User talk:Snowysusan/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hi Snowysusan,

Based on your feedback, I resubmitted the page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Innosight with more secondary sources including the New York Times. Thanks for your help!

Best, Innovatewiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innovatewiki (talkcontribs) 17:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Snowysusan,

I try to publish the following article in Wikipedia. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Semkenfahrt On my first try you advised me to do some correction. I did the corrections at the 5th Oct and until there is nor reaction. What have I to do to publish the article.

regards Sebastian -- Getsmartinfo (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SebastianVw (talkcontribs)

Hi Snowysusan, You left a message for me stating that my username should possibly be changed since there is a website of the same name (I was not aware of this). I am happy to request a username change. Is that something you can handle on my behalf? If so what is the procedure. Many thanks,--Getsmartinfo (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Snowysusan, Firstly, I am so grateful to you for the editing and correcting you have carried out on the 'Snippet' article. Despite studying the rules relating to references and citations, I somehow messed up the formatting badly. That you have repaired so much is a huge advance for the article. Your further editing has also vastly improved the content. I shall work further on the article and references and thank you for all your great input. But secondly,I seem to have stumbled upon a technical dilemma relating to the Wikipedia rules and I wanted to discuss this with you and seek advice. Since this has far broader implications and could affect many future articles and authors, which forum or means of mail should I use to contact you regarding this secondary issue? --Loop Withers (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


In reviewing afcs, I note that you are frequently rejecting BLPs with the message " since your article refers to a living person, you will need to add inline citations to the sources of the information. "

This is not our policy. (See [[WP:REF, 2nd paragraph) It is our policy that material in BLP articles that is controversial or potentially negative must be exactly sourced, and that this is usually done by inline citations. General material about the routine facts of someones life does not need such -- it just needs to be referenced, and reliable sources connected with the subject are enough for that.

For Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Avrom Lasarow, the article does in fact have detailed references. They are expressed parenthetically, rather than with the "cite" system using <ref> tags. -- see section 3.2 of that page. This is entirely acceptable; it is a perfectly reasonable and well established scholarly technique. There are, in fact, a number of other techniques, all of them acceptable. It doesn't even have to be done according to any formal system, as long as it is clear, and we even have the rule that once an article has been substantially started in one system, we do not change it to another, and add new references in the same manner as the way it was begun.

I've accepted the article. You might want to check the complete -- and rather complicated -- policy on referencing, and the nuances of BLP policy as they are applied, and then review some of your other comments at AfC. Perhaps you have been unnecessarily discouraging new editors. I'll be glad to help you with any questions or problems or difficult cases. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello DGG, Thank you very much for your message and advice. I had read the sections on BLPs and Referencing, and was convinced that was the policy but upon reading them for a second time I was clearly wrong. The policy does only apply to material that is challenged or likely to be challenged and all quotations. I sincerely apologize for my error. Fortunately, I don't believe I have used that comment very often and lately I have mostly been welcoming new users, declining only very obviously self-promotional or nonsense submission, fixing small format errors, and helping to create new articles. I will try to find any articles where I have placed that comment, though, and revert the comment and review the articles again.
With respect to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Avrom Lasarow, I have tried to fix some format issues in the article. I changed the section "Personal Life" to "Personal Comments" because it appears to be just a series of quotes from Lasarow that have very little, if anything, to do with his personal life.
I also have some concerns about the lack of independence and promotional nature of quite a few of the references and want to seek your guidance. I would appreciate your consideration of the following issues:
1. All of the PRNewswire references. PRNewswire is a self-promotional site, "Press Release"(PR). Businesses or individuals pay the site to publish their article or press release and to post it on a whole bunch of free, questionable sites. If you scroll down to the bottom of this one, for instance, you see that the source is the company itself: and also this one: If you review the information at the Products & Services Tab you will get a better idea of what PRNewswire is all about.
2. The only thing Rebecca Burn Calendar wrote at is the byline: "The Trimega boss on being a drug testing pioneer, going global, and why running your own business is just like sport." The rest of it is written entirely by Avrom Lasarow. I checked the fine print at the very bottom of the page about the publication and although it contains some news, it also contains management tips and advice, blogs and insight from managers. That appears to be what this piece is - an article by the manager about the manager. The title of the article is actually: My Week: Avi Lasarow of Trimega Laboratories
3. The article atributed to "Africa, T.S." is actually a blog piece where Lasarow interviews himself, essentially. (I can only assume Africa, T.S. was thought to be a clever way of disguising that since the article appears in The South tipoff is the label "About the author" just to the left of his photograph. The content is entirely his own words and is promotional as are most of the articles the user has referenced.
4. The reference to the site about his having been named the Honourary Consul for South Africa in Birmingham is troubling as well. If you click on the "welcome" part of that site at, you find Lasarow's welcome. The site appears to be his own and the contents, therefore, written by him. I checked around to see if there was an independent and verifiable source for this information and found that while the same article that appears on his bio page on that site appears all over the place, it all originated from PRNewswire ( which is the paid-for-self-promotional site I mentioned earlier. According to the Republic of South Africa, International Relations & Cooperation page at he truly is the Honourary Consul for Birmingham but the rest of the information in the sources he cites comes from him. Would it not be better and more neutral to simply refer to the Republic of South Africa page?
5. There is a second reference to author "Africa, T.S." which is again an article actually written by Lasarow in The South It is the same self promotional piece about his being appointed as Honourary Consul for Birmingham. This is a duplicate of the article discussed at the above paragraph.
6. A number of the references are to Lasarow's company website. If one follows the reference to the awards page, you will see that in fact the company won only two "Start-up" business awards - all the rest it was either a representative or a finalist but did not win the awards. The Awards and Honours section of the article reflects this for the most part, but also sites awards not listed on the company's website through PRNewswire and the Pitman article which I will address shortly. My two concerns are: a) is it noteworthy that the company didn't win several awards? and b)independence.
7. The S. Bartlett and J. Pitman articles are better, but only slightly. Both begin by providing unsourced information about Lasarow and the company, but then devolve into interviews with him. In all the circumstances, I can't help but suspect that their information came from Lasarow.
8. The reference to source "Unknown" at the Trimega Lab's website is entirely misleading. If one clicks on the link provided it takes you to a pdf's word document that is self-promotional. The exact same press release, which clearly indicates it comes from the company itself, appears in an earlier PRNewswire citation included by the user: - it even bears the same date.
9. The BBC news article cited is really an article about Basil D'Oliveria (a cricketer) and the memorial service held for him. It mentions that Lasarow, as Honourary Consul for Birmingham was there and paid his tributes. I'm not sure that portion of the article adds anything of value about Lasarow, but at least the source is independent I guess.
10. The News24 article is again an article about his company being a finalist for an award.
11. The posted article at is a direct, word for word, posting of press release put out by the company - it can be found at which I retrieved from Trimega's press release page. The reference refers to Park, R. as though he were the author of the article when, in fact, he is merely the guy who posted it.
12. The Progressive Business Forum article is about a two day conference that was held in London. The only mention of Lasarow is in this one line: The South African Deputy High Commissioner, Mr Bongani Qwabe, also attended as did South Africa’s Honorary Consul for the Midlands, Mr Avi Lasarow.
13. External Links seem a bit excessive and self promotional to me. There are also some external links listed that are not links at all that I think should be removed.
The surviving, seemingly independent sources are either about Trimega or about the failed company DNA Bioscience. Any guidance you may be able to provide would be helpful.
Thanks for your time and assistance. Snowysusan (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

editing tips[edit]

Thanks for the advice on editing summary fields and proper signature. I'll test it out at home one of these evenings. Let me know if there was anything about the Alan Riding article that wasn't right. Markmarkai (talk) 13:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, apparently you reviewed my submission for a WorkSafe entry and its submission has been declined. I cannot find any reasoning for this and would like to know why? I have a business called WorkSafe and the page is simply information about the business. Andrewreitzel (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Clive David Smith - Yachtsman[edit]

Hi Snowysusan, given your good work on the article, I wanted to let you know why I've tagged Clive David Smith - Yachtsman for references and notability. It appears that only one publication noted Mr. Smith directly, and I'm dubious as to whether that's sufficient to establish his notability--almost seems likely that the yacht is the more notable subject. Thanks, (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Budd Albright[edit]

Everything looks great! I uploaded a picture on Wikimedia Commons. It's an old headshot from the 1970's. Will this work for you? thanks so much! Budd is very pleased!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairchildallie (talkcontribs) 18:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Phone Repairs Plus[edit]


I noticed that you recently declined Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Phone_Repairs_Plus

Why? The article hadn't yet been submitted for review anyway.

Charon77 (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Ars Nova Theater[edit]

Hi Snowysusan! Thanks again for approving the Ars Nova article (and for the barnstar, which was lovely). I noticed that you gave the article a B grade, and I was wondering if you had any suggestions as far as how I could go about improving its quality. I've since added a section on awards and honors and have added a little more clarity to the wording of some of the program descriptions, but I'd really like to make the article as good as it could possibly be. Any ideas would be much appreciated. :-) RunnerOnIce (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Newbie Tdamico789[edit]

Hello Snowysusan. Thank you for the guidance to a new contributor. I will remember to use the Signature and Edit Summary features. Also, I'll check out the talk page guidelines. Best wishes. (Tdamico789 (talk) 11:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC))

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
What's the reason my article[atom(general)] is declined? Cerebral Assassin 24 (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I made a mistake, eek! Please help me?[edit]

Greetings Snowy Susan!

I think I made a mistake, and that my actions have inadvertently caused a user who self-describes as an earnest and elderly grandmother to be misled, which is making me feel even more guilty. I approved said user's article about Board of Supervisors of Santa Cruz County, California (I'm sorry, I'll return with the wikilink). The author thanked me and asked me to review her other similar articles about other counties that had been declined. I looked at them, realized that the article that I approved, about Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors, was no more notable than those that had been declined. What should I do? I feel like a nincompoop for approving the article, and even worse now, as I don't know how to retract it, or "un-approve" it. Can you help me with this situation? I am usually very inclined to not approve AfC unless truly worthy, which all but three have ever seemed to me. Urg... please help? I feel guilty too, because I realize this is an election year, and I don't want that Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors article being used to justify the creation of other similarly non-notable articles, a la precedent setting, you know what I mean. Thank you for any assistance you can provide on this matter. --FeralOink (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi FeralOink. First, don't worry. Second, you can simply explain that it is never a good idea to review more than one article submitted by an editor. If you reject more than one article by a contributor it may appear that you are biased against him/her. If you accept more than one article by a contributor it may appear that you are not neutral, but rather are trying to promote a particular person's articles. That is how I would explain it in these circumstances. Suggest that the editor go to the Teahouse for help or suggestions from other experienced editors. As for the previous article, again not a big deal. New articles are reviewed after creation by a number of experienced editors and, if it is not notable, someone else will nominate it for deletion or speedy deletion. It may take a few days but I will take care of it for you. I hope this is of some help. You seem like a conscientious editor so please don't fret over one mistake.
Thank you! That is helpful. And very prompt. Much appreciated. --FeralOink (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks! Buddy
Cerebral Assassin 24 (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Finn Zierler[edit]

Hi Snowysusan. Thank you for the guidance. I will remember to use the signature and edit Summary features. Best Regards Sylviakaleboel (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Budd Albright[edit]

Thanks for the message :). So, the two prime concerns, as the tags I left note, are referencing and tone. For referencing; the article currently uses a format with bare URLs (such as Lad: A Dog at IMDB It's much preferred to use a citation template (which can be accessed by clicking the {{}} icon on the editing toolbar). For tone - sentences like "One bitterly cold night in a downtown Cleveland theater, watching The Wild One with Marlon Brando, Budd knew what he wanted to do; get out of the cold and return to the sunshine of Southern California and give the movies a try." are sort of...unnecessarily melodramatic, I guess, particularly when the source is the subject's own website. Similarly, it notes "Budd, along with actor and recording artist Steve Rowland and sax player Chuck Rio formed the famous Hollywood band The Exciters." - the source for "famous" also being, well, the subject himself. This doesn't lend itself to neutrality or an encyclopaedic tone. I hope this clears things up; let me know if you need any help or clarification. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Heh; no problem :). Thanks for the otherwise-great article! Ironholds (talk) 12:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

R.R. Benedict[edit]


Thanks for the information and the edits. It's been quite difficult to find online sources, and finding the time to physically locate some known publications that aren't available online (for instance, the old Campaigns & Elections Quarterly doesn't seem to provide much in the way of older material, and I know they had Benedict on the cover of the issue after the Packard write-in campaign along with the article about the campaign. Their online archive is laughably small... I may have to actually physically go over there (northern Virginia) and ask around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoriginalturtle (talkcontribs) 20:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Delay in review[edit]

Hi, I have submitted my article on "Diagold Jewellery" before 2 days. But the article is under reviewing process. Please review the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpriya750 (talkcontribs) 05:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Collaborative[edit]

WikiWomen Unite!
Hi Snowysusan! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative.

As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by:

We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can get involved!

Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Frida Torresblanco, 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. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Go Phightins! (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)