Jump to content

User talk:SwisterTwister

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CorbuleacM (talk | contribs) at 12:22, 26 June 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please sign your messages with four tildes ('''~~~~''') and please be as specific and concise as possible. If I reviewed your Articles for Creation submission, please read the message(s) at the draft page clearly before adding a message here. As this has happened multiple times, please ensure your message is only posted here once (not doubled).

PLEASE ADD YOUR MESSAGE AT THE BOTTOM and generally, I will reply here so please watch this page for a response. Unless it's an AfC page, where I'll usually comment there and you will get a notification for that. If I have taken time reviewing your draft, please be patient and I will get to it as I am quite busy with other tasks but am certainly willing to look at it and will not need reminding.

New users: If you want to learn the basics of Wikipedia, my page for new users here contains useful information. Information such as citing sources, submitting images and changing & deleting username. If that page hasn't answered your question(s), contact me here.

13:24:38, 5 June 2017 review of submission by Rhish

I've added a range of published articles about her could you review these? —Preceding undated comment added 13:24:38, 5 June 2017

16:20:51, 7 June 2017 review of submission by Florine Calleen



Hello Swister Twister,

it's me again concerning "Johannes Susen". I've changed some points, but the article is not jet approved. The weblinks and sources are all prooved. Johannes Suses work together with Will Shortz, the puzzle editor of the New York Times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Shortz

They are both members of the World Puzzle Federation and took part in many international Puzzle Champinships:

http://www.worldpuzzle.org/members/usa/ http://www.worldpuzzle.org/members/germany/

May be this can help us?

I am very much looking for an answer and wish you a plesant week,


Florine Calleen

Florine Calleen (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Florine Calleen (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick answer, Swister Twister!

But what can we do?


May be my explanations concerning the links will help:

• WDR – Lokalzeit aus Köln (regional TV news magazine) on 18th December 2013: The Crossword Puzzle Inventor (de)

—> that’s one of the biggest independent broadcast ("öffentlich-rechtlich") – in this case the section TV

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westdeutscher_Rundfunk#Television


• WDR5 Zeitzeichen (daily radio broadcast with historical topics) on 21th December 2013: First crossword puzzle to be pulished (de)

—> in this case the culture radio program

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westdeutscher_Rundfunk#Radio


• Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger (local daily paper), 4th/5th August 2007: A mystery man – A man from Brühl invents mental puzzles (de)

--> The daily newspaper in Cologne (one of the oldest in Germany); this has been a newspaper article, we just put the link to the online version

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6lner_Stadt-Anzeiger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._DuMont_Schauberg


Thanks again and best regards! Florine Calleen (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Swister Twister,

here some more information which could help:

The worldwide Newsletter of WPF (World Puzzle Federation) and in fact, in every issue Susen am mentioned as a representative of the German puzzle community at GA (general assembly). There is also an article from me in issue no. 13 of 2008 + about the "Activities of the German Puzzle Federation by Johannes Susen".

Link Newsletter: http://www.worldpuzzle.org/publications/wpf-newsletter/ Link Newsletter 2008: http://www.worldpuzzle.org/publications/wpf-newsletter/newsletter-13-2008/

Thanks and best regards,

FlorineFlorine Calleen (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Loom Systems - Submission declined

Hi, On March 29, 2017 you've declined the draft of Loom Systems due to insufficient amount of reliable references. I've added some new references that we're not a "not-yet established" company anymore :)

Can you please help me understand if it's OK now? if not, what's missing?

Thanks Dvirperetz (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dvirperetz Although you added sources, those are still only based on what the company either announced or said itself, whever published and it's simply not enough in notability; for example, industry awards or funding is still too trivial for us as it shows they still need support and, as for the awards, they're only trade-focused or similar. We've rarely accepted newly started companies is simply because it's nearly always too soon. SwisterTwister talk 15:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your response! I agree with the attitude of not accepting newly started companies, but actually we are not so new anymore.. I've added some unbiased sources such as the one from TheNewStack, the unbiased Gartner's Cool Vendor, a customer interview with Bicycle Transit, and our $6M fundings, may you please help me realize what type of references is missing to prove our establishment?

Thanks! Dvirperetz (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13 June 2017, new unreviewed article

Hello!

Would you mind having a look at my new unreviewed article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Wallraff

Thanks!

Tyttcfm (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Rikirimler

When you leave messages on talk pages, please sign them. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

01:03:02, 15 June 2017 review of submission by Jenv Corre


The page is currently going re-review. My question is how can I remove this: This article or section is in the process of an expansion or major restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this article or section has not been edited in several days, please remove this template. If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with

during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use.?

Thank you.

Jenv Corre (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Jenv Corre: Removed. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of things

Hi SwisterTwister

  • Firstly I note that you have automatic archiving set up, but it is not catching nearly 200 older threads which are clogging up your talk page and making it slow to load. Would you mind doing a manual cleanup and getting it down to a manageable size?
  • Secondly I'm sure that you are following the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Mass creation of improperly referenced BLPs by User:SwisterTwister and I appreciate it may be unpleasant and stressful to see the strength of feeling there. I understand if you prefer not to respond there, but would you please consider making a short statement on your talk page to say that take the concerns on board and how things will change going forward? I fear that in the absence of a conciliatory response some editing restriction will likely be imposed on you.

Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you respond to these when you have time? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have archived your talk page - looks much tidier now! The problem is that users are not signing/dating their posts so the automatic archiving is not happening. I wonder why User:SineBot is not visiting this page because that would be useful. I must have missed your statement but will go check it now. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you redirected the page?

Hi SwisterTwister,

I could not understand why Netmagic Solutions page was redirected to its parent page, NTT, when Netmagic Solutions as a subsidiary merits a separate page. Please restore or let me know what kind of changes is required to comply with wiki policies.Pramuwi (talk) 09:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pramuwi None of it satisfies our set policies and, actually, its information and sources were too promotional to separate what the company itself would advertise and what an independent uninvolved encyclopedia would publish instead. Focusing in only what genuinely independent coverage has said about the company, and not simply announcements or notices will help convince us. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasz Wójcik draft

Hi SwisterTwister,

I added two portfolios, featuring graphic works by Tomasz Wójcik as well as his animated posters and film trailers. I hope this will be enough to restore the normal status of Tomasz Wójcik's website. Best regards --Szczebrzeszynski (talk) 08:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help Needed

I don't know why wikipedians keep deleting "UrbanClap" page that I created, it is a notable company and passes WP:GNG and has reliable sources to establish notability as well. As far as language is concerned I have checked a lot of similar pages with similar language.Bulle Shah (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09:22:56, 18 June 2017 review of submission by 130.54.130.240


SwisterTwister said that this article is enough major independent news, but he was referring in other pages. For example, on the main page "Hiroshima symphony orchestra", it was written that he was a music director...

Draft:Yair Tarchitsky

Hi! I saw this draft which you rejected a few months ago. I think the article meets the notability guidelines. He very well known in israel. There are many reliable sources in the Hebrew Wikipedia article about him. Would you reconsider? Thanks, Atbannett (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. There are many articles which show notability, but they are in Hebrew. this one for example. Isn't that enough? Atbannett (talk) 06:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Atbannett In this case, one wouldn't be enough, you're welcome to find any others and we'll consider that. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. here is an article about his victory for 2nd term as Chairman of Israel's Union of Journalists. Do you need more? Atbannett (talk) 07:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
what do you think? Atbannett (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'll upload it again. Atbannett (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:42:16, 19 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Wanganuimatt


What the heck? I have legitimate, credible sources. Why is this being rejected?

Wanganuimatt (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marc A. Zimmerman

confused face icon Just curious... why just one tag? Atsme📞📧 04:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Atsme I've worked extensively in these subjects and, as long as there's published paper showing they're a significant figure in that field they're notable (the GoogleScholar link I listed showed high citations by peers as a scientist). I added other relevant sources so the only remaining applicable one is COI, which is not a serious concern. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the timely response. I appreciate your experience which is why I was asking. I never doubted his notability but what does concern me is the fact that there's not one cited reference that Zimmerman didn't author or co-author. There's no way to know for certain if the author of the BLP has a COI, although it's rather obvious. The problem is that the article reads like a self-serving promotion, not an encyclopedic BLP. Notability doesn't dismiss the need for inline citations or the requirement for citing independent RS, and that's what the article needs and should be tagged as such. Perhaps you disagree? Atsme📞📧 12:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme GoogleScholar is actually an independent website since it's not the school website; these sources are considered independent by WP:PROF so it would be appropriate to remove the current template. I had removed some of the worst "promo" parts but it wasn't too severe; this is what our academics articles have always looked since their publications are what establishes Notability. For example, what else better to show his research is significant than the publishings themselves? News media is never considered a fully reliable source for this in science given it's not fully or always fully informed about science subjects. SwisterTwister talk 16:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But the author of the references cited for the BLP is the BLP. Hope you don't mind, but I'm going to ping David Eppstein to take a look at this as a second opinion...just for reassurance so I don't get in trouble with NPR. Atsme📞📧 17:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling: Sources such as his faculty profile are published in a standardized format by his school (they are not his personal web site) so I think they're usable as reliable sources for the basic facts listed there (education history and job title) but, because they're still WP:PRIMARY, should not be used for more opinion-based material such as his research interests. They're at least enough to save the article from a BLPPROD. On the other hand, Google scholar, now used to source the claim "He is highly cited in his field" is a bad source. It violates WP:ELNO #9, which generally bans links to search engine results. And it cannot be use to support a claim of being highly cited, because they only give you numbers, but don't tell you whether those numbers are high. (One could look at his ranking in the people with the same listed research keywords, but that's also not very useful as it's too easy to game those by picking uncommon phrasings for the research interests.) The Sage author biography is also no good, as it is almost certainly written by Zimmerman himself — one can use it to find out what he thinks is important about his biography, but then you should search for better sources for those claims. All the publications by Zimmerman are not sources at all, and should be listed in a separate section. Also, there are way too many of them: five is a good target for how many selected publications to list. The description of his research contributions should not be sourced to his own publications, but to others' published reviews of those publications, or it should be cut from our article if those reviews cannot be found. So as far as I can see there is only one footnote that is actually usable as a source, and it's the primary faculty profile that is only usable for the bare-bones facts, not for anything that hints at evaluation or opinion.
There's also a more serious problem with the article: it is not just badly sourced, it is falsely sourced. In the current version, the claims of having the APA Distinguished Contribution Award and the SPHE Distinguished Fellow Award are sourced to the Sage page, which mentions no such awards. And the claim of being the only person to have won both of those honors is sourced to five of his own research papers, obviously wrong.
He clearly does pass WP:PROF#C1 for his highly cited papers, but that claim is something that should not go in an article, but used only in an AfD in case someone tries to get it deleted. The article should make the case for his significance in other ways than bean-counting, and through better sources than the ones you're using. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22:26:40, 19 June 2017 review of submission by Helen1921


I'm not sure why you are saying that the newspaper articles are not reliable sources. Many are too old to be found online but they definitely exist and are published sources. This organization has a very long history. What kind of sources are you looking for?

Jorge Eduardo Londoño

Hi SwisterTwister, Why did you remove BLP sources, it is applicable to him as anybody. Only one of those refs work, and the other mentions him by name, I think, so should have more refs, as it is BLP. scope_creep (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Scope creep Well, I especially felt "Unreliable" sources was inapplicable given the two sources are significant publishers. About the BLP, because these two were reliable, it was enough. I can see what else I can find myself, given I know the language. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That coolio. Obviously he is notable, but with WP:BLP. I didn't know what to put, when the refs don't resolve, not much else available. It seems to be quite a common problem. scope_creep (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Areas Highlighted on Draft:The Quint

Hi SwisterTwister, you had rejected the initial draft I'd uploaded of Draft:The_Quint. I have reworked the article and added better references. Can you please review the article? I would be grateful if you could review the page and let me know if this is suitable to be moved from the draft section to an actual page. Thanks! VP101 (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • VP101 Weighing the actual sources, they're all only announcements or notices and it's no different than any other company, which would not establish notability; considering the company is barely 2 years old, the sources themselves are based in only either what they announced, hope to achieve, business transactions, etc. and that's simply not significant for an article. Altogether, the information is then simply a company-like website; notability cannot be inherited either. SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Van Vleck (artist) draft

Hi, Thanks for looking at my article. I have a question: the curator of the Natalie Van Vleck art collection is an expert art historian and gives lectures on art history and the work of Natalie Van Vleck. Would it be okay to use information I gathered from an oral interview I had with this curator? Vanvleck (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Joan[reply]

Sources for Draft: Tina Byles Williams

Hello, you recently reviewed my draft in AFD and left a comment saying, "Notable but specifically focus with only major independent news in major publications; no announcements, notices or interviews." I've looked for some sources and wanted to run them by you before I rewrite the article. Do you mind taking a look at the following? http://www.royalgazette.com/article/20070511/NEWS/305119891

https://www.equities.com/news/markets-media-women-in-finance-awards-highlights-the-success-and-challenges-of-female-business-leaders

http://www.pionline.com/article/19960122/PRINT/601220708/consultant-facing-troubleclients-scrutinizing-washington-hackett-poitevien

http://www.pionline.com/article/20030721/PRINT/307210725/nashville-drops-1st-hedge-fund-of-funds-manager

https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-137871309.html

Thanks for your help. Murray Owen (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amr Awadallah

Well, I think the subject is notable enough to have an article even though my coverage may have been faulty when looking for independent coverage. I suggest adding BLP_sources Template instead of deleting the article entirely. Actually, I created the page while I was surfing another article about Cloudera Inc. and it had his name in red as an article that needs creation, so I proceeded with that. If someone else more experienced than me steps in to do some fixes and maybe better referencing, I think we are being more constructive. Khaled Abolaynain (talk) 03:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

06:12:28, 21 June 2017 review of submission by Queensonu


{{SAFESUBST:Void|}

I have submitted my Wikipedia page 28 days ago by the name "Farah Siddiqui Matin" but till now it has not been published or reviewed? can I know the reason please?


Request assistance for Draft:Unigma

User:CorbuleacM (talk) - 18:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SwisterTwister,

I've added two more independent sources to Draft:Unigma. All of them are unique. I really hope it will be enough to get the wiki page published.

Best regards,

Mihai.

18:30:58, 21 June 2017 review of submission by Missionaryofgod


Hi I would like you to re-review my draft for the band Declaration since I believe there are many other bands already included in Wikipedia that have less notability. Also don´t understand why the band themselves (homepage) aren´t a reliable source for facts. Best wishes! Robert Missionaryofgod (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to AfC!

Hi ST,

I'm not sure if you're following the discussion at the AfC talk or not, but the consensus seems to be that you've been added back as a reviewer. I know it must seem like a bit of a hassle- but please do check for copyvios every time (and after a while, you'll develop a 'sense' that something's been copied, if my experience is anything to go by) and being honest with you, I think that others may be quick to jump on you if you let too many copyvios slip past from now (it's super easy to add a copyvio check as part of your routine). I hope that you'll get back into the flow of things- you were very useful at knocking out the backlog last time.

Thanks for your time, jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Urška Arlič Gololičič

Dear SwisterTwister,

It has been a long time since I went back to Urška Arlič Gololičič's draft, and now I want to work on it again. You commented that the sources weren't good enough, the problem is for a lot of her performances I cannot find any other information online proving that they have happened than some press releases about them. Would it be a solution if I could send you/wikipedia scanned programmes of her performances published by theatres or other institutions?

All the best, Julia Dobry (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:53:24, 22 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by G Kopfer


Hi, we added sources and additional information on scientific activities. We related the scientific activities to his publications. If there is more to do, could you please help me where exactly information is missing. Thank you very much for your help for a wiki beginner :)

G Kopfer (talk) 09:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Natalie Van Vleck (artist) draft

Hi,

I had posted this a few days ago, but I never saw a response: Thanks for looking at my article. I have a question: the curator of the Natalie Van Vleck art collection is an expert art historian and gives lectures on art history and the work of Natalie Van Vleck. Would it be okay to use information I gathered from an oral interview I had with this curator? Vanvleck (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Joan[reply]

Ron Avery revert

Hi, I'm just curious why my tag was reverted when there wasn't any biographical information or any related to such that was sourced. Snickers2686 (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Snickers2686 Based from the current information, there's therefore nothing unsourced so the current article condition seemed passable without need for templating. SwisterTwister talk
  • @SwisterTwister:: So even though there's no biographical information or categories related to such corresponding with the article, that's okay? He's a shooter and he's alive and he played in a few events, that's all we know--that's enough? Snickers2686 (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's not always a lot of other information in these subjects apart from the current, from my experiences, and information versus sources are different cases. SwisterTwister talk 03:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk archive

Just find out your talk archive was edited. Not sure it is an error of manually archiving or vandal, but the edit do remove the talk regarding Alieu Darbo submitted by @Ode070:. Matthew_hk tc 07:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah not sure what happened there. The summary was "add" but the action was certainly to "remove" a lot of discussion ;) I'll take a look — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Think I've fixed it, but not sure what went wrong! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

Hello. I'm confused. You declined this article but it now with few changes has an article. --2604:2000:E016:A700:7893:FEC5:FDBE:5726 (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see it now, yes, and because the existing article has no proven notability so far, it can be redirected in a link back to the Draft for improvements; given the existing article's notability is questionable, it cannot be assured it won't be deleted. SwisterTwister talk 17:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Westbury Road Ent.

Greetings! I see that you and others have denied publication of Westbury Road Ent., and I wholeheartedly agree. Somehow it made it into mainspace so I moved it to draft space. If there is anything more I need to be aware of, please advise. Have a wonderful day! Atsme📞📧 19:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts about this comment? Atsme📞📧 19:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. SwisterTwister talk 20:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Get a load of this, this and this. m( Atsme📞📧 00:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can You please review this draft?

Hello SwisterTwister. I am not sure whether or not to approve Draft:Mitchell Kummen. What do you think? Eddie891 (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]



Request assistance for Draft:Unigma

User:CorbuleacM (talk) - 12:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SwisterTwister,

I've added two more independent sources to Draft:Unigma. All of them are unique now. I've read and followed Wikipedia guidelines and I am trying for more than a year to get the page published. Please let me know.

Best regards,

Mihai.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SwisterTwister&oldid=787610269"