Jump to content

User talk:Sulfurboy: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Added a question
Line 8: Line 8:


''''I will be out of town the next few days and may be slow in responding to issues.''''
''''I will be out of town the next few days and may be slow in responding to issues.''''
From THE WIND THE RAIN AND THE PHOENIX, about the [[Sam Wilson (footballer)]] page I am going to be gathering info soon give me a few weeks.





Revision as of 03:02, 15 July 2015


'I will be out of town the next few days and may be slow in responding to issues.' From THE WIND THE RAIN AND THE PHOENIX, about the Sam Wilson (footballer) page I am going to be gathering info soon give me a few weeks.




See an issue needing an answer on my talk page that you could help with? Feel free to answer!

I will absolutely not respond to your comment unless you follow the following simple rules in placing a comment on my talk page.

  • 1)You have read my FAQ below and haven't asked a question answered by it.
  • 2)Appropriately post a new section (see button/link above) at the BOTTOM of the page
  • 3)Do not ask me to just generically fix your page without a specific question, I'm not interested in fixing everyone's page for them.
  • 4)You need to hyperlink to the page you are discussing, this is probably most important. If it's remotely difficult for me to figure out what page you're talking about, I'm not going to waste my time.

Sorry if those four things seem harsh, but I review and patrol hundreds of pages a day and can't keep up with all the replies.


FAQ

You declined a page I submitted for AfC and have a question... If that question is directly answered by one of the hyperlinks posted after I reviewed it, I will not answer you. You'd be surprised how often it happens. The posted links are posted for a reason!


Why did you not leave a comment when you tagged my page?


I typically won't unless I think the issue may be unclear. New page patrol is overwhelmed (~50,000 pages to be reviewed with only ~1000 being currently reviewed every week) and if I spent the time to explain every tag, I wouldn't be able to review even a third of the pages I do now.

I completely disagree with a tag you placed on my page!!

If you disagree with a tag, please state why on the article's talk page and leave a note here for me to review it. If you think the tag was a blatant error on my part (it happens, sorry), then please revert the edit and leave me a message letting me know that was the case.

I don't see a conversation or message I posted on your talk page...

Check the archives, conversations are typically automatically archived after five days. If you wish to comment on an archived section, please move it back to the main page. I do not regularly monitor my archive pages.

Why do you keep tagging my page? Do you have something against me?

No. Occasionally after you address certain issues, more issues will arise on my re-review. For example, let's say I first tagged your page for having no references, after you add references I may go back and add a tag for no in-line citations (which would have been irrelevant before there were references). Also, if there are multiple, small issues with your page and I can see you're new, I might just tag a few things at a time instead of overwhelming a new user. Please do not take any of my tags personally. I do not target people. I go straight down the list on the new page patrol. I do however regularly watch pages I review, which is why you might see me come up often in edits on your page.

Will you help me fix issues you tagged on my page?

Typically not, unless I need a break from new page patrol. Why? I used to do this and it got to be very overwhelming. I feel the actual new page patrol needs my help more than helping to fix things on already existing pages (not to mention there's others much more qualified than me for most fixes suchs as categories, copyediting, etc). It doesn't hurt to ask though, but please do not be offended if I do not help or don't respond. The tea house is your friend, use it. Note: I will always clarify on tags, though. All in all,don't hope the house will build itself!

I would like to give you an award, thank you note, or barnstar...

Thanks! You're awesome. And I always love the support. But please put it on my user page, not my talk page. :)


Advice

Hello, First thank you for assistance with my article.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_W._Papin Second, my questions. 1st, you posted a link rot warning on the page and I am redoing all of those citations. Second, How can I improve the "grade" of the article from start level to something higher? Thanks again for your helpJrptwins (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC) I am now using the book template and the reference looks like this[reply]

It has the url within the reference but it is not a direct outside link. Am I doing it correctly now?Jrptwins (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's me again, I think I did all the books correctly using the template for books. I don't want to be presumptuous and remove the link rot warning myself. But if I have done it successfully can I or could you take it off? I still would like to know (when you have a chance how to go about making the article have a better grade than "start". Thank you for your time. I am sure you are swamped with work on Wikipedia. Jrptwins (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please Advice

Hello, Thank you for your review (and rejection) of my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Roomer. I am wondering if you read my references, if so, you will find out my written contents are neutral and loyally true from the references which are mostly top class of media. Could you give some helps: indicating which sentences you think are not neutral and not true. And this is not an Ad. Thank you. --Indepentten (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Graham. Thank you so much for making my article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Australian_Civil_Affairs_Unit) acceptable for Wikipedia. I am a 69 year old Vietnam veteran and not very skilled or knowledgeable about tech matters. Your expertise has helped us get our story on the record. Thank you from all the veterans who served in 1 ACAU. Don (1acau) 1acau (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, and thank for your service @1acau:, if I can ever help with something else, please let me know. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhushan Mate

Hello Sulfurboy, Thank you for your review and rejection of my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bhushan_Mate. I am wondering if you read article and all my references, there is no advertise in the article. I have given enough referecnes supporting the article. Bhushan is a wellknown photographer in India, I wonder, why his article was not created in the past.... There are many strong referecnes in the Marathi language which you might have not understood. All my comments are neutral and loyally true from the references. Could you help me undertstand which sentences you think are not neutral and not true?

I am also getting a feeling that since Bhushan is from India and the article creator is also from India, are you having any bias against both of them? (this is not a allegation but thought) I can share humdreds of so called celebraties including porn actor and porn accresses having articles on Wikipedia. The official websites of those mentioned on their Wikipedia pages directs the people to the sites which are mostly provibited in most of the countries. Why can't we have the article of a honest person who is doing something for the society on Wikipedia? Coolgama (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reason the article was rejected was because of lack of inline citations needed for a BLP. It had nothing to do with the sources. And the accusation that I am some how biased towards Indian people is absolutely absurd and unfounded. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coolgama, while the article does have inline citations, they are not from acceptable reliable sources. I mean, this is reliable to some extent, I suppose, but it's also a very positive (read, promotional) write-up of a very small exhibition, in a local newspaper. Consensus across the project is that such local news, which inevitably is very positive, is not sufficient to establish notability per our standards, such as WP:ARTIST, in this case. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am really surprised to the see the comments - "write-up of a very small exhibition, in a local newspaper". I guess, you are not aware of the sales figures of the 'so called' local newspapers. First of all, these are not just local newspapers including Sakal times, Maharashtra Times, Times of India, DNA are the trusted newspapers who are having a daily volume in Millions. All these newspapers are highly responsible and trust worthy. There are thousands of articles which are sourced against these newspapers in Wikipedia itself. I am afraid, I can not agree with you on this comment/point and request you to add/approve the article as Wikipedia article.Coolgama (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, you might not be aware that at least few thousand people visited that exhibition and appreciated the efforts. I have personally seen the crowd and have recorded the positive comments from the people over there. First of all, the judgment should not be made on the news coming in which newspaper and how many people attended the same. It is the quality of the work which is been done by the artist. Hope you would agree with me. I again request you add/approve the article as Wikipedia article.Coolgama (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, let it not be a little local newspaper then, but a big one. It doesn't change the basic premise, that we have very little coverage. And of course the source of the news, rather than the quality of the artist, does matter: this is an encyclopedia, not a journal that assesses the value of this or that artist. That the Sakal Times article is far from neutral is pretty evident at first glance. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thanks Sulfurboy for encouragement on trying to get my first article done. The feedback on notability (which clearly I should have read in more detail before I submitted...) should help me improve it. Cheers!

57dmenace (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which article? Considering your kindness I'd like to help if I can....I'm a sucker for kittens, haha. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Nasty P

Hi, I dont know if im doing this correctly as Im not 100% perfect at wiki, however my article was declinded first of all for the words used, i changed these and now my article declinded for something totally different .. surely if this was a problem first time round I would have been told ?? all the links provided are references to the person, I was told in the wiki chat that they were fine

can you please explain further

Azura81 (talk) 07:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Tyler Print Institute

You have recently accepted this draft. Regrettably the referencing is not of the standard that is acceptable. I have started to flag the inappropriate referencing and have found it to be a lengthy PR piece full of WP:BOMBARD. I wonder if you would take a further look, please. The simplest solution is to return it to the Draft: namespace and to give the WP:COI contributing editor guidance. Fiddle Faddle 10:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your request regarding re-review Draft:Quantum thermodynamics

Draft:Quantum thermodynamics

Hello Sulfurboy,

Regarding your request to explain why this article should be re-reviewed, please see comments by Tnd1111, AndreXuereb and Lmikmik on the page Draft:Quantum thermodynamics. We believe that these comments by professional researchers explain beyond any doubt why this article is not at all related to Quantum statistical mechanics, and therefore should not be merged with Quantum statistical mechanics. Furthermore, the current redirection is misleading and contradicts the terminology used by the physical community. Best wishes Lmikmik (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:29:05, 9 July 2015 review of submission by 40.132.64.33


Can you please help me understand what needs to be done further and why the article continues to get rejected. The recommendation says to "add citations to reliable sources." I've done this by adding manual ref tags. I'm at a loss for what to do next. Thank you.

40.132.64.33 (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Citations need to be added to prove that this local bank is notable by our standards, such as WP:CORP. Hint: local credit unions are very rarely notable: existence doesn't equate to notability. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Society for Canadian Women in Science and Technology has been accepted

Society for Canadian Women in Science and Technology, 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. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sulfurboy (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:38:11, 9 July 2015 review of submission by Koenkamphuys


Thank you for reviewing my page on Supreme Records of Los Angeles. It the first article I started myself (so please bear with me) when I found out that at least two articles link to the wrong Supreme Records (see the article's talk page).

As I understand the quality of the sources I used in the first place, did not suffice. You linked to a page about notability of music articles, but that unfortunately does not have a section about record labels, so I have tried to understand from the general guidelines and I have tried to improve my article with a few citations from books and from Billboard Magazine.

Thank you for your time.

Koenkamphuys (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Good work. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Forwarded YouTube video" source

Hi there! You just reviewed Draft:Yuno.co for me and I thank you! I do want to ask about your comment: "Lot of sources hinge on what is basically a forwarded youtube video." The source you refer to is a full-length podcast by an independent reporter and publishing company who focuses on African American entrepreneurs. I checked Wiki's source guidelines WP:RELIABLE, and they say "However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources." Before I revise, I'd love to get further explanation on why the podcast isn't a suitable source. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katie at ABZ Creative (talk • contribs) 19:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the problem with this video is that it is an interview and thus a primary source, not independent. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Thanks! Katie at ABZ Creative (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 9 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added information to the heading section to give the reader context. Thanks for the comment!

The cGAS – STING cytosolic DNA sensing pathway — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kissiovd (talk • contribs) 01:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:53:45, 10 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Opensourceguru


Hello, Thank you so much for reviewing my article on B. Shree Sundarkumar. I am writing to see if you would be able to advice and assist me in creating the page. I created the draft with a brief bio of his just to understand if it may help the reviewers. I think his page would be notable because there are several other artists who are as the same league of Shree Sundarkumar and they have Wiki articles already. For e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanjira_Ganesh_Kumar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V._Selvaganesh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Lockett

Moreover, Sundar Kumar has been learning music from the age of three and is a prodigy in terms of rhythm music. So I think it would be valuable to have a page for him.

I also think the page would be a great way for the world to learn about Kanjira music, and know of his art specifically. I think it would be fitting only if a top percussionist is also included in a page. He is definitely one of the better players of kanjira of our times. Importantly I think he seems to be creating a bridge between Indian music and Western music. He seems to be very active in the Kanjira and Carnatic music circuit in India. This is through various independent sources I have personally verified. Here is one more source: A concert video featuring him at the Kennedy center with the prominent late musician U Srinivas. He has been fortunate to be part of the first Maximum India festival in Washington. http://www.kennedy-center.org/explorer/videos/?id=M4504

Also see note from another album from a recording company. http://www.abstractlogix.com/xcart/product.php?productid=25647

Hope this is helpful. Let me know if you have suggestions and I will work on incorporating those.

Thank you so much.


Opensourceguru (talk) 03:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Opensourceguru:: The existence of similar articles does not mean another article should be included nor does it show notability see WP:INN guideline. Also, I'm glad you have a strong passion for this person and that style of music, but your passion for it does not denote notability. I advise you look to (as suggested in the decline) WP:MUSIC for what denotes notability and what sources are needed to show it. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

04:50:16, 10 July 2015 review of submission by Kgrandia


Kgrandia (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC) Just wondering how to improve the Jack Woodward submission, I included references and external links to the watershed cases he has represented to the Supreme Court of Canada defending First Nations rights as well as the textbook he wrote and updates for new editions every year for use a major law schools across the country.[reply]

Please look to the comment I already made on the draft. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I see that and I have added some points and external references, but how do I cite some of these cases where they are being cited as precedent setting cases then used and referred to in other cases? Their use as precedence is what makes most of these very significant and that is shown through their multiple references in future cases -- not say a news article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgrandia (talk • contribs) 05:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to find sources that cite them as being notable. Notability isn't just inherently assumed on Wikipedia. For example, find a news article that states blah blah case was a significant one, etc. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha -- adding in Journal references, news articles where I can find them -- and as it turns out some of these cases are so big they have their own wikipedia page, so I am linking to them -- on the right track now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgrandia (talk • contribs) 05:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but keep in mind wikipedia can't be a source for itself.

Okay. Thanks. Think I've nailed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgrandia (talk • contribs) 05:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but also keep in mind you need independent articles that talk about the person themself and they need to be non-primary. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

05:37:16, 10 July 2015 review of submission by 68.69.199.231


Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Martha_Brockenbrough What are you suggesting? That I remove references already there, or should I add to what I've done, several times already? 68.69.199.231 (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)James 68.69.199.231 (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're asking? I think you are mistakenly responding to Lamona's comment? Sulfurboy (talk) 05:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting review of AFC

hi Graham, may I request you to have a look at Draft:Exilant Technologies AFC submission whenever feasible. Thanks and Regards. Devopam (talk) 05:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great article so far. Likely will approve and clean up soon, just give me a few minutes. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the quick revert. Thank you for your encouraging feedback and help in clean-up. Learnt a few more things today in terms of what not to do in future :) Devopam (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and if you have a article of that good of quality in the future then page me and I'll be happy to directly check it out. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tony de Peltrie has been accepted

Tony de Peltrie, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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 may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sulfurboy (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marianne Hirsch - Draft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Marianne_Hirsch

Hi Sulfurboy! Thanks for looking over my article on Marianne Hirsch. The article has been marked as up for immediate deletion due to copyright violations from a single source, and I wanted to check in. Four sentences appear to directly match the source: one simply states her position, and therefore cannot be put into new language (“Marianne Hirsch is the xxx Professor of xxx”); the second names a center she founded (“She is one of the founders of xxx”); and the third and fourth respectively contain a list of grants and a list of service positions (“recipient of fellowships from” and “has served on”). If these are to remain accurate they can at most be changed by 2-3 words, and I’d be happy to make those corrections to the three violating sentences.

All other sentences in the profile contain new information, new citations, a new order, and new language, and much of what’s been marked as plagiarism is not found on the page you’ve cited (immigration date, time teaching at Dartmouth / professional development at Dartmouth, focus of scholarship, etc.). Half of the article has not been marked as containing any plagiarism. The article does follow the conventions of an academic profile –– job, education, past jobs, awards, service, scholarship, publications –– but I do not believe it violates copyright in overlapping with the cited academic page. I’d appreciate the opportunity to fix the three violating sentences and have the rest of the article published.

Please let me know if anything else would be necessary, and apologies if I’ve contacted you in the wrong venue (not very experienced here, eep). Thanks! –– knifegames — Preceding undated comment added 06:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an update: RHaworth sent me the text, and I've made some changes to the wording, added additional citations, etc. I'm hopeful that the new version is up to par. Thanks again! Knifegames (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:48:14, 10 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Fearwinner


Article I wrote did not accept for now and So I need help to make modification I have written this article after a research on wikipedia, I have seen many articles and they all were written in the same format that is why I chose same format to create the content. Please help and tell me which part or the article needs modification or what kind of modification should be made to get it publish on wikipedia.Fearwinner (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fearwinner (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lines like "With each passing day, Gujarat Foils moved ahead towards developing productive ways to establish market goodwill." aren't neutral unless they can be supported with solid sources. There are a few instances of promoting language like that which is not properly supported.

08:36:12, 10 July 2015 review of submission by Onlinejonathan


Hi there, this is the first I am getting this feedback..the problem was with the sources all along and I added many as can see. Please explain what do you mean since one of the editors even rewrite it. Onlinejonathan (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Onlinejonathan (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Tony de Peltrie

Hello Sulfurboy, I received your information : This submission appears to be taken from http://proxy2974.my-addr.org/myaddrproxy.php/https/de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_de_Peltrie. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly exists under a compatible licence and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to

I, Maxim Pouska, wrote the article in German for the WP:DE - I own the copyright. The I translatet the text from German into English for the WP:EN (it is not a machine translation)- also my copyright. Then I fixed the text on my user:maxim pouska space. After this I asked user:Philg88 on his talk site for help. [Tony de Peltrie] After all correction I submited the text to review. OK - I missing her a licenc - is it ok if I put this on my talk page of the artikel? - "Content in this edit is translated by Maxim Pouska from the existing German Wikipedia article (by Maxim Pouska) at de:Tony de Peltrie; see its history for attribution." Thanks for your help.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All sorted now, the article is in main space.  Philg88 ♦talk 09:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:52:49, 10 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Fearwinner


Article edited and resubmitted Dear Sulfurboy, I have edited my article. I removed all the peacock terms, removed the promotional content. The sources for citation and references I used all are independent and makes the content notable. Please move my article at the main place.Fearwinner (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fearwinner (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:27:50, 10 July 2015 review of submission by Lpartner


Seeking advice on how to improve this article. I modelled it after sierra wireless, used more independent sources than they did, didnt use any adjectives and certainly no peacock words in the text. I am at a bit of a loss and would seek more specific feedback if possible. Lpartner (talk) 11:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks as if its been addressed now. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ciklum

Dear Sulfurboy, My article (Draft:Ciklum) was declined. Please advise me what exactly not suitable with references in that article? Article has references from trusted resources like Bloomberg. Forbes.ua, Computerweekly, Kyivpost etc. Let's delete text that looks not suitable Nikols70 (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on another talk page. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jerome Strong | Submission declined on 9 July 2015 by Sulfurboy (talk).

When you said that referencing is an issue I am not sure how citations to Yale, Auburn etc and all the books published by the poet are not adequate. Can you look again to reconsider? or suggest specifically what you mean. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiqueThur (talk • contribs) 12:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend reading WP:42 and WP:BIO which were already linked in the decline. The citations to Yale and Auburn only mention the person in pass and aren't independent dedicated sources on the subject to show his notability. Further, books being published by someone does not automatically make them notable. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:10:21, 10 July 2015 review of submission by AnVan


I went back through to check for non-neutral terms, but this is my first work on Wikipedia, so if there is more to be done, please take time to make a note or two that specifically says why the draft was rejected. As far as citations go, the archives that I mention at Linfield college are in the process of going live, so the digital commons will eventually by linked into the article. We have an entire collection of primary documents that are difficult to cite, as they no longer exist elsewhere, or never were published to the internet. (Dr. Dirks-Edmunds' bulk of research occurred before the 70s) Linfield College holds all rights to the collection and photos.

AnVan (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better now. Let me know when you resubmit it. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:11:03, 10 July 2015 review of submission by Sean p connors


I removed the first paragraph in an attempt to make my article less 'essay' like, to address your review comments. This article is a definition and encyclopedic content as to Cybersecurity capability measurement, which has been widely used for decades, and contains all references to the existing contruct of the model. Sean p connors (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is like the entire article is quite lacking in sourcing and citations. It's hard to verify claims, and presents a real concern over original research. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hannaford page

Hey Graham,

I'm wondering what else I can do to get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Matt_Hannaford approved. I have added numerous citations from independent, reliable websites, and changed a number of sources to make it more notable and newsworthy from the first version. I feel it is an unbiased interpretation of someone who is pretty important in the baseball community. Writing this as someone who is a fan of baseball and has no affiliation with the subject or any relation to the subject, please let me know your thoughts on how it can get approved. Thanks. Baseballfan26 (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I simply do not see him as being notable, I'm not accusing you in anyway with being affiliated. Please review WP:BIO, we need independent, reliable sources that actually discuss the person, not players they are associated with. Further, there are many unsourced claims about his life that would need to be sourced before publication as Wiki has high standards for citations in biographies of living people. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback. Isn't it a matter of opinion on whether or not someone is notable? A sports agent really isn't featured in that many articles, but still plays an important role in the industry. I found some more articles to help with the personal information and more of the non-baseball related material so hopefully that will help with the submission. Baseballfan26 (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plays for England

This is a book, which comprises two plays which have separate articles. I don't want to merge them as they are not always performed together. I don't want to call it a disamb page, as this will automatically set of disambiguation notices whenever it is linked, which is not appropriate. Is there a way of avoiding this without covering the page with inappropriate tags (some categories could be added)? I'm not asking you to "FIX" anything, just point me to a relevant guideline page. Paul B (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amarna letter EA10

Hello Sulfurboy,

I added some more info to the Amarna Letter EA10 article. Whalestate (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23:23:05, 10 July 2015 review of submission by Malcolmwoodhams


MalcolmWoodhams (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for reviewing my article on The Association of Guernsey Charities. I am obviously disappointed that it doesn't currently meet all of the requirements for inclusion, however I have now added some additional citations to external sources, including some newspaper/media articles.

Are you able to advise if this is more satisfactory - or should I resubmit for further review?

Thanks for your help

Malcolm

I was about to approve it then I ran a copyright check and noticed a violation. You can find details about it on the page. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need clarification

Saw that you rejected the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Ska_Vengers due to the following reason.

"Citation style is confusing and makes it impossible to confirm claims, and thus notability."

would help if you were a bit more elaborate. The band in question is one of the leading ones coming from the region, and adequate links were provided to support each and every sentence there is on this page. So please be a bit more elaborate. Thanks. Routinewalker— Preceding unsigned comment added by Routinewalker (talk • contribs) 23:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A review of WP:CS should help. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Camille Felton

Hi Sulfurboy. I may have been a bit tough when I said "Removing content and then nominating for deletion is inappropriate". However it is also tough on the writers when pages are nominated for deletion. Thanks for withdrawing your nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camille Felton. My real issue is the statement you made "That original section was a copyvio and needed to be blanked". If it is really a copyvio then we need to do something about it. It looks to be a translation of the French Wikipedia page with appropriate edit summary. When I check fr:Camille Felton I see that another web site has made a copyvio by copying that with inadequate attribution. But can you state the nature of the violation you noticed? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to run the copyvios report an old revision, but iirc the original body of the article was taken from a bio website. You can see it in the revision history in the edit around my nomination. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Vaembu Aathi Muthumari Amman Temple

In case you hadn't noticed, I brought this page up for discussion at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Sri Vaembu Aathi Muthumari Amman Temple. The page creator has three times removed several maintenance templates I added, without first addressing the problems. I have also been trying to communicate with the page creator, without success. 220 of Borg 00:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the page on my watchlist. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but they have since done this, removing the prod, removing maintenance templates for the fourth time, and adding non-english text. I have manually reverted all, except the prod and English text added. 220 of Borg 09:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman’s Special Field Orders, No. 64 (series 1864)

Has been resubmitted with some addition. I have been working on expanding the article on "Atlanta in the American Civil War". In the article I included special order 39 as part of the article. That was before I found out about the category for "American Civil War documents". Since S.O. 39 is included in another article, it does not appear in the category list, so I thought it would be helpful to others if I placed S.O. 64 as a separate article. Hope the additional info I added will improve the article enough. If accepted, I will update "Atlanta in the American Civil War / Occupation of Atlanta (Sept 3 – Nov 15, 1864)" to point to the new article.

Thanks for you help.

On the subject of Special Field Orders - While they are Quotations, the Quotation template does not really work for them. Is there a better way to handle them? See: http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar&cc=moawar&idno=waro0076&node=waro0076%3A4&view=image&seq=803&size=100 For how S.O. 64 is formatted in the Official record.

Thanks again (hope I did not add this twice, I new to this and not sure what I am doing) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooks34 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:34:50, 11 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Malcolmwoodhams


Draft:Association of Guernsey Charities

Hi. Thank you again for your comments and help with my first article. I have followed your advice and rewritten some sections and added additional independent citations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Association_of_Guernsey_Charities MalcolmWoodhams (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)MalcolmwoodhamsMalcolmWoodhams (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MalcolmWoodhams (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC) I will look at this later tonight, if I forget, ping me again tomorrow. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12:17:55, 11 July 2015 review of submission by Vivolasting


Vivolasting (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC) What is the problem with the articles?[reply]

Request on 13:03:20, 11 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Sonam R Thakur


}}

22:42:59, 11 July 2015 review of submission by Dave Truesdale


I'm not clear on why some of Bryant Villeponteau's references are overly promotional, as they are just patents he has. What is the difference between an author's wiki page listing all of his books (which someone could purchase) and a listing of patents? Patents cannot even be purchased, so they are hardly more promotional than a listing of an author's works. The listing of patents, on the other hand, reinforces the scientist's credibility, respectability, and stature.

I am also unclear on why some references are not kosher if they are linked to external sources. I don't get that. This is my first attempt at creating a wiki page, so I thank you in advance for your patience.

Dave Truesdale Dave Truesdale (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Truesdale (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the person who pointed it out, but I'm not sure how I can help if you don't see comparing a patient list to a book listing of an author is apples and oranges, not to mention to privacy concerns of listing patients. And there is no standard via WP or me personally that I see a patient list influencing credibility, not to mention the issue is notability, not credibility. And which links are you particularly concerned with in staying? Sulfurboy (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:53:16, 12 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Marcella.lazarus


Hi!

Thank you for your feedback on my article on Leslie Lazarus. I struggled to submit the first draft and at a loss on how to correct the footnotes and citations, even after reading the citations for beginners! Is there someone who can help me, by showing me how with my article, ie doing the first citation correctly for me? Help!!!

Cheers Marcella

Marcella.lazarus (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse

Request on 19:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC) Submission declined: Too much close paraphrasing

Hello Graham,

you declined my Article about the voxeljet AG. Draft:Voxeljet AG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Voxeljet_AG The reason was too much paraphrasing. So it would be nice if you could be more specific, which phrases or parts of the article should be changed. Then I will do it immediately.

Thank you for your help and have nice day,

David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwikipedia94 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13 July 2015 for assistance with rejected page submission

Hi, first a bit of background on the page which was rejected (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Genesis_Foundation) I created the article and went to move it into the main space but the name was not allowed due to another page with a similar name - my page is 'Genesis Foundation' but there is already a 'Genesis Foundation (Colombia). Consequently I submitted the article for review with the hope that the page could go to the main space with that name - perhaps with a disambiguation page and a short description in brackets? - but the article was rejected due to context and the name was not mentioned, when the reason I submitted it was for the name. Could you tell me if I am going down the correct process and if once I make the changes you've suggested it could be put up with the correct name? Thanks for your time Watfordfan23 (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:01:24, 13 July 2015 review of submission by Sivaks2001


Hi I am bit lost in declining the article and want an understanding from your end. The first decline was because of the wrong citations w.r.t wiki the second decline was because of the content were not neutral enough the third decline was by you stating that the article is a duplicate and you will consider the other draft

Sir, after declining the first time because of lack of proper citations, I changed and included all the citations properly. Second time the draft was modified and changed the tone and also tried to put proper referencing in according to the wiki standards

Now you have rejected stating that there exist other draft with similar name and you will consider the other draft. the other draft was already rejected because of tone being not neutral. Hence I have modified and changed to this tone. So why we are going in circles.

Further, I saw one comment to say that the article is not notable. I am really surprised when one just blatently says such points without understanding a contribution significance.

The person has created histroy by having 2740 episode show aired over 100 countries. The person has first TV artist anchor atleast in India which is Astrology focused The person has acted as main lead in first astrology themed movie in India These are few of contributions of the person (Sundeep Kochar) in the field of acting/astrology.

Wiki uploads about a person when a person has contributed in one area of expertise. In this case, Sundeep has contributed the growth of astrology through acting or vice versa. His shows were aired in more than 100 countries and that is significant as nearly half the world sees his program.

The content is neutral, grammer is decent and references are valid. So not sure why it is rejected thrice and giving three different reasons. Sivaks2001 (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I may: first of all, two submissions for one person, that's not helpful. Second, they're more or less the same. Third, the most recent one (with (actor)) is marginally better than the others, but still not well written, not neutrally written, not well verified. For instance, that "Predictive Ability" is...well, not encyclopedic. Predicting a second term for Obama, most everyone did that--and in this case it's verified to the guy's own Facebook page, and that UPA government thing is sourced to his own blog. If you want this draft to be taken seriously, all that will have to go, as will puffery such as honorary doctorates and other not apparently notable awards. And really, if you cite properly, to where facts are clearly linked to bits in the text (see WP:CITE), you will make it a lot easier for us to assess the importance of your topic. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the other article?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sundeep_Kochar

WP:PROF

Draft:Arijit_Das was resubmitted with minimal changes except for shortening the list of refs.. I declined it, but I gave an explanation--there is no way from your decline that he could have figured out why he wasn't notable, especially because the relevant guideline is WP:PROF not WP:GNG, tho meeting either would do. If he had been notable, the refs would have been adequate: they're perfectly clear numbered footnotes, tho run together in a paragraph. First he listed scientific refs that he used for background of his work, then he listed all his papers , then comments about him, and then in a separate section he listed the relevant links for the data on his career. (of course, I am used to this sort of academic writing), With an adequate explanation the first time, he might not have resubmitted and cause extra work . I know it's a balance between how much is worth saying and the need to get them done, but beyond a point going too fast makes it harder. And I limit myself to reviewing drafts in fields of which I have some fat least minimal knowledge, unless their total impossibility is obvious. I would not review a draft in a field using field-specific terminology that I did not understand. no one person is responsible for doing them all. DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about what must have been a slip of the mouse. DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I am not competent in the area of assessing academics, probably through my own choice. Thus I have taken, where there is the slightest doubt, to asking DGG to take a look. They have chosen to adopt a skill set and knowledge I do not have. At risk of overloading them, may I suggest you become aware of their work and skills and and them for help from time to time? Fiddle Faddle 16:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I'll look at any such page. Several other people ask me also. Just a notification (eg {{U|DGG}} )is enough--I always see them DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:30:59, 13 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Peboer


I'm curious about some specifics of the Livid Instruments page denial. It "reads like a catalog" is pretty vague. While it does provide a lot of information about all the products, the language is dispassionate and doesn't make any claims that aren't referenced by outside sources. There are no benefits or advantages that a catalog might engage in. In short, the page is simply a comprehensive history of all the activity of the company, which seems like a good point of reference for study by people who need information. Peboer (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Peboer (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Peboer, Sulfurboy was absolutely correct in their assessment. The draft is a catalog, plain and simple. Even if some of the content were well-verified with references to reliable sources, the thing as a whole, with its plethora of pictures and technical descriptions, is a catalog and as such not really acceptable here. ("Comprehensive history of the activity of the company"--well, only in as much as that history is written up in secondary sources, preferably in print.) I'm sorry, but that's the way things are. For an accepted example of a similar company, but with fewer pictures and details and more reliable sourcing, see Keeley Electronics. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:15:29, 13 July 2015 review of submission by David.x.wang


Dear Surfurboy,

Thanks for your review and comment for my submission. I have questions regarding the reference you pointed out. Did you mean more references are needed to cross-reference some claims in the article, or simply more independent references that's related to "Nanonex Corporation" are needed?

It also seems that entries for similar kind of companies are not supported with many references; for example, the entry for company called EV Group: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EV_Group

Thank you a lot for your help and clarification.

Dave

David.x.wang (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page you mentioned is actually being considered for deletion. All the sources you have listed on your page are either primary or just basically press releases. We need independent, reliable coverage of the company not just press releases or things that would be considered WP:ROUTINE Sulfurboy (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:59, 13 July 2015‎ Sulfurboy (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (3,551 bytes) (+27)‎ . . (clean up, added orphan tag using AWB)

You added an orphan tag to the article EgyCon. From my understanding it's a tag added to an article that has no other articles linking to it, which is not the case since Comic Con does so. Please correct me if I am wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheShamy (talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you linked it to there after I added the tag. At the time of review, nothing linked to it. I've removed the tag. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confused feedback

Hi,

You recently reviewed (and declined) my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Association_of_Guernsey_Charities - however you provided some useful feedback (and said that it was a well written article). I made some more corrections as you suggested. However another reviewer has declined it, saying that they consider the article too long and detailed. I'm a bit confused as I had looked at several other articles about similar organisations to gauge the appropriate level of detail - and thought that I had it about right. I'd be grateful for any further comment / feedback (it's my first Wikipedia article - so still learning!!). Thanks in advance.

MalcolmWoodhams (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask DGG, the most recent person to decline it, for their particular issues with the page. I can tell you that one section that would seem a bit over the top is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Association_of_Guernsey_Charities#Membership_of_the_AGC. Keep in mind wikipedia has a global audience. Make sure everything mentioned in the article is tailored to a wider audience. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I sent message to DGG and have amended the paragraph and removed some of the info which may not have been of interest to a wider audience. I had originally tried to include an appropriate level of detail for anyone searching Wikipedia trying to find info about the organization. I have re-submitted. Thanks again for your advice. MalcolmWoodhams (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the references for authentic sources about the article

I have edited the article https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:Giresh_Naik_K&redirect=no , added new references and also provided authentic links about the article. kindly verify & approve to article release I have added link of official Facebook page my of Movie" Four pillars of basement". It provides the information about Director(about the article: Giresh Naik) as well.

Kindly guide me if any further details required for accepting my article

SOSORRYCARTOON

Hi Graham, I have removed all the PEACOCK TERMS from the article, request you review it and allow submission of the article. thanks so much

Sosorrycartoon (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:18:13, 14 July 2015 review of submission by Rwbest


Submission declined, well, that's disappointing. It is a translation of Wereldelektriciteitsgebruik at the Dutch Wikipedia and contains the newest available data from the International Energy Agency. I don't want to merge it at Electric energy consumption, which in my opinion is too long and outdated, but to add content and submit it under a different title. In particular I'd like to describe scenario's for electricity consumption in coming decades published by IEA and World Energy Council. But how can that be done without violating Wikipedia neutrality? Please advise me. Rwbest (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rwbest (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any scenarios like you suggest would need to be sourced. You can't formulate your own opinions. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:42:49, 14 July 2015 review of submission by EBFree


Hi -- As I am new to Wikipedia submissions, I would love clarity on one thing: Are the citations for the article not good enough because they aren't varied enough? They are all third party sources that have written about MealEnders, not articles that we wrote. I tried to be varied and pull from a variety of sources.

Any intel would be really helpful as I am trying to do my best to comply with wiki policy.

Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MealEnders

Thanks!

EBFree (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC) EBFree (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:19:03, 14 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by 173.250.185.177


Hi – This article was reviewed and the reviewer said "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability".

The subject has won a major international award, the FSF Award for the Advancement of Free Software, as noted and referenced in the submission. Furthermore, the subject of the article is the only recipient in the history of this award who does not already have a Wikipedia page. He is also the creator of the IPython project, which is notable enough to already have its own wikipedia page. I think these two facts together meet Wikipedia's notability criteria.

If there's anything more I can do to make this clear in the article (aside from the text and references I've already included) I would appreciate some specific pointers! Thanks for reviewing and responding!

173.250.185.177 (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other people who have won this award have wikipedia pages, does not automatically entitle someone else. Also the creation of something doesn't necessarily make its creator notable either. I would recommend reading the notability guidelines that were posted in your rejection. Particularly you need independent, reliable sources that aren't WP:ROUTINE and aren't primary. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sulfurboy&oldid=671500687"