Jump to content

User talk:S0091

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bruvlad (talk | contribs) at 20:10, 29 October 2021 (A kitten for you!: new WikiLove message). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 4 as User talk:S0091/Archive 3 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!


Thanks on Ephemerisle

Thank for cleaning up the references on the Draft:Ephemerisle.

I'm a bit unclear on exactly how much work I should put into the draft of a new article before there's any indication whether or not it'll end up being accepted.

Cheers, -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bob drobbs: Eh...I would just leave it be for now and see what happens. I think at the very least it is "on the fence". S0091 (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pay attention to what @Schazjmd: is doing as it will be helpful to you (and me) in the future. S0091 (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's the nicest ping I've ever received. Schazjmd (talk) 00:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wax on, wax off. S0091 (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bob drobbs, I've looked over the refs in the draft, and I think it has solid coverage for notability. I removed one source that isn't really reliable but replaced it with another. What you could do to improve the article's chances is to go through the sources and connect them inline with the text they support, as I did with two of the sources. I have to log off but I'll take another look at it tomorrow. Good luck! Schazjmd (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


bankset

-- hello, Spiegel is europes largest publication magazine and most respected investigative journalism, and known to cover only independently with reliable sources. no one can have a better source than spiegel there is no press release please look again other wise the encyclopedia is missing notable and outstanding patents and discoveries and inventions and only made for CNN. you want a coverage from CNN --Lichtsun (talk) 08:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Der Spiegel is known in German-speaking countries mostly for its investigative journalism. It has played a key role in uncovering many political scandals such as the Spiegel scandal in 1962 and the Flick affair in the 1980s. According to The Economist, Der Spiegel is one of continental Europe's most influential magazines.[7] its like the washington post in europe and only talks big business and investigative journalism the best of the best reference one can get in the world. thanks for your understanding . your from the USA or Israel or where are you from , you must know der Spiegel ? its the best magazine in the world and largest circulation in europe its super notable to have a full page in this publication never happens with press releases your wrong please look again. thanks i dont belive that this company is interested in mass media campains but only science and technology and patents for real inovations.

source wikipedia itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Spiegel

Der Spiegel has a distinctive reputation for revealing political misconduct and scandals. Online Encyclopædia Britannica emphasizes this quality of the magazine as follows: "The magazine is renowned for its aggressive, vigorous, and well-written exposés of government malpractice and scandals."[12] It merited recognition for this as early as 1950 when the federal parliament launched an inquiry into Spiegel's accusations that bribed members of parliament had promoted Bonn over Frankfurt as the seat of West Germany's government.


--Lichtsun (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lichtsun: You have resubmitted the draft with your comments so another editor will review it which is the fair thing to do. On a side note, CNN is certainly is not known for its business coverage so would not be my personal "go to" source. I did just now check the Wall Street Journal though but was unable to find anything, Not that they the are end-all-be-all source but thought worth a shot. Thank you for the note. S0091 (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Romain Avril

Information icon Hello, S0091. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Romain Avril, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awards for Jellyfish

How do i step up an Emmy list for Jellyfish Pictures. and what sources you want me to remove? I'm stressing out like hell and i don't understand what you guys want. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BMA-Nation2020: You do not need to set up a list or table but mention it in the article (a sentence or two about it). If you can find the sources from the Emmy, BAFTA, etc. websites that would be very helpful. As far as what to remove, I listed the "worst offenders" (Twitter, LinkedIn, their website) but also go back through your sources and remove anything that does not specifically mention Jellyfish. I came across a couple but do not remember which ones they were. No need to stress; there is no deadline. :) S0091 (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know which ones you want me to removed. There's so many of them! plus, i found one that has them won an emmy for Your Inner Fish but i'm not sure it's enough for your pleasing. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BMA-Nation2020: You got most of them. I also removed the Instragram one so you will need a source to support that content but you likely have one already in the other sources. The last two sources (#17 and #18) do not mention Jellyfish so not sure why they are included. Yes, if you can find additional sources supporting the awards, add them. Also, it's not about "pleasing me". It is about meeting Wikipedia's criteria as established by the community. S0091 (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I get nervous if i don't get things right. i wanna show it to everyone since i liked Spirit Untamed and that the animation came from Jellyfish Picture so... BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Sulaiman Al Rajhi

Hi I don't understand why you consider al rajhi bank as not a reliable source !! this bank has a high authority in the world of finance! also, I add more sources! like a journal article with a picture of the person that improves the reliability of the subject Ihabb88 (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ihabb88: please read WP:RS. Sources need to have editorial oversight and a history of fact checking, which generally a bank does not (it is not a publisher, like a newspaper). In addition, they need to be independent from the subject, which clearly they cannot be because he is the chairman of the board. Please do follow and read all those blue link that have been provided to you. S0091 (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@S0091: ok I publish more than one source! not only al rajhi but also argaam and meed and an article that spoke about abdullah's reward I think is enough ! Ihabb88 (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. About Alex Yeung.

Alex Yeung is notable enough in Hong Kong, and he is the son of Dr. Albert Yeung, one of the famous businessman in Hong Kong. Alex Yeung seems to be the successor of his father's kingdom Emperor Group. A lot of exposures in Hong Kong Media of him make him sufficiently notable.

Hello @ S0091 regarding the rejected draft i first made research as provided under WP:RS and decided to create it following WP:1E given the fact that: (1) All links used are Reliable Sources (2) A quick google search about the individual mostly talks about her Investing Huge sums of Dollars, and Taking Akon to Uganda to Explorer Investment Opportunities (Very Many Reliable Links).

The individual is also reliably reported as Akon's wife according to every single link about her, which makes her notability undisputed as per WP:1E; When She took Akon to Uganda, the government offered him big land for AKON CITY establishment as reported. This in my Opinion implies that without her, Akon could not have gone to Uganda for business so, basing on WP:1E, both: her own Uganda Investment Agenda and Akon's City building grow with her as a masterminding induvial, So there is no justification to put emphasis on those events (Investing in Uganda and Introducing the husband to the Uganda Government) and ignore the Creator of these events, In conclusion: The Individual is very notable for those widely reported events in the reliable and independent sources and as per WP:1E i do not see justification for writing about these events indecently, wright about the Individual making those events to happen and talk about the events under her article. Further more, without abandoning the WP:BEFORE besides being a wife to a prominent International Music Star Akon, She is reliably reported to have jointly managed a number of Prominent artists that include Jay Z, Usher, Mixmaster David, Karl Palmer of Star Kutt Records, Demarco, Lady Gaga,T-Pain among others together with Akon under her Zanar Entertainment company through KonLive/Universal and also co-produced a full feature film Chocolate City.
AND NOT TO LEAVE OUT IS She has made business with Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni,who even Nicknamed her. It Is not that anybody can just meet and dialogue with a President. I therefore kindly request that you humbly review the article once more and make a decision basing on those above terms of use. Thank you Very Much. Kind Regards Hercot (Hercot :) 10:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also a mere fact that She is Akon's wife makes her notable. Hercot (Hercot :) 22:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ppacot: Notability is not inherited so being Akon's wife or managing notable musicians do no in and of themselves make her notable. As for WP:IE, sources need to explicitly state her role was significant. What is, in your opinion, "implied" is synthesis, thus cannot be considered. Either way, you have resubmitted the draft so another editor will review it. S0091 (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

rejection follow up

Hey Soo91, Hope you are having a nice weekend wherever you are. I received a rejection for you for my page submission, with the note: "Please do not resubmit until significant coverage about her from reliable sources can be provided. Current sources are just the announcement she is CEO."

I've been contributing to Wiki for a year or so now and would love to learn how these decisions are made. I would appreciate if you can teach me how to make more efficient and better cited pages.

For example, the now former CEO of Tinder, Jim Lanzone, has a page. On his page, it says "On July 27, 2020, Match Group announced that it had appointed Lanzone as the new CEO of Tinder.[21] On September 10, 2021, he was announced as the new CEO of Yahoo, after the company was sold by Verizon to Apollo Global Management.[22]"

In his page, citations [21] and [22] are equally announcements much like Mrs. Nyborg's. They are arguably from less reputable sources than the one's that I shared, The Hollywood Reporter and Variety respectively.

I guess my question(s) is/are if those citations are appropriate and sufficient for Mr. Lanzone's page, why would they not be for Mrs. Nyborg's? She is clearly listed on Tinder's press page leadership page with a further announcement from Tinder.

I'm just trying to learn on how I can improve moving forward - I would love to contribute more to Wiki, but I don't understand why the methodology of 'legitimate' citations doesn't seem to be equally applied across Wikipedia. Can you please help me?

-Fabriemo

Hi @Fabriemo:, comparing to an existing article is tricky (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) but for Jim Lanzone, the article was created back in 2011 well before he became Tinder's CEO and Tinder is only very briefly mentioned in the article so is not what established his notability. Also note, there are several sources covering him, including a New York Times article and an entry in the Current biography yearbook. This may be a simple case of WP:TOOSOON for Nyborg, meaning she is likely to gain the coverage needed for an article in the future but they do not exist right now. In that case, leave the draft active and periodically update when coverage is available, then resubmit when enough coverage has been established. S0091 (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see if I am understanding correctly, the rejection is not about the citations for her work but actually a lack of citations for her as a person from legitimate sources. So the announcements are sufficient for providing evidence but she is not yet high profile enough in terms of internet sources... as loosely compared to Lanzone's page he has a cover page with the NYT and a mention in the Current biography yearbook both which help to establish his legitimacy. After that the citations are more credible effectively because people have already established who he is. Am I understanding correctly?

(Note: don't forget to sign you messages with the 4 tildes ~~~~). It's both. There is not much anyone can say about her as CEO given she just took the role and there is not much about her as a person, yet. Jeff Bezos was Time's Person of the Year in 1999 (before Wikipedia existed) which clearly was tied to him being the founder/CEO of Amazon but what he was doing as CEO had significantly impacted ecommerce and disrupted the retail industry (still is). Now that is a extreme example but I hope that helps some. Also, to be clear, Nyborg is legitimate so this is not to be dismissive of her accomplishments but legitimate and Wikipedia's definition of notability are two different things. But yes, in the end once she has more significant coverage then the article can be appropriate sourced (and likely expanded). S0091 (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I appreciate the questions! S0091 (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 September 2021

First, AFC should display a yellow rectangle that says that the draft has been submitted, and provides a link that says that the article exists. It is small, so you have to look for it, unless you use a category to find duplicates.

Second, the draft and the article are sometimes submitted by the same person, in order to prevent having the article moved into draft space.

Third, I have nominated the article for deletion.

@Robert McClenon: thanks for the information. Much appreciated! S0091 (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on Draft:Seifried_Estate_Winery

Thanks for the assistance on Draft:Seifried_Estate_Winery. I am trying to remove all Puffery as recommended. I have gone over it again. Any additional feedback or examples of puffery are appreciated.

Hi @Kind kiwi: I made a couple changes (i.e. hours of operations generally do not belong in an encyclopedia) and I see you have resubmitted the draft so another editor will review it. If you are affiliated with the winery, you do need to disclose your conflict of in interest and follow the guidelines. S0091 (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About Draft:Bidsquare submission references

Hello, I created a Bidsquare page recently which is rejected by you due to 'submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article' and comment is the NYT article is just a very brief mention of them along with other auction sites and the Forbes article is written by a "contributor" rather than staff, which is not a reliable source, see WP:FORBES. Significant coverage about them from quality sources is required.

Bidsquare is one of the reputed online auction platforms in the USA operating globally. I have added two reliable sources one is Nytimes and the other is Forbes but both references got rejected. Also, Bidsquare never sponsors and promotes the auction event on Nytimes or Forbes, the content present in both the platform is by the Auction Houses who promoted their auction event on Bidsquare.

So requesting you to consider references submitted and review the same.


Critics on Democratic schools article

Hey S0091,

you criticized my article "Democratic schools". Your criticism was that there is already an article with the same name. However, that is a listing of Democratic schools. So it is a completely different article. Regarding the criticism that my article is an essay, I have tried to optimize the article with the user David notMD, here. If this is not enough for you, can you please tell me more concretely what exactly about the article reminds you of an essay?

Thank you, --Altiflash (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Altiflash: Apologies for the confusion! I see in the first section of the feedback I linked List of democratic schools but in my comment I linked Democratic education. I must have had both articles up and copy/pasted the incorrect one. I meant Democratic education. I see it has been rejected again for the reason I intended. I also see you tried to start a discussion on the Democratic education talk page but no other editors participated. You could start a Request for comment and advertise it at the appropriate WikiProjects, WikiProject Education and WikiProject Politics, along with Village pump. If you need help, you can ask at the Teahouse. S0091 (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avoca Park submission

Hello, I believe I have added citations that you suggested my article required. I am very new and appreciate your help and insight. Avoca Park Please review and advise. I thank you in advance. Moonoverzion (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)MoonoverzionMoonoverzion (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I have added citations as you stated it needed and resubmitted. Please review and let me know if I need to do anything else to improve the article. Thank youMoonoverzion (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)moonoverzionMoonoverzion (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Fernando Gonalez

Hello, I am Fernando 22, the page about Fernando Gonzalez is not an autobiography, it is a biography of my dad. I made the page because I think that he has made great archievements that should be recognized. He also has plenty of people in Venezuela that are interested on learning about him and i thought a wiki page would be a good way to show them, sorry if i made a mistake, i am new here.Fernando Gonzalez22 (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fernando, and welcome to Wikipedia. As far as the article you have written, it does not appear to pass our notability standards. Please read WP:BIO for more information. If your father does pass the guidelines, and you have multiple third party reliable sources to verify this, then please be sure to add them as references to the article to assist in it being accepted. Good luck, and happy editing! - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello S0091

You wanted me to adhere to the entertainer guideline and find more notable citations, I believe? So I add citations from the The Salt Lake Tribune and the New York times. And flesh out the article to show that Lisa Alvarado "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" She has been on NBC, Nickelodeon, Comics Unleashed with Byron Allen, and Nuovo TV. There are a lot more listed on her IMDB but I did my best to link to direct shows and sources. Still working on that but I think there is enough to show this point. In november she will have an appearance on HBOMAX but I am not sure I should mention that until it happens?

She has had a few TV interviews that I tried to include.

I also add a more significant section that shows she Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. There is an ABC News story that went to various affiliations nationwide about the documentary she did on Michael Schmid.

A did add a youtube link to show her start on Last Comic Standing. Since its a 2003 show, there is no place to watch the rest of her work on that show without getting it from NBC and at this point I am not sure if its necessary? Let me know what you think? Still need to figure out how to add allowable images.

I am re-submitting because I believe that is what you suggested. If you need anything more I would love to know. Thank you for your consideration and assistance!

Sarah LaSpisa --Sarah LaSpsa (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sarah LaSpsa: have her roles on those shows been "significant", meaning starring, lead support, recurring, etc.? As for sources, what is needed is significant coverage, independent of her so interviews generally are not helpful for establishing notability (if most of the content is coming from her, then it is not independent). For example, the NYT article has about one paragraph of coverage about her which is not quite enough in of itself (the focus was really on Nicholas). The Tribune is also scant once you discount anything she said or is attributed to a statement from her. Its tricky. I might do some digging myself (I personally think highly of comedians). S0091 (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I see that you have made some corrections and suggestions. I will continue to do the research and try to supply the reference you suggested to improve the article. I am trying to fix the disambiguation with Lisa Alvarado the artist. Best to you- Sarah--Sarah LaSpsa (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As of 10/18/21 I have added more Citations and Wiki Resources. Made minor adjustment to article for better writing. Thank you for your consideration and assistance. Sarah LaSpsa Sarah 03:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help on verified sources.

Hello, I need help finding sources that have information on Mz Boom Bap, I have talked to Mz Boom Bap directly and provided me with the information in my draft, I am new to Wikipedia editing, as this is my first article, I'm not sure why Mz Boom Bap himself isn't a source. He is very happy and excited about me working on this and I hate to disappoint him by not having it accepted. If I can't find any independent sources, is it impossible for my article to be accepted?

Thank you for taking the time to review my draft. Sodapoppers (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sodapoppers: one of Wikipedia's core policies is verifiability; therefore, Original research is not allowed so what he says is not usable. What is needed are published reliable sources to support any claims made. Above and beyond that, to be notable by Wikipedia's definition, significant coverage is required. If those do not exist, then a Wikipedia article will not be accepted. S0091 (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Struum Submission Decline

Hi S0091, I saw your decline of the Struum submission. This topic did receive a lot of coverage from seven independent sources, do you have any advice in terms of additional news articles that it would need to be approved? Let me know! KhariMotayne (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @KhariMotayne: the sources provided are essentially press releases which do not confer notability. What is needed is in-depth coverage independent of what Struum has to say about itself. Generally startups do not have this type of coverage because there is not much research/analysis that can be completed thus my note about WP:TOOSOON. S0091 (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Myself and other items about bufferbloat.net

Thx for the rapid review, edits, and kicking back the page about myself for better sourcing. On submitting myself... I didn't want to edit what had lain in draft for so long, but it seemed close, so I submitted. I agree learning how to edit wikipedia better first would be a good idea. I have 3 problems:

1) Is an article on lwn.net not considered definitive? (it is the premier linux

site) - some of the best articles about bufferbloat came from lwn.

2) My overall intent was to start moving over some well understood content over from bufferbloat.net to wikipedia. This includes updating the codel article, generating an fq_codel article (The default qdisc now in billions of boxes), cake (which got kicked back for a copyright reason I'll try to resolve), some edits to the packet scheduling article and the AQM article, something more detailed about what the DRR++ "flow queuing" in rfc8290, smart queue management (SQM), and "BQL".

The thing is, me and my site are the reference authorities for a lot of this stuff in the first place, and while I can find secondary sources like the ietf drafts and published papers in journals, the vast, vast bulk of the work was done on ietf or bufferbloat.net mailing lists and in code in the Linux and BSD kernels.

Can I point to a mailing list?

3) I can cite a thousand+ more papers on bufferbloat-related topics (see google scholar for the subject) but was unable to figure out how to cite things properly - although I did just now figure out how to cite rfcs properly.

The problem here is that I am one of the main experts here, and since jim gettys retired, nobody in the effort has been willing to edit wikipedia.

Anyway, I think I will start a page on BQL or Flow Queuing and learn more about how wikipedia works!!! and merely an answer to whether or not lwn is a definitive source, per item 1 above, would help. Thx for taking a peek.

Dtaht (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dtaht: I need to call in some techies, @Primefac and Enterprisey:, your input would be helpful. The specific draft is Draft:Dave Taht but I think Dave's questions go beyond that. S0091 (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how much help we'll be, from a tech side it's just using the relevant citation template and filling in the parameters. Primefac (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried to update the codel article with what I thought the correct syntax was... trying it again here, and failing.

{{cite IETF |title = Controlled Delay Active Queue Management|rfc = 8289 |last1 = Nichols|first1 = K. |author-link1 = Kathleen Nichols |last2 = Jacobson |first2 = V. |author-link2 = Van Jacobson |last3 = McGregor |first3 = A. |last4 = Iyengar |first4 = J. |date = Jan 2018 |publisher = [[Internet Engineering Task Force | IETF]}} 

Dtaht (talk) 01:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your code doesn't work because you never closed the [[Internet Engineering Task Force | IETF] wikilink. Primefac (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skifa Kahla

I have been working on my draft on this building in Tunisia, I added several sources from Arabic newspapers, I could not find many sources in French, I also added a reference to Google Books, I removed the tourist guide and added more information, the draft is ok? do I have to work on something else? add more references?-Seb { 💬 Talk + 📝 Edits } 17:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JSeb05: Good job! I noticed some variations in what it is called, such as "the Kahla shed" so you should mention those in the article as well and create redirects for various plausible search terms. S0091 (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 00:16:05, 7 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Ljunkins


I have been working on the article about Tennessee Genealogy Society. I understand why I needed to remove citations from the TNGS website. I am an unpaid volunteer with the society. I do not understand how that is a conflict of interest. Are you saying only someone who is not a member of the society can submit an article?Ljunkins (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ljunkins (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ljunkins:, I take you have not read the guidelines yet. You can submit an article through AfC but even a volunteer has at least a COI. If you are an intern, then that counts as paid. The other issue is that it appears you are citing yourself or someone else associated with the organization. Those publications are not independent. What is needed are multiple independent reliable sources that have covered the organization in-depth. If those do not exist, then an article is not possible. Thanks for the question! S0091 (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bali Balm Edited Source

Hello S0091,

You have recently reviewed and commented on the article I created Bali Balm Draft. I can understand and completely appreciate the comments that you made. I am just wondering whether you offer some sort of consulting service?? in which you could help and advise me on how to improve my article so that It can be successfully published onto Wikipedia.

I am fairly new to Wikipedia and It would be a great sense of achievement if I could get my first page published and then continue to contribute to the Wikipedia platform.

Would greatly appreciate your help/tips and it would be great to learn from you, I look forward to hearing back from you.

Thank you--The-info-guide (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Draft:Antinalysis

You labelled the draft as "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article". The site has been covered by BBC, Elliptic and Forkast in complete news articles. Elliptic is the lead blockchain analysis firm and Forkast is a popular new source for cryptocurrency, if you look online, you'll see hundreds of media news coverage of Antinalysis.

Antinalysis is the first publicly accessible blockchain analysis service(which was only made available to state actors previously) and an onchain privacy advocate, and I really hope you do your research on the subject before denying the page creation application. If you think the content is insufficient, please feel free to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnresearcher (talkcontribs) 03:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Cavallari page

Hey this annoying Wally person keeps reverting my edits because Kristin Cavallari is 'not known' for being an author and fashion designer (ACCORDING TO HIM) when she totally is... All of her books were New York Times bestsellers and she is currently known for her company Uncommon James. He also added unnecessary 'citation needed' parantheses to her filmography paragraph even though every single movie she's been in in the paragraph has a Wikipedia article which clearly lists her as a cast member, and he's reverting the list of books she's written from being a colon to a hyphen which just pisses me off because you write a list with a colon when the preceding phrase is a complete clause so he's just insulting my intelligence as well. I'm not an expert at Wikipedia but is there any way to block him from editing her page because he seems to have a history of doing this nonsense on other pages and I'm tired of reverting his reverts of my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.240.92 (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:James_Thuch_Madhier

Hi, you recently rejected my page submission for the above on the basis of the quality of the sources. If I understand you well, there's some good ones (news, not interviews) some medium ones (news, interviews) and weak ones (blogs, organisation's websites). I consider him notable based on what I've included and also other stuff online, so my plan is to delete the weak ones. My question is, which "medium" quality sources do you consider to be good enough to keep, versus sources that overall detract from the quality. I'll then delete the rest, attempt to get more of comparable quality and resubmit. Any other advice is welcome. Thanks in advance. CT55555 (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CT55555:, my comments were not as clear as they should have been so I have updated my comment both on the article and your talk page. Currently, the best source cited is the Toronto Star. Blogs are not reliable sources so you do not want to use those at all. The weaker sources are fine to use just to support a fact but they will likely not help with notability. For interviews, if they are mostly Q&A with no additional in-depth coverage, then they are not useful for establishing notability. The Toronto Star is good example of an article where portions are an interview but portions are independent coverage about him. I hope this helps and I apologize for any confusion. S0091 (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @S0091 I recently edit @Draft:Shivangi Khedkar wiki, please please help me fix errors and move to the main artile. And all the information was right from all sources and I correctly mentioned everything.

A Quick Note About WP:Paid

When I said that about guidelines, this is what I was going of of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_wizard/CommonMistakes Cerambycidfreak (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cerambycidfreak: I see. Paid to edit = WP:Paid while Yourself/connected = WP:COI. The Article Wizard should really be more clear than it is because "paid" does not mean "cash". It really should say "financially connected". Paid disclosure is required but with COI disclosure is very strongly recommended. Neither prevent you from editing but there are guidelines for both on how you edit. Either can lead to a user being blocked but paid is much more straight forward in that regard because it is a policy/Terms of Use contract. Thanks for questions and feel free to drop by anytime, although it may be a few days before I answer. Also, feel free to ask questions at the Teahouse. S0091 (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:37:50, 18 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by The Yacht Watcher


The blanket rejection seems unjust. Please explain what makes this < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Motor_Company > from an equivalent sector, automotive as against yachting, acceptable but my submission not. Each is written with expert knowledge and while mine is criticised for journal referencing, with Morgan Motor Co it is accepted.


The Yacht Watcher (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Yacht Watcher: as far as other articles, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I did look at the article history and it was created in 2004 with around 250 editors contributing to date. The reason I made the comment is because much of the draft appears to come personal knowledge with quite a bit of editorializing and puffery rather than what the sources actually state. Wikipedia articles should simply summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen to say about a subject. Please note the draft was not rejected but declined, meaning it may be notable but is not suitable for main space in its current form. I suggest rewriting it with a neutral point of view and removing any content that is not supported by independent reliable sources. If you have questions or need help, you can ask at the Teahouse. S0091 (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User

Dear @S0091,

There is one editor here by the name of Theroadislong. They're pretty well known, and they edit a lot. But they give me a lot of trouble about problems with citing websites. Like, I get it, but also I think they should be more clear what the problem is.

So first of all, how to cite a website? I do it like this... Wikipedia.org, "User:S0091", retrieved 10/19/21. How's that? They say it's wrong. What's the official way to do it here?

Second, could you talk to them (User:Theroadislong) about being clearer, and actually telling me specifically what's wrong? Also could you talk to them about actually being nicer to me? Instead of the same, abrupt message again and again? I showed them some examples of citing web sources (how I'd do it). He said it's trolling, and ignored me.

This would be appreciated, Thanks

Cerambycidfreak (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COI in reference to Brodie Deshaies

Hello. Thank you for putting a message on my talk page in reference to a recent article I created: Brodie Deshaies. I do not personally know the individual in question, but do live in the state for which he is a representative. I noticed a large amount of members of the New Hampshire General Court do not have any information on wikipedia, even though there is information/sources about them online. Deshaies happened to be the first person I created a page for. They are elected officials, and as such do meet the requirements of being persons of interest. My COI goes no further than living in the state this person is a public employee of. Thank you for checking. Appreciate the help. --Independent NH Politics (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Excellence in Writing article rejection followup

Hello S0091,

I am reaching out to you asking for guidance about a Wikipedia article from me that you rejected last month. I am new to the Wikipedia editors world and would like your help making my article better

First things first, conflict of interest should be addressed. I am an intern at the company I am writing about, which I disclosed in the talk page of my article. In your feedback you asked that I disclose my COI if I had any, leading me to believe that I made an error in the way I disclosed it, since you were unable to find my disclosure. Did I use the wrong template to notify Wikipedians of this?

I have recently been working on collecting more reliable sources, since that was your main objection to its publication. I am currently planning to use Podcast episodes from industry publishers interviewing the founder of IEW to establish basic facts about the company and it's history. Are these considered reliable since they are published from independent venues? or is it a problem that the information is coming from the founder?

Also, the organizations that have given awards to IEW are prominent within their industry, do they still count even though they aren't mainstream media sources? If they do not, I can remove that section altogether.

Article URL for your reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Institute_for_Excellence_in_Writing

Any help you could give me in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Refriedintern (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Refriedintern: my apologies, I missed your declarations on the talk the page. You have done everything correctly. So for the sources, I suggest reading the notability criteria for organizations as it goes in-depth with helpful examples. Interviews do nothing for notability even if the source is reputable because the content is not independent. Like you state, it is coming from the founder so you are spot on with your query. In order to support the awards are notable, absent a Wikipedia article about the award, you need other sources that have written about its significance. I hope this helps. S0091 (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is very helpful feedback, I will review the information you have suggested to me and do some more digging to see what meets the notability requirements and take out whatever does not. Refriedintern (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding rejection of new article: Kevin McManus (filmmaker)

Hi S0091! I'm new to Wikipedia, so I was hoping you might be able to help me figure out how to get my article right! It was rejected for the topic/person not being notable enough, but this person is referenced a lot on other wikipedia articles. Specifically the films in which he wrote and directed as well as the shows he's written for. These Wikipedia articles include: Funeral Kings, The Block Island Sound, 13 Cameras, American Vandal, Cobra Kai and Davinci's Demons. He also won a Peabody Award and was nominated for a Primetime Emmy Award. There are a lot of other cast and crew members from these same projects that have Wikipedia articles with fewer references. For example an actress from 13 Cameras has a Wikipedia article with only a few references to a website called SoapCentral.com and IMDB. That's why I assumed this individual was notable enough to write an article about. I tried to include as many references as possible, but perhaps I added too many? Should I have only included references from well known organizations and websites like the Emmy Awards, the Peabody Awards, South By Southwest, Deadline Hollywood, Indiewire and IMDb? Thanks so much for your help! TheMologger (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TheMologger:, oh yes, please do mention the Peabody as that it not clear. Take at look at Dan Lagana which was created back in 2018 to get an idea. You are on the right path though. IMBD is not a reliable source (see WP:RSP) but your use of it was not the reason for the decline. S0091 (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @S0091: Aha! That is so helpful, thank you so much for taking the time to give me some guidance. I've gone back and made some changes! Again, I really appreciate your help! TheMologger (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Tudor Speedy Deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Brian_Tudor

I am an avid fan of specialty card tricks and when I found that wikipedia had articles about it I was surprised to find that they didn't have a profile for one of my very favorite magicians. How does Lee Asher,, Chris Kenner, Daniel and David Buck - Dan and Dave who all worked with him have pages, yet he does not?

He is mentioned in several articles as the creator of the genre:

[[1]] (Multiple mentions) [[2]] [[3]]

The authority on card flourishes, Jerry Cestkowski said in his book, Tudor had "very, very good flourish cuts and some unbelievable false flourish cuts." (http://docshare.tips/the-encyclopedia-of-playing-card-flourishes_587545e9b6d87f86848b49f5.html )

You asked for more independent sources to confirm his notability, the article lists that he is cited as notable by:

1. Vanity Fair 2. Encyclopedia of Playing Card Flourishes 3. Urban Dictionary 4. Genii Magazine 5. Magic Magazine 6. DecemberBoys.com.ua 7. Bicycle Playing Card website 8. "Flash Cards with Jerry Cestkowski" podcast

Under "Requirements for Notability of Entertainers", he qualifies under: 3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CardistryExpert (talkcontribs) 02:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am in contact with the cited noble contributors such as David Copperfield, Chris Kenner, and Dave and Dan, but they all don't understand why the draft would be rejected.

Do you have any tips to help me accomplish this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CardistryExpert (talkcontribs) 14:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CardistryExpert: Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It is quite tricky to to use existing articles as leverage as to why another article should exist because over time Wikipedia's notability criteria has become more stringent and sometimes things do get by when they shouldn't, even today. It is highly unlikely Dan and Dave (magicians) would survive a deletion discussion and Asher is unlikely as well. I think one the issues is this is a really niche topic with few sources available, even if he is influential within those circles. My suggestion the for books you cited is use Google Books (they are there, I checked), along with including the ISBN number and the page numbers that cover Tudor specifically. For the reviews of his DVDs, also include the page numbers along with a summary of the review within the draft's content (you can quote a sentence from each, if needed). The other sources are either poor sources or contain brief mentions about him. S0091 (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CardistryExpert: forgot to mention I do have a subscription to newpapers.com and I did do a search but forgot my password. Anyway, what state is most likely? I thought Nevada but it only got 2 hits. Utah had over 200 but without being able to login, I was unable to determine if those were him and I certainly to do not want to wade through 200 if Utah is a definite "no". S0091 (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Securitize, Inc

Hi S0091. Thank you for your comments on my article Draft:Securitize. I have updated the draft to now include additional recent secondary sources focused on the company including Fortune, Bloomberg, Nikkei, The Information and El Pais. These are all top shelf publications; Nikkei in particular is the most widely read business newspaper in the world. I have also removed the primary source citations (government agencies) as it seemed from your comments I should only cite secondary sources. Hopefully this now exceeds the notability requirements. I appreciate any other feedback you may have. Thank you! Jebr1976a (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AKFA University

Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:AKFA_University

Hello, Thank you for your comment. Can you clarify, which sources are not reliable? I put links to local reliable news websites, which are working for over 10 years, and considered as reliable here, as well government agencies.

I saw some other pages related to my topic. They have mainly references to wiki pages and one not reliable source, but they were published.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anvarumar (talkcontribs) 08:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] 

A kitten for you!

thank you for directing me to the right place to submit future redirects :)

Bruvlad (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]