User talk:Shadowowl/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Your submission at Articles for creation: Propagation-based Stereo Matching (May 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RoySmith was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
The references are incomplete. You can't just cite "Lhuillier, Quan
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
-- RoySmith (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Propagation-based Stereo Matching has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Propagation-based Stereo Matching. Thanks! -- RoySmith (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Thomas Hansen (captain) has been accepted

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

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

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

<noinclude>

Please read this re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Draft:T's Production. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

13:45:58, 22 May 2018 review of submission by Carlden10


Hi, I am including more credible online sources regarding my article. As for education and awards, I do not have anything to add. Here are the press clippings I'd like to include:

https://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2016/11/01/fashion/halloween-dress-up-for-a-cause/s/02SCENECITY-HALLOWEEN-slide-GBY2.html http://www.glasshousepr.com/blog/2016/11/2/press-release-11th-annual-fashion-on-the-square-featuring-michael-costello-rodmila-lolly

regards, CARL

Carlden10 (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

07:51:39, 23 May 2018 review of submission by NaganoL


Thanks very much for taking the time to review my submission! I finally had the time to update the article, and have written substantively more content, re-formatted as necessary, and have included (many!) more sources. Thanks again. NaganoL (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Des Moines Bypass has been accepted

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

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

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

J. Desai

Hi there. The article for Draft:J. Desai was moved to Draft by a user who somehow construed this conversation here to fit with the consensus "Move to draft" - which was not an opinion given by any of the people in the conversation. This is not a measure which is usually taken against first-class cricketers. Raju's suggestion that the article does not meet WP:CRIN is nonsense. I don't believe there was consensus in the AfD discussion but enough nastiness has been shared over this issue over the last year.

Feel free to do what you wish. Enough of the Cricket Wikiproject was hacked down as it is, so deleting this draft article makes no real difference either way. Bobo. 12:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Forensic DNA analysis (May 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ahecht was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at DNA profiling instead.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Shadowowl! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

This obviously wasn't ready to be moved anywhere. Do not submit other people's drafts when they clearly aren't ready. Taking even the smallest amount of time to look at who created the draft to see that it was a long term editor would have given you a hint that I know how to create, manage, and finish a draft. Don't make more work for reviewers by submitting things like this. --Majora (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Submitting others' drafts for review

As an AfC reviewer, there is no reason for you to be submitting other people's drafts for review unless one of the draft's authors asks you to. If you feel that an abandoned draft is ready to be moved to mainspace (you have done the due diligance involved with an AfC review to make sure the subject is notable, there are no copyright violations, there are sufficient sources, and there isn't already an existing article on the subject) WP:STALEDRAFT says to just move it directly yourself -- no reason to add it to the queue. If you feel that the draft is not ready, then either improve it, nominate it at MfD, or let it fall into G13 after six months. Also, keep in mind that not all drafts are written with the intention of being submitted to AfC (some may be drafts of planned improvements to existing articles, for example). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Propagation-based Stereo Matching

Regarding your comment, I'm confused. If you think the page should be deleted, why did you move it from userspace to draft, and submit it for review? That just makes work for other people, i.e. me, who spent the time to review it. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I did not think it was too bad in the first place. I am trying to sort though the stale drafts category, and I submit the drafts that should have a chance to be reviewed. If it is not notable, it doesn't have to wait 6 months before being g13'ed and can be deleted. This one was stuck as stale for 5 years. -- » Shadowowl | talk 18:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
But, it was sitting in somebody's private user sandbox. Why does anybody care if it sits there forever? Anyway, if you think it should be deleted, at this point I suggest you send it to WP:MFD. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Just let it sit for six months and be G13'd. There's zero rush to have it deleted. Primefac (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
Please also note that WP:STALEDRAFT, while it allows users to move others' drafts from userspace to draft space, specifies that it should only be done by a user who "intends to improve" it. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

05:54:44, 27 May 2018 review of submission by Angadjjm


Sir if i have resubmitted the draft rejected by you. Will it be reviewed by you only? And how long will it take? Thank you Regards Angadjjm (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Great American Doll Company

Hello there. Could you please tell me which parts of my article are written where my article starts to sound like an advert? I used a quite a few references, is it OK to have a few that link back to the manufacturer page? I'm not sure how else I would be able to find info on some parts, like the dolls that were created. Is it OK if I use the manufacture page to get info like that? Can you please tell me which parts I need to reword? Much appreciated! 

Uncoveringcelebrityhistory (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Sentences like the company quickly rose to become one of the most sought after collectable doll companies in the world, The firm is most famous for designing, the company became the proud owners of one are promotional and should be removed. Also remove the bold text and the sources to the website of the company. -- » Shadowowl | talk 07:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Angela Behelle (2) and Draft:La Société (novel series) (2)

Hello, I am confused following your messages. I tried to do well ... and I did wrong apparently. Do not doubt my desire to correct me, because I succeeded in France on Wikipedia, why not here? Do you think I have a chance to make these two contributions appear here please or am I totally guilty and there is no hope? Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Théodore Roux (talk • contribs) 17:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Théodore Roux: on enwiki drafts do not get moved by the authors, but by reviewers. They are now waiting for review. -- » Shadowowl | talk 19:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Shadowowl: Of course! On the French wiki, I have enough contributions to create articles directly but not on the English wiki. I am sorry ! Moreover since last night, the draft Angela Behelle has been converted by a reviewer. Thanks again !

Please avoid mistakes

Before declining submissions with notes about specific sources being unreliable as you did at Draft:Golf With Your Friends, please make sure the information in your decline reason is not wrong. Your claim that Jeuxvideo.com is not a reliable source is simply incorrect as per the latest consensus. I invite you to review WP:VG/RS if needed. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 11:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Salvidrim: I'm sorry. I recalled from memory that it was a scam site offering things like free coin generator viruses and other junk. EDIT : It still is. I am not sure if a site that offers viruses disguised as games/cheats is reliable. -- » Shadowowl | talk 16:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:German Africa Prize has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:German Africa Prize. Thanks! Nosebagbear (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ger Harmsen (May 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Smmurphy was:
This article is a translation of nl:Ger Harmsen, and is likely, in my opinion, suitable for the encyclopedia. However, there are currently numerous grammatical issues stemming, I think, from the translation process. Nearly every sentence includes examples of poor word choices, tense usage, and other clumsiness. Also, please add the full citation of Fortuyn 1988 and Schaminée 2000. I find that enough work is needed that it is best to decline at this time and encourage further development.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Smmurphy(Talk) 15:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@Smmurphy: I moved it back to userspace and will work on it there. -- » Shadowowl | talk 16:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Great. Like I said, it's a good subject for an article, but at that length is a bit too much work to ask others to clean up the prose. If you have any specific questions, ping me and I'll be happy to take a look. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Anticaucasus mountain system

Dear Sir (Madam). Thank you very much for defending my article. Please , can you defend my work on maps of that region, from user "RoySmith". He is clearly personally against my work. And he is making false statement about me. I never claimed making space satellite photos myself, this is ridiculous of what he is trying to accuse me!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_Armenian_highland_and_Caucasus_mountains_12_12284.jpeg This is like personal attacks on me from RoySmith. This kind of satellite photos all over Wikipedia geographical articles.

Thank you for your time.Эльбрус Казбекович (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

He wants to delete my maps just because they are bothering him and he just wants to do that. I change appearance of the satellite images before turning them into maps with descriptions. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_Armenian_highland_and_Caucasus_mountains_12_122846.jpg.Эльбрус Казбекович (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Эльбрус Казбекович:, Please tell me where you got the original satellite image. (is it Google Maps or something else?). Then there will be more chance the map is kept. -- » Shadowowl | talk 11:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I will provide originals shortly and you will see how they different from main. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Эльбрус Казбекович (talk • contribs) 11:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC) @Эльбрус Казбекович: Thanks for doing that! -- » Shadowowl | talk 11:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/309692911845788766/ Here one of the links to this image from NASA satellite. But it is many of them on different websites.Эльбрус Казбекович (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You can see how the original appears very much different then my maps.Here another link to this image http://www.crdp-strasbourg.fr/main2/albums/russie_espace/index.php?img=4&parent=71 Эльбрус Казбекович (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Казбекович: you seem to be taking this personally. My only concern here is that we comply with copyright policy, and that requires correct attribution. If the base photo is indeed public domain, that's great, but you need to provide the correct documentation for that. See, for example, how somebody else did it correctly. NASA is credited as being the author, and a URL (which, sadly, appears to be broken) is provided pointing to where the original was found. Note that in the link you provide above, the license statement says,

This iconographic material is Public Domain ( Public Domain ) under US law and may be used without restriction. You must nevertheless mention its author.

So, it's fine to use it, but you still need to provide the proper attribution for the base image. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course I taking that personally. It is obvious, you sir here to only attack my work. I guess it is your job now. It was perfectly clear I did not claim NASA's satellite photo is main, but you stated like I did. I explained already to public what it is all about. First of all ,the appearance of the image was changed from it's natural,original view to artistic more colorful look, even before labels of description was pouted on it. So, it is already not the same image, which was taken by NASA.Эльбрус Казбекович (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You are lying about my work again sir. The image you provide for example is not like main. It is just plain satellite photo of the Earth's region without any changes of appearance and without any descriptions on it. The image I downloaded is turned into original looking map with explanations on it.Эльбрус Казбекович (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Please help

Hi Shadowowl. Can you maybe nelp. I am under attack from people who want to bury the truthful geography of that region.Эльбрус Казбекович (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Abeotaxane has been accepted

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

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

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Espresso Addict (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking for clarification on your review & decline of Analytic Theology submission by jmg5041

Hi Shadowowl. First, thank you for reviewing the entry for Analytic Theology and for the service you provide to the Wikipedia community. Seriously; thanks. Second, I see the reasons given for the rejection but I could really use a few specifics because I can't tell which features of the article correspond to the problems listed in the response. It says ---->

"This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner."

Ok, so the article has 28 references from almost exclusively academic journals and books so I'm guessing citations are not the issue?? Is there a section that seems overly opinionated? I'm not trying to quibble; I genuinely need input here. Is it the diagrams? Is it that I discuss opinions on what AT is? If an article did not list out opinions on what AT is, and instead just listed one view then _that_ would certainly be a biased article. I try to list out three views. For example an article on Quantum Mechanics would certainly discuss the various "opinions" of physicists as to which model of interpretation is best (e.g. Heisenberg, Bohm, etc..). Likewise an article on Analytic Theology would list out some opinions of what AT is... because....currently in the academic literature that .. just is... part of the going discussion (i.e. "What is Analytic Theology - merely a method of doing theology in a philosophical style OR an attempt by theologians with philosophical training to defend orthodox Christianity). If an article says AT is just one or the other, it is not objectively reporting the state of scholarship on AT.

Regarding writing the article less like an essay, I attempted to write it based around un-connected thematic sections (rather than) like an essay with a thesis, sections defending the thesis, smooth transitions and a conclusion. I organized it around definition, history, geography, example literature, criticisms. What do I need to be more encyclopedia like? So again, I can't tell what is essay-like about the article that needs eliminating. Your help is requested in seeing more specifically what needs to be changed. Again, thanks. . Jesse (jmg5041)

User:jmg5041 (talk) Draft:Analytic_Theology —Preceding undated comment added 05:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Khethukuthula Mbonambi

Hi Sir. I certainly do need your guidance to help me understand the criteria that determines notability and reliability of sources. Are Huffington Post South Africa and Huffington Post Arabi not considered reliable sources? Are ENCA ( www.ENCA.com) and Media24's News24 not reliable sources? If not, Howa are they not?

Please make me understand. There are other non notable/reliable sources and one broken link from the now defunct Who's Who Southern Africa which had profiles of all notable 

Southern African personalities. Professor Sbonelo Mhlongo 12:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightyprof7 (talk • contribs)

~~ Professor Sbonelo Mhlongo 12:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightyprof7 (talk • contribs)

I never said that those sources were unreliable, only Twitter is unreliable. -- » Shadowowl | talk 15:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Help me understand the grounds at which this article has been declined. Professor Sbonelo Mhlongo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightyprof7 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It has been declined due to unreliable twitter sources. -- » Shadowowl | talk 15:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

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

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

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bradv was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
This article was written in 2013. It is unclear whether the product was ever actually released, or whether it had any lasting impact.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Bradv 14:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Shadowowl! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Bradv 14:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

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

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

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Calliopejen1 was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Declining this with regret. I see that she existed, but it's not clear that her work has ever attracted any significant attention. I'll leave a note at WP:WIR.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Article Review

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

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

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

Question

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

Bargain Sale Article

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

Copying text on Wikipedia is not allowed unless the license is allowed by Wikipedia. In this case , there is a The compilation of materials gathered here by the editors of the LII and the pages holding them are protected by copyright, with the copyright held by Cornell University. and a Creative Commons license that disallows commercial use. That license is incompatible with the Wikipedia license.-- » Shadowowl | talk 14:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@Mattias13: See Shadowowl's message above. --JustBerry (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@Shadowowl: After chatting with Mattias13 via IRC, it seems as though they want to know which part(s) of the article were copied. Could you specify further? --JustBerry (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@JustBerry: I took a look at the copyvios report again ([1]) and the copied text is scattered along the page. It may be a false positive. -- » Shadowowl | talk 14:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@Shadowowl: Even though a tool may highlight a confidence level that a particular page contains a copyright violation, it is important for the reviewer to make sense out of the tool's analysis. The tool seems to be highlighting the following: a) quoted material or, if this is not the case, b) copyright material that can easily be removed from the draft. Please note that the tool is not responsible for the reviewer's actions. Are you planning on un-reviewing or re-reviewing the draft? --JustBerry (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I un-reviewed it.-- » Shadowowl | talk 14:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Hi Shadowowl,

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

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

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

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

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

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


Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Melissa Martínez, the fighter I'm making my draft about, is a world-class kickboxer: Winner of silver medal at the 'World Games 2017'- Kickboxing world championships[1], panamerican kickboxing champion,[2], among other things...

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

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

References

  1. ^ "MEDAL RESULTS WROCŁAW 2017". theworldgames.com. Retrieved 2018-06-04.
  2. ^ "9th Panamerican Kickboxing Championship - Resultado". Sportdata. sportdata.org. Retrieved 2018-06-04.

Need help editing my article

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

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

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

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

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

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

Deleting mail adress

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

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

AfC Decline of Draft:Raphidiophrys drakena

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

Stephen Maitlnd-Lewis

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

Booklover213 (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Booklover213
Remove legendary and please correct your references to show up as inline citations, see WP:ILC.-- » Shadowowl | talk 10:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking for more guidance on Submission

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

G13 spamming

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

@Primefac:. I will not tag so many anymore but I wanted to clear the backlog in 1 day. 50 is unrealistic and will only increase backlog. 100 is a better idea. -- » Shadowowl | talk 19:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Shadowowl What backlog are you talking about? Stale drafts that are not currently submitted and awaiting review have absolutely *no* impact on AfC. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Database_reports/Stale_drafts, Category:G13_eligible_AfC_submissions.-- » Shadowowl | talk 19:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
And has no impact on AfC. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
In that case I will comply to the edit restriction of 50 G13 tags per day. -- » Shadowowl | talk 19:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I think it's more of an advice than an actual editing restriction. The editor whose username is Z0 11:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for informing. I thought because Primefac (admin) said it it was a editing restriction. -- » Shadowowl | talk 11:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
It was a request more than a demand, but thank you for obliging. Primefac (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Anticaucasus mountain system

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

Sharma, Hari Shanker (1981). Perspectives in Geomorphology. Concept Publishing Company.[3] Эльбрус Казбекович (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Domdeparis was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
sources added are simply passing mentions as going the lineup or a bio. Fails WP:NMUSIC
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Dom from Paris (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

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


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

Stephen Maitlnd-Lewis

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

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

Response to your comment on my draft: Kopparapu Poets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. User:MUMACHA2203 - I have repeatedly asked you not to top-post. I have moved your long comments to the bottom where they belong. If you don't know how to post to talk pages, ask for help rather than guessing that you should top-post. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
2. Our comments were not inconsistent. The fact that other reviewers did not mention the poor quality of the English does not mean that they thought it was good, only that they did not mention it. The draft is not "much well written", and that phrase does not read well for an American. (I don't know about a Briton.)
3. I tried to centralize the discussion at the Teahouse and keep a record of it on the draft talk page. You are complicating the discussion by asking a large number of questions on the talk page of yet another editor.
4. I will comment more later. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher): @MUMACHA2203: Just curious, if (quoting your statement) "new editors/administrators keep on visiting the draft and repeat the comments of the earlier editors/administrators," how about you post these concerns on the draft talk page and ping/reply (Template:ping; click edit and see how I have pinged you if you want to see an example) to editors there? I just want to help you centralize the discussion a bit. Cheers, JustBerry (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
User:MUMACHA2203 - The draft in question is Draft:Kopparapu Duo Poets. You say that you want a mechanism for resolving the issues of the draft rather than complicating them, but you are the one who is complicating the discussion. First, you persistently top-post your comments, after being told over and over that top-posted comments are likely to be ignored. Maybe you think that this is a clever way to get attention, but it is really a way to be ignored, because an editor looks to the bottom of their talk page. Or maybe you just don't know how to use talk pages. If so, ask for advice, rather than running around talking without listening. Second, you post your comments to the pages of multiple editors, and then wonder why you get such different answers. Try keeping the discussion in one place, such as at the Teahouse. Third, try spelling the names of reviewers correctly. The fact that you repeatedly misspell names suggests that you aren't really trying, and that you expect other editors to do your work for you. Fourth, when you want to talk about your draft, provide its name, just as I did above. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Fifth, you can always move your draft into article space and risking Articles for Deletion. That might be better than just annoying large numbers of reviewers by posting to multiple talk pages and complaining about multiple answers. Sixth, do you really want a centralized discussion? If so, please post a question at the Teahouse and ask the editors to discuss on the draft talk page. Maybe you don't want a centralized discussion. Maybe you only want to deal with as many reviewers as possible separately in the hope that one will accept your draft. If you do want a centralized discussion, and don't know how to do it, just ask. I know that you don't want to ask questions, because you think that you already know the answers, but it really does help to ask questions sometimes. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Andrew Dudum (June 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Siddiqsazzad001 was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 17:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Shadowowl! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 17:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Eagle-Rock Trophy Game

Hello, Shadowowl. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Eagle-Rock Trophy Game".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. » Shadowowl | talk 11:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft Sarah Oates

Good day Shadowowl

I have removed the citation linked to discogs.

I have furthermore added citations

Regards

User:Barry Ne14:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Request on 19:06:49, 12 June 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Tatyana Malaysian


Respected sir, Please let me know what are the the errors and how can I improve them.

Tatyana Malaysian 19:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Halim Shah has been accepted

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

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

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 22:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Bardis has been accepted

John Bardis, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:History of the Kurfürstendamm

Dear reviser, you declined submission of my draft and posted a template giving the reasons of your choice. Could you elaborate on them?

submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia

  • Can you tell me if this applies to the whole of my text or only to some parts of it, and which?
  • Is it a matter of tone and style, or of content?
  • Can you indicate which "company or individual" seems to be "promoted" by my text?
  • Can you show the passages that I should change?
  • Do I sound too interested in the subject of the article and that contradicts the principle that articles should "be written from a neutral point of view"?

independent, reliable, published sources

Each bit of information included in the article is supported by a citation form a published work or (in one instance) from a Internet Site (the official Internet Site of the city of Berlin). One or two sources appear several times,because they are comprehensive works on the subject of the article. I didn't either copy nor resume them, but several bits of information can be verified through those works.

Would you indicate how should I change this aspect of my article?

Thank you

Piero Caracciolo (talk) 09:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Piero Caracciolo: It's the tone. WP:FLOWERY language like glorious, fundamental or most important is not allowed on Wikipedia.

Request on 12:54:11, 16 June 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Edenarielle117



Edenarielle117 (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Dear Shadow Owl

thank you so much for your comments on the Thomas Clough Daffern article about copyright issues

actually, there is no copyright violation as the author of the other website gave his permission to use the material 100%

however,to make this absolutely straightforward, the other page has now been totally altered and changed so there is no longer any possible copyright issue here about this page

hopefully therefore this now satisfies your criteria and you change your mind and alter this decision accordingly..

thank you,

Eden

May you give me your advice?

Here is an attempt to rewrite the first few lines of the article History of the Kurfürstendamm. Can you tell me if fooud a suitable tone, or would you still reject it?

"The Kurfürstendamm, an avenue in the western districts of Berlin, was built during the 1880s, when the territory of those districts was being urbanized. It became rapidly one of the ‘’boulevards’’ of the German capital. Its history mirrors the vicissitudes of the social, cultural and political history of Germany."

Piero Caracciolo (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

This is acceptable, and a lot better. Thanks for improving the article! -- » Shadowowl | talk 15:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Your reason to decline my article 'Child Guidance Centre (Japan)' is unwarranted

Hello. You rejected my article on tha ground that '[t]his submission appears to be taken from http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/japan0514_ForUpload_0.pdf'. Unfortunately however, this is totally unwarranted claim. Although I indeed referred to the report of the Human Rights Watch you cited, it is only one of the various sources I deployed to compile my draft. You stated that it 'appears', i.e. you confessed that you rejected my draft without hard evidences. If you still keep asserting your claim, you should provide me with hard EVIDENCEs which support it, by comparing quotes from my draft and those from the report from Human Rights Watch and show these two coincide in many parts of my draft. If you cannot show me the evidences, I will resubmit the draft again shortly. --CGCJapan (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Oops, I used the wrong page in the copyvio decline. The correct link you copied from is [2]. You copied various parts, as shown here. -- » Shadowowl | talk 15:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


Your anti-plagiarism software COPYVIOS is not functioning properly or somehow rigged. The file [3] is titled 'Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 44 of the Convention -- Concluding observations: Japan'. It is the list of recommendations to Japan issued by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in 2010. It covers whole issues on the situation of the child rights in Japan and points out possible infringements on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, NOT limited to the issues on the child guidance centre. In fact, only several paragraphs of the 2010 recommendation are devoted to the issues on child guidance centre (especially paras. 62 and 63), which consist of just a few hundred words. How I can copy 'various parts' from such short passages and end up with >60% plagiarism? You should check it by yourself using your naked eyes, without using COPYVIOS, if you are in doubt. I would like to stress that there is NO plagiarism in the article that I submitted. I therefore strongly request your reconsideration, else, I resubmit it again shortly since your rejection has no proper rationale. --CGCJapan (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:ORGNAME

I’ve just declined two of your UAA reports based on apparent WP:ORGNAME violations. In both cases, there was nothing in the ediotr’s contributions linking them to an organization that matched their username, and I saw no sign of a real-world organization by that name in a web search. Please be more careful when reporting and if the connection is not obvious you need to explain why it is a blatant violation. thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

LaTurbo Avedon

Hey Shadowowl,

I'm not sure if this is the right place to respond so I apologize if it's not.

I understand how LaTurbo Avedon's description would be confusing because of the pronouns and the non-human nature of the avatar. LaTurbo is an artist that exists entirely as an avatar on the internet. They are not publicly associated with any human artist (and I am not the creator). They prefer the pronoun "they" instead of "he" or "she", as is common with people who don't identify with the gender binary.

I hope this clears things up. I believe the references included in my draft should be more than adequate for approval, especially compared to the page of Halim Shah, who I noticed you recently approved with much lesser qualifications, references and international stature. I'll resubmit the article and copy/paste the first part of this in the new submission.

Thank you, T — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tschear (talk • contribs) 20:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tschear: I've cleaned up your submission and accepted it. -- » Shadowowl | talk 13:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Tried to clear outstanding items

Hello Shadowowl. I tried to rewrite the draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:AxxonSoft#AxxonSoft) about axxonsoft company. Please give your advice if it meet now wiki requirements and is the tone of article suitable? I challenged the shortage of remarkable sources despite the fact that company is one of world cctv market leader. I tried to improve. Please give your advice is it ready for next attempt to submit? AzretTeberdiev (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

It is a lot better. You can resubmit, but I can't look into other reviewer's minds and say it will be accepted. -- » Shadowowl | talk 13:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

To decline 'La Cinémathèque Méliès'

Bonjour :-)

I'm not surprise about you're declining my article La Cinémathèque Méliès, it was also discussed for the french article : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Cin%C3%A9math%C3%A8que_M%C3%A9li%C3%A8s/Suppression and be mainted for :

- The encyclopedic subject that Georges Méliès is.

- The historical interest of this non-profit organisation in preservation and restoration of films

- The testimony of the familly action in preservation of Georges Méliès memory

The Cinémathèque Méliès is already linked as a source in Georges Méliès article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_M%C3%A9li%C3%A8s#cite_note-FOOTNOTECin%C3%A9math%C3%A8que_M%C3%A9li%C3%A8s20137-6

The place of the familly was questioned in the discussion page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Georges_M%C3%A9li%C3%A8s#Family

We also work with the familly to improve the Georges Méliès article which is a very US point of view. The main reference is the Miriam Rosen article which is quite incomplete.

Thanks for caring Titpost (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem is the wording like world-famous, miracle, good surprises and great contribution -- » Shadowowl | talk 13:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for helping out at Copypatrol. As you have seen, more brickbats than thanks, but your help is noted.S Philbrick(Talk) 18:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Request on 16:16:09, 23 June 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by HipHopConnoisseur7



HipHopConnoisseur7 (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello and Good Day! I removed the YouTube source article from the interview you were referring to. Please let me know at your earliest convenience if there may be other changes that must be made. I appreciate you.

Respectfully Requested

  1. ^ [4]
  2. ^ [5]
  3. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=_cpRaJdVrdIC&pg=PA419#v=onepage&q&f=]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shadowowl/Archive_5&oldid=1141026654"