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
No edit summary
Line 330: Line 330:
If a more complete description of his theoretical and methodological contributions is needed, I can provide it, though I think that these contributions are best added over time as we gradually become more aware of their significance.
If a more complete description of his theoretical and methodological contributions is needed, I can provide it, though I think that these contributions are best added over time as we gradually become more aware of their significance.
:The subject may indeed be notable, but you need to provide the references to prove this. In particular, BLPs require inline citations for nearly all claims, which are absent in your article. [[User:Sulfurboy|Sulfurboy]] ([[User talk:Sulfurboy#top|talk]]) 03:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
:The subject may indeed be notable, but you need to provide the references to prove this. In particular, BLPs require inline citations for nearly all claims, which are absent in your article. [[User:Sulfurboy|Sulfurboy]] ([[User talk:Sulfurboy#top|talk]]) 03:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

== 06:10:20, 13 September 2017 review of submission by Adishekhar98 ==
{{Lafc|username=Adishekhar98|ts=06:10:20, 13 September 2017|declined=Draft:Dr._S_Sunder}}

To understand what steps can be taken to ensure that this article is fit for submission. After browsing other similar articles of notable people in the field of Medicine and Carnatic Music in Chennai it is my understanding that sources from online newspapers such as "The Hindu" are reliable sources. Please kindly reply with the necessary steps to take to improve my article, thank you.

Revision as of 06:10, 13 September 2017



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. :)

10:43:00, 23 November 2015 review of submission by 213.180.187.57


Hi there, I'm not sure why our submission is being rejected. There are plenty of external sources stating the notability of this congress. Where have we gone wrong? I based our submission on the following World Congress of Cardiology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Congress_of_Cardiology), and as you see, we have many more references and a lot more information about the subject, only making it a richer and more informative entry. Can you give me guidelines as to how to make it better? Thanks

10:43:59, 23 November 2015 review of submission by 213.180.187.57


Hi there, I'm not sure why our submission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:World_Congress_on_Osteoporosis#List_of_Congresses) is being rejected. There are plenty of external sources stating the notability of this congress. Where have we gone wrong? I based our submission on the following World Congress of Cardiology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Congress_of_Cardiology), and as you see, we have many more references and a lot more information about the subject, only making it a richer and more informative entry. Can you give me guidelines as to how to make it better? Thanks

23:30:25, 29 January 2016 review of submission by DeanHamer


You rejected the original article because you thought the synopsis we submitted was "lifted" from an article in the Erie gay news. Actually, the Erie Gay News lifted exactly the description that was on the PBS website, which we wrote with PBS.

The film was produced in association with and broadcast by PBS. Therefore its appropriate to use their description.

Erie Gay News is a little gay new sheet in a small city in Pennsylvania. Not sure why you would think we lifted something from them?

06:06:00, 31 January 2016 review of submission by Humanist88



Hallo, I recently checked, that the website is not online. What can be done to be accepted?

Thanks for your advice,

Humanist88

17:51:54, 1 May 2016 review of submission by Cameltown


I am requesting a re-review of this draft submission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Eufenio_Keletaona) because I do not understand how the draft submission uses peacock terms and does not have a formal tone for which it was rejected. I summarized information from 3 newspaper articles from Wallis and Futuna Premiere, an independent news source.

In reviewing my submission following its rejection, I understand that it has four potential weaknesses. First, I can see that the details about the attendance of police provided by the Prefect and Eufenio Takala completing the ceremony by sitting on the mat may be superfluous. Describing the type of mat admittedly has little to do with understanding the significance of the enthronement. However, I intended to provide as vivid a description as possible because I assume that Wikipedia's general readership, especially its English-reading audience that would additionally be challenged in reading newspaper articles written in French, would like to comprehend the environment as much as possible. Including the presence of the police at the enthronement may also be irrelevant, but I could explain the significance in a re-write.

Secondly, I admit that formatting the references and citations was challenging and I was not satisfied that the 3 articles were mentioned twice. I would of course rewrite these citations for the article. It would be convenient if I could simply write footnotes as 1, 2, and 3 and use Chicago Style bibliographic information. Writing Wikipedia articles is new to me, this draft submission being my second Wikipedia submission.

Third, I recognize that some of the chronology, especially in the "Opposition To Enthronement" section, may appear muddled. It may appear this way because some information relating to Eufenio Takala's birth and ancestry is relevant to the controversy surrounding his enthronement. In a re-write, I may actually list Eufenio's personal information first, in which I would state his age, eligibility to the kingship, and relationship (as a cousin) to Eneliko.

Notwithstanding these weaknesses, which I could correct, I believe that this draft submission accurately describes the political situation surrounding what was a controversial enthronement and provides as much biography as possible on Eufenio Talaka. What I don't understand is the concern that I used peacock terms. The newspaper articles I used are from an independent source unbiased toward any parties in the controversy.

Please let me know how I can improve my draft submission.

14:09:25, 2 May 2016 review of submission by Bonniebrunk


Hello, the submission 'Hillerbrand+Magsamen' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hillerbrand%2BMagsamen was declined because "This appears to be a duplicate of another submission which is also waiting to be reviewed." I don't see this as a duplicate. I can't find any other submission for the creation a of a Wikipedia entry for this artist team Hillerbrand+Magsamen? Any help would be greatly appreciated!

I did not send the article again for the moment....

Hello Sulfurboy, I have seen your message that my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Laramie1960/Catherine:_One_Love_is_Enough is still not good enough. Of course it is not, because it is not finished - and for that reason I have not sent it again to be accepted. I was not able to work on the article in the last few days and thought it is okay to leave the page as it is for the moment. I do hope I do not have a time limit? I will as soon as possible add all the details and references I have. I will gladly come for help when I am stuck. Thanks for your message and have a nice evening. Best to you Laramie1960 (talk)

Jake Levine Notability (Again... sorry)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jake_Levine#Jake_Levine

Hi Sulfurboy,

Thanks for your reply about the author's bio page. I didn't know how to move archived talks back to the main page so I've made a new topic and I'm pasting our previous conversation here. I hope that works for you. Please read under the line of *'s to refer to our earlier conversation.

So among my sources, there are articles written about the author. The link to Kyunghyang (http://news.khan.co.kr/kh_news/khan_art_view.html?artid=201605312145005&code=960100#csidx1ed1f6d68a1b2f4842600265b6bba0a) and Navercast Big Issue (http://navercast.naver.com/magazine_contents.nhn?rid=2867&contents_id=131181) are interviews with the subject and solely about the subject. I heard that interviews are not independent sources because they are dependent on the subject's responses. However, each of these interviews opens with a paragraph that describes the subject before the QnA, and Kyunghyang quotes something said about him by someone else. I can translate these first paragraphs for you if you'd like. The TV interview with Arirang is another source, but recently I added a related source (http://www.arirang.com/Tv2/TVCommon_NoStaff_Archive.asp?PROG_CODE=TVCR0633&MENU_CODE=101481&view_seq=20452&Page=1&sys_lang=Eng). This is a introduction to their episode and describes the subject without depending on his responses.

Are these enough to establish his notability?

Soeun


Hi, Sulfurboy. First of all, thanks for your work as a new page patrol. It says you're not likely to help better articles and so I did send this to the teahouse and online chats but I thought I might ask you directly as well. My article for the poet and translator Jake Levine includes numerous established Korean news outlets and an american one, and the subject's bios from famous, noteworthy presses and magazines. He is an important figure in contemporary Korean poetry in translation, and one of the news sources (Korean) says so. If I translate and direct-quote that line, will it help? What else can I do to convince others that he is noteworthy? Thanks. Soeunseo (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC) Hi, I'm adding more information after discussion at the Live Chat page. The helper said I should try to message you about the reliability of the sources I already have, since interviews and news articles about the subject are usually good enough to establish its notability. I won't go through all of them, but the biggest, most important ones. °Boston Review: I took the subject's bio from here. To ensure Boston Review's notability, please see http://bostonreview.net/about °Kyunghyang News (news.khan.co.kr) is a Korean newspaper established in 1946. It is one of the biggest news outlets in Korea. In the interview I used, it says that "As Deborah Smith rises as a hot topic for allowing Han Kang's Vegetarian to win the Man Booker prize, Jake Levine has become a topic of discussion as well. In the poetry scene, they even say that "Good translations have given a wider readership to Korean poetry, and a lot of that is thanks to Levine". °Hope School Camp is a famous English camp in Korea and has partnerships with Chungshim International Academy (one of the most elite secondary schools in Korea), KBS (Korea Broadcasting System, the single biggest broadcasting network in Korea) and more. From here, I took his resume. °Munjang Webzine is the biggest and most famous online literary magazine in Korea. Jake Levine's continued work there, as well as his collaboration with one of Korea's biggest poets, Kim Kyung Ju, and MC Meta, also famous, attests to his notability. °Founded in 1889, Granta Magazine is a very well-established American literary magazine that ranks among the Extremely Challenging Fiction Markets in Duotrope's database, with a near 0% acceptance rate. °Guernica Magazine is an American poetry magazine that ranks among the 25 Most Challenging Poetry Markets in duotrope's database. It has an acceptance rate of 0.64%. I retrieved Levine's bios from Guernica and Granta. Not only are the sources themselves reliable, but Levine's participation as a contributor to these magazines establishes his notability. °The World on Arirang is a broadcast station established in 1996 to deliver Korean news to readers worldwide. I included a video of Levine's interview from this international station, which should speak to Levine's notability. I hope this helps you see the reliability of my sources. If that is not the only problem, please let me know what else I can do!

Thanks. Soeunseo (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC) The Boston Review and Granta Magazine sources are just your basic author bios. These can even be submitted by the author themself. A simple entry for an author is not a source that denotes notability. IF there were actual articles about the author written by these sources, then that might be a different story. At this time the sources simply don't denote notability at all. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


Soeunseo (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12:51:32, 10 September 2017 review of submission by Pavanmaverick


16:09:09, 10 September 2017 review of submission by Linnaean Street



Hello Sulphurboy-

Thanks for reviewing my biography of Ann Sutton. It's my first go at creating an article for Wikipedia, so I am grateful for your feedback, especially as I know all Wiki editors are volunteers.

My article was rejected as it did not meet the minimum requirements for citations. However, I had not included inline citations because the article did not include any of the four things you require them for: direct quotations, statements that have been challenged, statements that are likely to be challenged, or contentious material.

I certainly agree that had I included any of these I would have needed inline citation. But as I had not, I had included a general list of sources at the end.

What's your recommendation on how best I should proceed? Would it be acceptable, for instance, to re-title my final section as "General References" to follow the Wiki guidelines for: "a bibliographic citation, often placed at or near the end of an article, that is unconnected to any particular bit of material in an article, but which might support some or all of it. It is called a "general reference" because it supports the article "in general", rather than supporting specific sentences or paragraphs."?

Very happy to take your advice, whatever you suggest.

Thanks for your time and guidence,

Linnaean Street (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Linnaean Street[reply]

FYI

Since you accepted the (revised) draft of Gurdeep Pandher I thought you might be interested in this sockpuppetry case. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

review for Draft:King's Centre for Risk Management

Hi you added an under review tag here to the above draft 16 days ago, are you still reviewing? Domdeparis (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sulfurboy: any chance of a reply? the tag is still on there. Domdeparis (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted and published. Sorry for the delay. Was catching up on a few days worth of stuff. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12:14:59, 11 September 2017 review of submission by Coverdale1234



Please can you clarify why you declined this submission? Thanks

Request on 12:16:33, 11 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Yourfriendbam


Hello, I do not understand the reason this article has been declined.

"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified"

I have added many references and citations from credible sources, including some titles with significant readerships which have been published for decades!

Please let me know what more I can do to get this wiki page approved, the sources I've cited are credible and the information surely verifiable. I'm a little perplexed, appreciate your advice.

Thank you.

YourFriendBAM Yourfriendbam (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Yourfriendbam (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yourfriendbam (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:38:21, 11 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Yourfriendbam


  • updated message with link as per your FAQ*

Hello, I do not understand the reason this article has been declined. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alluri

"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified"

I have added many references and citations from credible sources, including some titles with significant readerships which have been published for decades!

Please let me know what more I can do to get this wiki page approved, the sources I've cited are credible and the information surely verifiable. I'm a little perplexed, appreciate your advice.

Thank you.

YourFriendBAM

Yourfriendbam (talk) 12:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend reviewing the policies at WP:REFB Sulfurboy (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:30:00, 11 September 2017 review of submission by Mpbrown257


Hi, I am wanted to ask why the references did not sure enough notability for the Draft page for Draft:Primordial Radio?

All links are independence of the actual company and actually written about the Radio Station as opposed to the being about the station itself? Also, given the level of investment through Seedrs, there aren't many radio stations that have ever achieved that, so I was wondering how the those bid itself and the numerous 3rd party articles about the equity fund not make the Radio Station noteworthy?

Cheers

Mpbrown257 (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources that aren't primary (eg interviews) are just WP:ROUTINE coverage of the starting of the radio station. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]



Ok I think I may have miss understood the links. I was under the impression because they had to be third party, that the references couldn't actually be the station's execs talking. In that case the links can be changed to the interviews I have if you are saying that interviews are suitable? Would podcasts also be suitable? Or would podcasts fall under as direct content?

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpbrown257 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:36:31, 11 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Thomas Saibot


Hi, I submitted an article that was declined. I tried to create an entry and described the product lines of my favourite microphone brand LEWITT, and I tried to stay as descriptive as possible. I have linked to several sources on the net talking or reviewing LEWITT products. The reviews always say that the article contains too much ad talk, but I can not understand why, as I am simply describing their product line. Also when I compared it to much more known brands with longer articles, and from what I have seen they contain similar phrasing. In fact, I took them as a reference, eg Shure. Can you please help me figure out, what exactly I need to adapt?

Thanks in advance. Thomas Saibot (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We need to see coverage of the company itself, not just individual reviews of the products. And yes, brands like Shure have more extensive articles, because like you said they are more notable. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few important questions...

Hello Sufurboy, I suppose it is best I come to you with my questions about this not released article https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Laramie1960/Catherine:_One_Love_is_Enough&action=submit I have returned to work on it - but already I have a lot of questions. I have more or less done the work for this article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliette_Benzoni and that was also the reason I wanted that extra page “Catherine, One Love is Enough”. I am in a dilemma now, because many facts I added there I could use on this new page also! As you know I have so far not created on English Wikipedia a new article, only added what I know about that author on a few article's.

  • Am I aloud to copy certain sentences from the article I worked on another page?
  • Is it possible to re-name the article I am working at? Because this is a series of seven books and I might as well add all the information on one page. So the title would have to be a bit different I suppos.

I got also a problem now with the symbols because English is not my native tongue. Is there an extra article where I can look that up? In the meantime I wholly understand why the article is rejected, even though (and that is no cheap excuse!) I have seen article's where my hair stands up. Why other countries get away like that I do not understand. Looking forward to your Feedback, thanks, have a nice day Laramie1960 (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend visiting the teahouse for specific questions, there's a link on your user talk page. What did you want to change the name of the page to? Sulfurboy (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:40:41, 11 September 2017 review of submission by Sarah Josephine


Hello, I am wondering why this got declined? I understand that you need as many citations as possible, but to be fair I have seen bands have just as many or less and become verified. How many does one need to become verified? Thank you for your time Sarah Josephine (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:42:48, 11 September 2017 review of submission by Sarah Josephine


Here is the link to the page that got declined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Godless_Throne

I am wondering why it got denied? I have seen band pages with minimal citations and it's verified. How many more do I need to get verified? Thank you! Sarah Josephine (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We need to see third party, independent coverage of the band. Everything listed is for a former band. Also, wikipedia cannot be used as a source. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

04:25:25, 12 September 2017 review of submission by 70.59.20.131


I read the notability guidelines and I am not sure why this page was rejected. I saw on your page that you got a degree in English and Political Science, so it may seem opaque because this article is inherently (extremely) technical. Unfortunately, this cannot be bypassed in any reasonable fashion because it is based on abstract ideas pulling from multiple complex fields of math.

Lol, I'm not sure what you think my background in education has to do with my ability to infer wikipedia policy. But the reason it was rejected was not due to its technicality (which actually in itself can be a reason, if context isn't properly given to the uninitiated reader). The reason it was rejected was for notability concerns. Please review the guidelines as linked in the rejection. I'd review something like Simplicial complex to get a better idea of what we're looking for in an article such as this. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how the notability guidelines are not followed. I gave references to notable sources and have edited it so that there are links to other relevant wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.20.131 (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja Edit master

I'm often reviewing the sources for a AfC and refreshed the page just to find out you've gone and reviewed it already. Have a kitten for all the hard work you are doing at AfC.

Whispering 04:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13:45:30, 12 September 2017 review of submission by Raymartinez77



I am confused...their is nothing in this draft that is copied from someone else? The bio info is from my personal webpage at www.raymartinez.com , I am the creator of my webpage. Please help me understand. the story of my life is from my book that I wrote, called Baby Boy-R. I am at a loss?

02:45:46, 13 September 2017 review of submission by Jack molyneaux


I respectfully ask that you re-consider this subject's (Dave Donaldson's) notability. The John Bates Clark (JBC) Medal, awarded annually by the American Economic Association is arguably the most notable academic achievement possible for a young (under 40) economist. Roughly half of the pre-1980 JBC recipients have gone on to win Nobel prizes in Economics (those winning it after 1980 are still relatively young for Nobel laureates.) This year's award itself prompted a 500-word article in the New York Times, and a 1,000-word article in The Economist.

The JBC Medal Wiki page (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bates_Clark_Medal) includes links to *every* previous medal winner, except for Dave Donaldson. Note also that the content of my article largely mirrors the content of the other recent JBC Medal recipients.

This seems ample evidence that if the entry I drafted today is not published, another one soon will be.

If a more complete description of his theoretical and methodological contributions is needed, I can provide it, though I think that these contributions are best added over time as we gradually become more aware of their significance.

The subject may indeed be notable, but you need to provide the references to prove this. In particular, BLPs require inline citations for nearly all claims, which are absent in your article. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

06:10:20, 13 September 2017 review of submission by Adishekhar98


To understand what steps can be taken to ensure that this article is fit for submission. After browsing other similar articles of notable people in the field of Medicine and Carnatic Music in Chennai it is my understanding that sources from online newspapers such as "The Hindu" are reliable sources. Please kindly reply with the necessary steps to take to improve my article, thank you.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sulfurboy&oldid=800385864"