User talk:Wiae

Assistance with first new entry

My thanks for moving my first stub to the correct location for evaluation by experienced editors. TBoaN (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@TBoaN: Hey, no problem. It looks like Voceditenore has very helpfully listed a lot of potentially useful sources at Draft:FireKing, and at a glance they would make a good foundation for a draft. Let me know if there's anything else I can help with on Wikipedia! /wiae /tlk 04:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I set up a user page but am concerned that it may not be in the correct location. Did I get it right?TBoaN (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@TBoaN: User:TBoaN is in the right place! Looks good. /wiae /tlk 04:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

05:01:26, 9 March 2016 review of submission by Dwayne Turberville

• Dwayne Turberville (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Contrast Magazine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not sure why this was declined, but I altered a few of the reference links. The cited source from PerezHilton.com is a post about Perez himself on the cover of Contrast Magazine's 1st issue. That is a reliable source. Please review the links that are being cited.

@Dwayne Turberville: Hi, did you read my comment at Draft:Contrast Magazine? It explains why the draft was declined. The Aaron Carter site doesn't mention Contrast Magazine, so it is not a good reference here. The two Wikipedia references should be removed, as Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. As for Perezhilton.com, please see WP:QS—Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.[8] Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves. Since this article is not about Perez Hilton but about Contrast Magazine, the Perezhilton site isn't helpful. In other words, citing Perezhilton.com doesn't show why the magazine itself is notable.

Unless the magazine has been discussed in depth by a variety of reliable, independent sources, it is probably not ready for its own article. Further, I advise you to read Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 12:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dwayne Turberville: Okay, I have a bit more time for a more comprehensive answer now. Do start by taking a look at the magazine inclusion guidelines. There are four main criteria, any one of which a magazine could satisfy in order to be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. They are:

• the magazine has made significant impact in its field or other area, such as higher education;
• the magazine has received a notable award or honor at a national or international level;
• the magazine is or was the proceedings of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association; or
• the magazine has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works.

Also, if a magazine receives significant, in-depth coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources, then it should also be suitable for inclusion; that is the general inclusion guideline.

So your job is to show that the magazine meets any one of those five criteria. I don't imagine it meets 1, 3 or 4. If it has won a significant national award, that could do the job. But your best bet is to find a variety of high-quality sources discussing the magazine. The problem with the current references is that they are not reliable, independent sources with significant coverage. As explained, the Aaron Carter site doesn't mention the magazine, the Wikipedia articles aren't considered a reliable source, and the Perezhilton.com site is questionable, given that it is a gossip blog which really should not be relied upon for encyclopedic sourcing.

Where to look for these sources? Reputable magazines, journals, books or newspapers (whether online or offline) are a good place to start your search. If such sources do not exist, then the subject is likely not ready for its own Wikipedia article at this time. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 13:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible inappropriate article

The article Wisteria (Web Series) is about something that has not come yet and has no sources. Should it be deleted? Abel Lawrence (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Abel Lawrence: Yes indeed. I took a look for a "Kyle Cipes" on Google and there are no hits (other than Wisteria (Web Series), so the article doesn't make a credible claim of significance. I was going to tag it for speedy deletion via the A7 web criterion, but User:Oshwah beat me to the punch. Good catch! /wiae /tlk 04:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I did the same thing ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I found another page which makes me uneasy [1]. If the page is appropriate, I apologize. If not, deal with it according to policies. I have already told Oshwah. Abel Lawrence (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Abel Lawrence: The page has since been submitted for review and a reviewer has declined it and flagged one of the key problems with the draft—that it does not show whether the subject meets the musician notability criteria. In general, if it's in a user sandbox, it's probably alright to let the user work on it uninterrupted. (Of course, there are exceptions, like for web host violations, copyright problems and attack pages). Many of the pages submitted for review to Articles for Creation are "in progress"; they're not perfect right away and they sometimes require a good deal of tweaking, referencing and rewriting before they may become suitable for acceptance into the article-space. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 12:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

hey

could you pls move the artcle Draft:Louis Casely-Hayford to Draft: Ing. Dr. Louis Casely-Hayford — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forsonkwesi (talk • contribs) 12:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Forsonkwesi: Hi, thanks for stopping by! The rule on Wikipedia about using academic titles, which you can read about here and here, is that article titles shouldn't use academic credentials or styles like "Dr." or "Ing." However, what you can do (and I see you have done this at Draft:Louis Casely-Hayford already) is to mention the schooling they undertook to receive those qualifications.

Also, while we're discussing the draft, I would suggest finding more references that discuss the subject in significant detail, and trimming some of the content in the "Contributions to VRA" and "Technological Knowledge" sections, as it reads somewhat promotionally and comes across at times as prohibited original research. In short, whenever you write a claim about a subject that another reader might question, it's a good idea to put a citation to a source after that claim. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 12:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

could you please review and accept my draft for me.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forsonkwesi (talk • contribs) 17:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Forsonkwesi: Hello again! As I mentioned, the draft will need a variety of references to reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss the subject in significant detail. Many of the current references are insufficient to show whether the subject meets Wikipedia's biographical inclusion criteria. For example, geni.com is a generic people database that doesn't meet Wikipedia's reliability requirements, and that doesn't offer substantive, in-depth coverage of the subject. LinkedIn pages are primary sources that are not independent of the subject.

The draft will also need to be cleaned up in accordance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view. In all likelihood, the draft will not be accepted before these two things are done. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 17:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

thanks

could you pls help me with the editing

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forsonkwesi (talk • contribs) 18:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Forsonkwesi: Hello once again. I have no interest in this subject, but you may have better luck inquiring at WikiProject Ghana. Perhaps someone there may have knowledge of relevant sources. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 18:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Assistance with deletion

Hi, I had recently made a userspace draft for Association House of Chicago. It was deleted due to copyright infringement on two specific subsections (History, Mission). I would like to know if it is possible to restore the sections to my userspace for the rest of the sections, which were not copyrighted? Thank you User:Nmalekal —Preceding undated comment added 16:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nmalekal: Hi, unfortunately I did not delete Draft:Association House of Chicago; I only nominated it for deletion. You would have to ask the deleting administrator, User:Diannaa, to see if they would be willing to do so. As I recall there was a good deal of copying, so it might not be possible to restore it on Wikipedia. Diannaa would be able to give you the final answer though. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 16:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nmalekal: I have restored the non-violating segments to Draft:Association House of Chicago. Please don't add any prose to this wiki that you did not write yourself. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! /wiae /tlk 20:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thank you very much. I will work to make it all in my words. I'm sorry for the confusion I created. I didn't realize that submitting it for review wouldn't allow me to make changes and then resubmit it if it had any copyright issues.