperly redirected there, imho, but that's a different issue.) Going the Afc route, may have been this user's attempt to follow policy at WP:MEDCOI, but the disclosure part is missing. This article by Tdebouches (talk · contribs) appears to be self-promotional, by a user who has been seeding Wikipedia with articles referencing his book.  Mathglot (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

01:14:23, 22 January 2018 review of submission by Zixuan75

zixuan (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put my signiture behind false statments.

Hi Curb Safe Charmer, I reverted your edit and would highly apreciate if you DON'T MAKE WRONG STATMENTS IN MY NAME AND WITH MY SIGNITURE: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Josef_Schmalz&diff=821590455&oldid=821589025 --Fano (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fano: I am sorry. I didn't anticipate your objection to me moving the link that you added to the draft into the reviewer comments. I now realise this was not appropriate. I hope you accept that this was done in good faith. I presumed the reason you added the link was to bring to the attention of reviewers that there was a deletion discussion taking place regarding the article on this subject at the German Wikipedia. Is that not the case? Writing comments within the article itself isn't ideal - comments should be made on the draft's talk page. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Curb Safe Charmer, I appreciate your work of fixing formalism and formatting. Frankly you have too much of those here on en and I’m not going to bother with it. I was annoyed that you added text (that was on top wrong) in a way that it was attributed to me.  I believe it was in good faith and that in fact I should have been clearer on what the link was supposed to mean. --Fano (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While it is fine to move a draft comment like the one made by Fano in Special:Diff/821588206/821588277 inside an {{AFC comment}}, the meaning was changed in Special:Diff/821589025/821590455 with your addition of "Currently at AfD in the German Wikipedia". WP:TPO is very clear: never change the meaning of another editor's post. Your edit summary said "Moved comment and clarified relevance", but no, even for anglophone monoglots a string like "Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/8._Mai_2017" ought to be intuitively translated to 8. May 2017, me thinks. The whole story gets complicated by an IP messing with the templates, me restoring what I thought was a decent previous revision - in short, just another day at Wikipedia! - so in the end I did Special:Diff/822104596/822106926; can we all live happily with that? Sam Sailor 12:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC) (please Reply to icon mention me on reply)[reply]
Thanks. For me this topic was already closed with Curb Safe Charmer answer. Still I corrected the comment a little bit to make the meaning clearer.--Fano (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sam Sailor: I fully acknowledge I screwed up here. Thanks for trying to put things right. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NP, Curb, I've done worse myself at times. Much worse! :) Sam Sailor 19:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Curb, do you remember what the process is for drafts such as Draft:Josef Schmalz that gets resubmitted time and time again without substantial changes? Do we take them to MFD? Sam Sailor 16:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

​In one word, yes. Primefac (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]
​Thanks! Sam Sailor 08:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor started Talk:Josef Schmalz for a fourth time, and I have tagged it with G8. I don't know, when we salt talk pages, but perhaps it's time here? Is Primefac around? Sam Sailor 16:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done and dusted. Primefac (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Curb_Safe_Charmer/Archive_1&oldid=1142948046"