User talk:StraussInTheHouse

Welcome to StraussInTheHouse's talk page!

You can create a new thread by clicking here. Please give descriptive titles to new sections.
If you're leaving a message in an existing thread, please indent your posts with colons.
Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
Replies will be made here, please notify me of discussions elsewhere with {{ping|StraussInTheHouse}}.
Experienced users may stalk this page and answer any queries.
If you're contacting me about a draft, please read the FAQ page first.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Draft:Asylum in France

Hello! I noticed that you have reviewed my draft on 3 June. The reason for rejection that you gave me seemed to be "Topic is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia". Could you please clarify more about why that topic could not be accepted? I have noticed many similar pages with titles "Asylum in XXX", where XXX puts the name of a country. LIUs1812 (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Beauchamp (RMS Titanic)

Hi! Nice to meet you! I've changed some things from the article, and taken it from more reliable source Opera House Players. If declined, no matter, I will take it as experience as beginner on editing. Best wishes. LLcentury (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LLcentury, thanks for letting me know, I or another reviewer will be with it shortly. I declined it because it was still being investigated at CP, but Justlettersandnumbers has sorted it. SITH (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Should I resubmit? or not? Best wishes. --LLcentury (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine for resubmission to me at a quick glance! SITH (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ningen Dock

I got the following comment. I do not know which part I should delete. I changed the summary. Because I am weak in English, I want you to tell me concretely. "Aside from sourcing issue: the last line of lead needs removing, we don't pass judgement, if published sources say it's wrong then we can note dissent." Owada.k (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Owada.k, my message was about two problems with the draft:

The need for better quality sources.
The last sentence in the lead paragraph needs taking out.

I hope this is clearer, if not, please let me know. SITH (talk) 09:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Oman Aviation Group

Well, there are two Keep !voters at MFD on it, and they are different. One of them is a sockpuppet engaged in undisclosed paid editing. The other appears to be a good-faith editor who simply has the idea that all of the other editors are like himself and are all good-faith editors, and so doesn't understand just how difficult it is to keep Wikipedia free of corporate pollution. Also, I do assume that the company is notable, but that its paid editors are never about to write a neutral draft, even with handholding, and besides, volunteers shouldn't be expected to do handholding for paid editors. The two Keep voters are two different sides. One is part of the problem, and the other simply doesn't understand what the problem is. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up Robert McClenon, I can see how legitimate users who aren't active in the area could !vote keep in good faith. I know requested articles is a bit of a black hole, but that is the only recourse if the company is notable as the editor behind the draft has demonstrated that they are incapable of writing from a neutral point of view. Best, SITH (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a way for a paid editor to get their company listed, that doesn't use the black hole of Requested Articles. That is, first, get advice about paid editing at the Teahouse. Second, write a draft that is as neutral as possible and submit it via Articles for Creation, with the declaration, and then simply let the reviewer review it and wait patiently, and address any comments made by the reviewer before resubmitting. They might get the article approved after a response cycle. The key to it is patience. That may be sometimes feasible for a salaried paid editor. If the company has a contingency fee arrangement with the paid editor, that they get paid when the article is accepted, that greatly reduces the likelihood of acceptance, because it increases the likelihood that the paid editor will resubmit too many times and start acting like a paid editor, and the draft will go to MFD, and the editor will start using multiple accounts and wind up at SPI. There is a paradoxical element, that the harder the company or its paid editor pushes to get the article, the less likelihood they will get the article soon, or ever (because it gets salted). Of course, they would actually do better to spend the same money on improving their own web site, which is their own. Or if they want to cheat, they would do as well as to pay for black hat SEO as for a Wikipedia article. It is less difficult to game Google, who can be paid honestly, than to try to game Wikipedia, who has honest volunteers in a slow-motion cyber-war against dishonest non-volunteers. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Çağlar Yüksel

Hello there, Can you look at Çağlar Yüksel? I've added the resources by correcting the required error. Thank you in advance--Spentime (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spentime, I note you've resubmitted the draft, a reviewer will be with it within the stated time period on the yellow template. Unfortunately, we can't expedite reviews based on talk page messages. Thanks, SITH (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a chance to see the updated page of Peter P. Vekinis?

As you see Peter has had a very interesting life and accomplished many things. I call him a renaissance man. I found some photos and updated the text and added many new references so please let me know it this is OK now. Thanks!

Wendygorski (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I further edited the entry on this gentleman and there are now many more references(as you requested). In addition, many other references are only available on paper from the time the internet didn't exist. Please take a look and let me know if there is something else that should be done. I would like to have this entry in wikipedia. Your cooperation is appreciated. Wendy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendygorski (talk • contribs) 13:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wendygorski, you can use {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} to cite pre-Internet sources. As long as you click "Resubmit", it will be in the queue and a reviewer will take a look at it within the stated time period on the yellow template. Thanks, SITH (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi Football Club

Please check it now & help us to approve it, Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bs mehra (talk • contribs) 17:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bs mehra, it still isn't in an acceptable state. We advise using inline citations as opposed to an external list dump, and it comes across as rather promotional when the majority of said links are affiliated social media sites. Furthermore, please can you clarify who you are referring to when you say "us"? Only one person should use a given account. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wording of the close

Talk:Saint Peter#Requested move 24 May 2019. “Not moved”? Obviously, that is the fact of the result and the statement that no action was taken, written in past tense about the upcoming non action. It is not a good one line summary of the discussion. Surely, you would agree, “consensus to not move” is a better summary of the discussion? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe, sure, I've clarified here. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Video Games Chronicle

Hi Strauss,

Please could you advise us how we can get our references on Video Games Chronicle to an acceptable standard for your approval? I'm looking at similar approved pages such as PCGamesN and Nintendo Life (who are in the same network as us) and struggling to see what we're missing. Both of these are also made up of links from MCV and GamesIndustry, which are the two most credible trade business publications in the games industry.

Appreciate the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espio101 (talk • contribs)

Hi Espio101, thanks for the message. What you're looking for is in-depth, significant coverage of the publication in independent, reliable sources. This page gives a brief summary of the sorts of coverage which is useful for conveying notability and also verifying content. I am unaware of community consensus regarding either of the two sources you have mentioned, so I am erring on the side of caution because if I was to approve it and it then got subsequently deleted, it wouldn't really be fair on you. I must ask, are you in any way affiliated with the publication you're writing about? If so, you must disclose your conflict of interest and it is mandatory if you are paid for your edits. I ask because you refer to yourself in the objective plural first person and your comment about a network regarding the business suggests ties. Kind regards, SITH (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey StraussInTheHouse, no just a dedicated reader. The two references on the page are the most respected industry publications in games. In terms of getting a games journalism page approved, I honestly don't think you could expect to get better links from anywhere. However, I've added a few more referrals in terms of original news citation and resubmitted the page for your approval.

Can I please get some feedback that is a bit more specific?

Hello there, You turned down my draft on EIoT. I can only imagine it can't be easy to be an editor like you and probably having to hear a lot of such whining. I really do. On my side of the equation though, I have spent days training myself, and then drafting that article. Days, I assure you, trying to do the best I could. I cited from the most authoritative sources I could, but EIoT, if it is growing at a dizzying rate, is still very new. Can you please, please tell me a tiny bit more as to what I should do differently, because I do not see it. I just do not. "...reads like an essay (?) make it more neutral" means very little to me. I do not know what you mean by it reads like an essay. I have dedicated an entire section to the limitations of EIoT. Do I need to come up with more in that column? I probably could, but it would almost feel like I'm loading the dice on the negative side. It is growing at probably over 100% year on year for a reason. Please please please sir tell me a bit more, I have spent a very large amount of time on this and I'd love to at least understand. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephane Malhomme (talk • contribs) 05:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]