Jump to content

User talk:Onel5969/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

Archive 25: December 2015

Error Wiki Page

I'm trying to update the information found on the wiki page for High School for Environmental Studies. (Here is the url : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_School_For_Environmental_Studies). My corrections were shown to be promotional material, and I want to know how I can fix that. I need to know how to change the information given, since majority of it is either only negative, outdated, or inaccurate. For example, the principle listed has since been retired, and the school register has dropped. I look forward to hearing from you. User: Tilted360.

Hi. First, you should only have a single account. Not sure if Tilted360 or Hsestechteam is your account. Regarding promotional content, it's simple: don't do it. Don't write commentary or opinion. Stay objective. Phrases like "reach high standards of excellence by providing a unique curriculum that combines environmentally infused college preparatory courses ..." and "response to a growing consciousness of environmental issues" are pure promotion. In the academic section, there is nothing wrong with listing the courses, but you need a citation - where did you get that info from? In addition, the last sentence there is another promotional tag line. Also, never use "r" or "c" registered/copyright symbols. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 02:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 12:12:02, 1 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Sujaydeo


The previous editor had given following comments Comment: Remove promotional language such as "BMGI India hires the best management and engineering professionals from the top ranking colleges in India." Robert McClenon (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2015

Based on his suggestion, we had edited the content. BMGI is global management consulting firm like Mckinsey. We are ready to make changes in the Draft as per your suggestions. Your comments are highly appreciated. Sujaydeo (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

reference rules

Hi, I would like to ask you that is there any rule that one can not cite a reference available in any other language(e.g., Urdu, Hindi)? In short, can I edit the english wikipedia with a source available in Hindi language?Ejaz92 (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ejaz92 - No, nothing prohibits foreign language sources from being used. However, when you do create the citation, please do so in English and put a {{language=Hindi}} note in the reference. Onel5969 TT me 15:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 15:52:05, 1 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by CLynnC2015



CLynnC2015 (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969-

Thank you so much for taking the time to review the page I am trying to create. I really thought I had addressed all the issues, and I really don't know what else to do. I am quite discouraged. As I compare it to other scholar pages on Wikipedia, mine seems to be adequately referenced. Could you give me some specific advice for my article? I am rather overwhelmed with the mass of information about referencing on Wikipedia--I really am confused about what to do.

Many thanks, CLynnC2015

Hi CLynnC2015 - First, don't get discouraged. Simply ask questions, you'll find most editors more than willing to help someone who wants to understand and get better. Your article has a single issue, but it is a big one: all of the current citations are primary, meaning they are by the subject of the article, or closely tied to that subject. To show notability, you need references from reliable, secondary sources (e.g. newspapers, books, peer-reviewed journals, magazines, etc.). I'm not sure she meets our notability guidelines. The Canada chair thing might suffice, but I'd probably ask another editor who has more knowledge of those criteria. Looking at her on Scholar, she doesn't have a lot of citations by others. Her largest count is 74, which is quite low. After you fix the referencing problem, let me know, and I'll get another editor to look at it. Onel5969 TT me 16:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Merging Florida school district articles into county articles

Hi Onel5969! I noticed you recently merged Manatee County School District into Manatee County, Florida. Thanks for your efforts, but as it seems inconsistent with the way county and school district articles have been handled in Florida, I reverted your changes. Please feel free to discuss this on the appropriate article talk pages. Thanks! Jacona (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi JaconaFrere - Thanks for the heads up. Saw this message after I saw your revert. I've already tagged the article for CSD, under A7, since there is absolutely no assertion of notability. And the article has sat for almost 9 years being simply a list of mostly non-notable schools, plus one brief line about the school system. Again, thanks for the heads up.Onel5969 TT me 20:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I think school districts are going to be inherently notable? not sure.... You inspired me to look through List of school districts in Florida, it looks like there are around 45 "Florida County Schools" articles. They probably should be handled consistently. I created a few redirects since the naming is all over the board. Thanks for your efforts, as always - I often notice you fighting vandalism, it is appreciated! Jacona (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. I think this is an area which shows how inconsistent consensus can be. For example, a high school only has to show it exists and is accredited, in order for it to pass AfD, but not so school districts. I'm interested to see what an admin thinks of the CSD nomination. Onel5969 TT me 21:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
It will be interesting. The Florida districts tend to be quite large, as there is only one per county. I think this one would survive AfD, as it has around 45,000 students and is in a major media market. The result might be very different in a location where school districts are very small and there's not a lot of regional sources. Jacona (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

School districts

It's not some sort of guideline; the point is that American governmental entities at all levels get extensive coverage from all levels of bureaucracy. In this case, any Florida state depository library (I'm talking something analogous to the Federal Depository Library Program) or other major libraries, such as the libraries of the larger state universities, will possess lots of printed reports from the state's education department with details about all school districts. County histories (whether traditional histories or newer works such as [1]) always give lots of information about schools and their histories. Finally, according to [2], the Manatee County Central Library employed two local-history librarians in 2009; of course you'd find tons of information about the history of the district's if you visited the place. Finally, if schools are exempted from A7 deletion, deleting a school district article under the criterion would fly in the face of the spirit of the criterion. Nyttend (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

PS, two additional comments:

  1. I don't know what it's like in Arizona, but in pre-school-consolidation Ohio, it was common for a single township to be divided into several school districts, each just a few square miles in area. I'm not suggesting that they'd all be notable; the point is that today's districts get lots of coverage, merely because they're government entities, but I'm not saying that all government entities throughout US history are always notable.
  2. Some time ago, someone(s) did a massive amount of work on Pennsylvania school district articles; see Stroudsburg Area School District for one random example. Of course PA and FL are different, but given the extent of federal reporting requirements in all states, as it's possible to get this much stuff for a PA district (the Stroudsburg article isn't hugely different from most other district articles statewide), a solid search for sources for a FL district will easily yield much more information than required for passing WP:N.

Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend - Thank you for your in-depth response. Question then, do you think it might be appropriate to put something along the lines you have above on the notability guidelines? So folks like me don't waste the time of folks like you? . Onel5969 TT me 01:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. Have you seen the note at my talk, where Arxiloxos responded to you? Apparently school districts are already mentioned at WP:OUTCOMES. Keeping all school districts is basically the same as keeping all localities of other kinds, because they always get lots of coverage, especially in older print sources; I don't see a need to mention this stuff for school districts when it works equally well for other types of entities. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Two types of "ordinary passport" in Ireland

Hi! I hope you're enjoying some clement weather and some clear night skies!

Might I trouble you to re-consider this edit, please?

Since 5 October 2015, Ireland has had 2 different physical formats of passport; the more common passport booklet and their brand-new, credit card-sized Irish passport card.

The Irish passport booklet still has a burgundy cover, but the Irish passport card does not have a cover at all and certainly not one that is burgundy red. (Both are ordinary passports rather than emergency, diplomatic or service passports).

File:British Passport 'Creative United Kingdom' Passport pages 26-27.jpg
Design of pages 26 to 27 of the new UK passport have Shakespeare's Globe with Architectural Plans of it as well as Performers on stage. There are some other details like a map reference where the Globe is in London on top right hand corner of page and watermarks of William Shakespeare on some of the Passport pages. Each passport page is completely different from all the other pages and from all the other pages of other EU passports!

Also, the minimum number of pages in any EU passport is 36 (some states also issue Jumbo passports with twice the number of pages). Of those, 32 of the pages are completely and utterly different in their background designs

Czech EU passport biodata page
Hungarian EU passport biodata page

and while there are similarities in the layout and contents of the other 4 pages, there are still significant differences.

Thanks in advance for considering my request... BushelCandle (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi BushelCandle - now with your explanation, it makes sense. I've self-reverted, but added a brief explanation so that it makes more sense. Take it easy! Onel5969 TT me 17:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for listening and if there is anything I can do to assist you, please do not hesitate to ask. BushelCandle (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for approving the article I translated.184.147.121.46 (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

No worries 184.147.121.46 - nice little article. Interesting. Might I suggest that you sign up for an account? Onel5969 TT me 17:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, it is a kind thought. But passwords are the bane of my life - if I can do without them, as on this site, I'd much rather.184.147.121.46 (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Leo Minaya Article

Hi,

Thanks for looking at the article!

You noted that it does not meet the standards for a notable persons.

It's my first article. Can you let me know where I can add references (specifically) and what type is ideal to get it up to snuff? Which details, in particular, need to be referenced?

Thanks,

Azeremen12

Azeremen12 (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Azeremen12: I am sure Onel5969 has their own opinion, though it is likely to be consistent with mine at the Teahouse. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
So the right answer is "Everywhere you assert a fact", though obviously not trivial facts. Fiddle Faddle 20:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent,

Thanks for clarifying! And did not mean to go around you, just want to make sure I am well oriented.

-Azeremen12 Azeremen12 (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to make sure you had a quick answer available to you Fiddle Faddle 20:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Moving article draft to article

I submitted an article "Burnhamthorpe Road" and it was apparently approved but you left a message that the article cannot be moved to the mainspace until redirects are deleted. I found the redirected links and deleted them but the article still hasn't appeared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transportfan70 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Transportfan70 - You contested the speedy deletion tag I put on the redirect. Which is blocking approval of the article. The article won't appear while the redirect exists. Onel5969 TT me 17:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
But what's the purpose of the redirect? I have no idea what's going on actually.Transportfan70 (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The purpose of a redirect is to do exactly that: redirect a reader to a page with the information they are looking for is on. If you are attempting to create a page about that particular road, you don't need a redirect. Onel5969 TT me 18:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Review of citations follow-up

Hello, Onel5969.

You may not have seen the follow-up question I left on my first post of Nov 30th. Just in case, I repeat below:

Question - Do I need to use the citation templates all the time? I had trouble getting things to look right at times and finally entered some of them manually instead. I'm not really sure which other citations need improvement?! Is the early career section OK now? Thanks very much. Your help is much appreciated.Garranes (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Garranes - Yes I did miss your earlier post. Thanks for following up. Much improved. One thing, for offline sources (like books and the magazine/newspaper articles you cite which don't have an online link), please provide a page reference. Onel5969 TT me 17:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I did put pages when I knew them (added the pages for the book footnote 23 just now). Some of the reviews/newspaper articles were snips from the original and at the time, page numbers were clipped off and unfortunately not noted. I have continued to try and find the original magazines and will update when/if I do. I'd say there will be less luck with newspaper articles. I contacted the some of the papers and asked if they had more details, but the best I got was to go to the local libraries and look them up there. And the local libraries aren't necessarily local to me... I will keep trying to find more, but I hope this won't hold up the article altogether. Thank you for your time and attention.Garranes (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Brainard, Alberta

Just an FYI - I've deleted the redirect to make way for your move. Hut 8.5 22:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hut 8.5 - Thanks for the alert - I put the redirect on my watchlist, and was just about to check. Onel5969 TT me 22:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Blur_Group_PLC

Hi Onel5969, Thanks for reviewing my submission. As this reason for decline is different from the one given by u/SwisterTwister - do you think I've met his requirements now? I'll revise the article so it doesn't come across as promotional, as per your suggestion, but just want to ensure I'm moving in the right direction.

Thanks for your help

Kentunderstand (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kentunderstand - I can't speak for SwisterTwister, and I didn't evaluate the references. I felt the larger issue was the promotional tone of the article. I see you've resubmitted, so I'll let another editor weigh in, since I would decline it again, since it still reads as simply a promo for the group (other than the controversy section), in my opinion. Onel5969 TT me 17:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Tup Tup Palace Resubmission

Hi and thanks for taking the time to review my submission (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Tup_Tup_Palace&redirect=no). I have taken your reasoning for declining it on board and made some significant edits in an attempt to rectify the issues. In terms of the article being written from a neutral point of view, I have cited a variety of reliable, independent, published sources and condensed the information contained therein fairly, proportionately, and without editorial bias, as per the Wikipedia guidelines. I have cited news reports that are both positive and negative (a clear example of this is the drive-by shooting that occurred at the venue, which obviously would not make for a very good advertisement; the same can be said of the cathedral projection reports, which many would find offensive). I have also removed things like the external link to the venue’s website, and added several competitor’s Wikipedia entries. I would be very grateful for your consideration of the updated draft along with any pointers on how you think I could improve it further. Thanks. Laurahartley (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Laurahartley, sorry it took so long to get back to you. I see that you've resubmitted it, and it was declined by another editor, Robert McClenon, and rightly so in my opinion. Robert's comments on the draft were spot on, but let me expand a bit. First off, the celebrity pic gallery needs to go. Purely promotional. The sound system section is borderline promotional, and the drinks section definitely is. Rather than break out sections called news coverage and television appearances, combine all of that into a single prose section, which will act as a history of the place. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 15:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969, many thanks for your detailed and helpful response - I see what you mean and I have amended accordingly now. Unfortunately I had already resubmitted when I spotted your response (it has yet to be reviewed) but I have edited and resubmitted with a note of what has been changed. Best wishes Laurahartley (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

23:58:56, 4 December 2015 review of submission by Chris Wren


We have updated our wikipedia page given your feedback and would appreciate any further suggestions. Let us know if there are any other changes that need to be made before the page can be approved. Thanks so much!

Hi Chris Wren - Okay, so the current reference section still has the same weaknesses as before: none of them are either independent or from a reliable source. You have added more external links (which are really references, and should be moved to that section). I'll work my way from the bottom. The Reuters and Backbone are press releases, so not independent. The XDS is a trivial mention. The video is a primary source. The BC Business is a nice piece. The Business Vancouver article is nice as well. The XDS is not independent either. So you have two nice, but not great articles. You'd need at least another one in order to meet notability criteria. If they were both more in-depth, you could get away with two, but they are both relatively brief, especially the BV piece. However, there is another issue, both are from local sources. Per WP:AUD, you'll need at least one other source not from Vancouver. Any coverage in Seattle, Portland, San Francisco or any of the Silicon Valley papers? Onel5969 TT me 15:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969 - I have gone ahead and added a few more sources and moved the external links to the references section. I found some sources from the UK and the Philippines to accommodate the international coverage on our event. I have also added in a source from one of the speakers at our event. Thank you for all of your help and suggestions! (Chris Wren (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC))

Review of citations follow-up again

Hello again. Sorry for the bother, but I'm thinking you may have missed this follow up to your last post as well... If you just haven't had the time, apologies. It's the Christmas season!

I did put pages when I knew them (added the pages for the book footnote 23 just now). Some of the reviews/newspaper articles were snips from the original and at the time, page numbers were clipped off and unfortunately not noted. I have continued to try and find the original magazines and will update when/if I do. I'd say there will be less luck with newspaper articles. I contacted the some of the papers and asked if they had more details, but the best I got was to go to the local libraries and look them up there. And the local libraries aren't necessarily local to me... I will keep trying to find more, but I hope this won't hold up the article altogether. Thank you for your time and attentionGarranes (talk) 09:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Garranes - No, I didn't miss that one, just haven't responded yet . One of the keys of Wikipdedia is sourcing. That being said, another key is assuming good faith. In this instance, we'd have to assume bad faith in order not to believe those articles existed. I think you've proven notability. Resubmit and I'll move it to the mainspace. Nice work. Onel5969 TT me 15:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Will do.213.94.240.243 (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

birdy hunt article

Hi there,

My username is lookyellucky and im talking about that article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Birdy_Hunt .

I was wondering what I could do to have this article you declined published as all of my content is linked to second partie references, national newspapers and independant blogs.

I d like to know how I can make it better and acceptable to wikipedia policy.

Regards

Hi Lookylellucky - First, please always sign any comments you leave on a talk page with ~~~~. That leaves an auto signature so it's easier to communicate. Second, I really should have used the "sources" decline, rather than notability. I can't determine the notability of the group with the current resources. The first citation is not from a reliable source, neither are 3 & 4. (I couldn't get #2 to open). #5 is okay. #6 & 7 also don't appear to be from reliable sources. Check out WP:RS as to what constitutes a reliable source. It also has to be independent , which #8 is not. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 16:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Linheraptor page

Hi Onel5969,

Thanks for your message. I redid my edits to the Linheraptor page as they report the state of the science. I authored the original description and know the authors Senter, Turner, Makovicky and Norell personally. The edits are not unbiased as Senter, Turner, Makovicky and Norell have yet to respond in the scientific literature to new reference that I added to the taxonomy section.

Thanks for your interest in the page but please leave the edits as they are.

Best regards,

Deino452 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deino452 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Questions on improving Draft: Pandorabots

Thank you for your feedback on Draft: Pandorabots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pandorabots

I am doing a research project on chatbots and chatbot platforms, and noticed Wikipedia is missing a lot of info on this topic despite a resurgence in popularity of the technology (Google Now, Siri, Cortana, etc.)

You wrote that the article was about "general chatbots" but in fact all the chatbots mentioned are not "general chatbots" -- they are all specific to that company. (There are many other chatbot scripting languages and chatbot companies, but all the bots in the article draft are "pandorabots," a certain class of chatbot associated with the company). Some of the chatbots are famous enough to have their own wikipedia pages -- should some of the info be moved there? What can be done to make it more clear that the chatbots section is a list of the company chatbots? Or should that section be removed? Thank you in advance for your help!

P.S. Since posting this question I've made some edits to try to clarify that these aren't general bots, but rather "pandorabots". I also added some further citations since there are 500+ books and scholarly articles (per Google) on Pandorabots.

Botxpert (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Botxpert - I see that you've already resubmitted and another editor has already declined the article again. LaMona's comments are spot on. I'm not sure they will pass notability, having hundreds of hits on google is virtually meaningless. Having mentions in reliable, secondary sources which are in-depth about the company is what matters. I did a quick search, and I'm just not seeing it. But if you can get several of those types of sources, and incorporate LaMona's suggestions, you have a shot. Onel5969 TT me 17:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


Hi onel5969 Thank you to you and LaMona, I really appreciate the feedback as a Wikipedia newbie. I have a couple of additional questions:

1) Can you not use the company's website as a source? (Asking because I used other company posts as a model and it appears the company website is almost always the first citation. Also seeing citations from places like Twitter, which I admit I used for some of the info but did not seem like a good source to include -- correct?)

2) I am not employed/paid by this company or other industry players I plan to cover, but if I've used and enjoyed a company's products or contributed to open-source projects is that a conflict? (I thought not based on the guidelines I've studied so far - in fact, I believe my research and professional coverage of this industry qualify me to contribute, but please do advise.)

3) How can I best determine if something deserves its own page? In the case of Pandorabots, Wikipedia pages already exist for two of the chatbots or products it created and owns (Alice and Mitsuku), the software language it developed and supports (AIML), and one of its founders (Richard Wallace). Should I have edited to those pages instead? I'm also working on a draft about Github's Hubot, and I'm not sure if that should be a new page, or subsection of the Github page - help?

I think I can revise my first attempt at an article to be shorter and better sourced, and will certainly take some time to do so carefully before resubmitting if it seems appropriate following further research and community feedback. In the meantime, all pointers welcome. Also, if TeaTime or another venue is better to post these types of questions, please feel free to redirect me. Thanks again. Botxpert (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

I'm not sure if you're aware of this but I thought of when you mentioned of working at calmer areas, that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion as it is quiet and there's not much intense work. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 09:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 14:12:31, 7 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by ArchOver Limted


Hi there,

I submitted a request for an article on ArchOver Limited and it was rejected for sounding too similar to company advertising. All of the sources that I used (bar one) were independent and the article was informative and unbiased. I followed the same layout as our competitor companies, namely RateSetter and Funding Circle, in the process using a greater variety of sources.

Please could you advise me on how to improve the submission so it passes?

Thank you very much.

Will

ArchOver Limted (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi ArchOver Limted. There are at least two issues with your article. First, based on your user name, you seem to have a WP:COI with the article. Please see the link I just left to show you how to address that. Second, the argument you use is called WP:OSE, which can be valid, but isn't in this instance. The fact that your competitors have crappy articles (which I will take a look at), doesn't mean that you can have one just like them. Keep in mind that articles are meant to tell us about a subject, while advertisements are designed to sell us a product. When your article focuses on services and products, those are of interest to potential customers. In articles about companies, it is certainly okay to talk about what they do/sell, but not in a promotional manner. Hope this makes sense. Onel5969 TT me 16:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

follow up on Keith Schooley

Hi there, just wondering if you've had a chance to work on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Keith_A._Schooley. Thanks for your help. Hillary Chase: chasehillary@gmail.com Hillary Chase (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hillary Chase - Finally finished it. I made the changes on the draft, so all you have to do is resubmit it and I'll move it to the mainspace. Merry Christmas! Onel5969 TT me 21:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

G. W. Pabst

My apologies that your excellent compromise to the lede of this article got scrunched because of the edits of two editors, who were reverting for no better reason than they don't particularly like me. So it goes. BMK (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks BMK. I tried. While I may not always agree with you, I appreciate your efforts on wikipedia, and respect your work. I thought I addressed the concerns of both of you (except of the other editor's erroneous belief that the more common name , which was also the article's title, shouldn't be included). Regardless, Alansohn's latest edit, while I don't feel it's ideal, at least incorporates the initials. I disagree with it, but not worth the dogfight . Onel5969 TT me 16:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Shyamw1

Hello,

The article I submitted was rejected yet again and the reasons quoted is "the content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you."

I cannot figure out what this means and I did read the recommended sections but I still can't fathom the error. Can someone please send me an example of what is wrong and how I may go about correcting it. I keep asking for help but no one has volunteered so far. It is impossible to submit corrections without proper guidance. Would appreciate someone getting back to me as soon as possible. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyamw1 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

17:25:51, 8 December 2015 review of submission by Shyamw1



I am not sure what is wrong with my edits. I have cited in text and have added all the necessary references according to the guidelines. I have resubmitted the article several times and each time I have edited based on the suggestions I received. I think the reviewer should be able to provide examples where necessary and show me how to edit properly. I will not need to keep editing endlessly and resubmitting so many times if proper guidance is given. Just pointing out that my article has been rejected and sending me to pages which I have read many times over is not very helpful because I still do not know what is wrong with my submission.

Shyamw1 (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Shyamw1Shyamw1 (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Shyamw1 - I formatted the first two citations for you, to give you an example. Since they were the same reference, that also gives you an example of how to use the same reference more than once. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 16:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Clive Simanansa

I was searching for Clive Simanansa on the Internet and I landed on this Wikipedia article, which says was deleted. The guy is quite a notable person in Zambia, may I know why his article was deleted? wikivisually.com/wiki/Draft:Clive_Simanansa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.239.82.143 (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi - The article was deleted because it was simply an advertisement for the individual, and had no encyclopedic merit. Onel5969 TT me 16:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

09:02:23, 10 December 2015 review of submission by Maharani303


Hi, thanks for your review. Could you please define, why this re-submission of my article was declined? As requested beforehand, - I have added a lot of secondary, reliable (!!) resources. Numerous authors refer to the subject in their scientific work ( please see my references and check, I have also added the respective pages!!) - The subject himself fulfills more than one criteria according to the notability (academics). So I do not understand why the article was declined, please define more precisely. Thank you. --Maharani303 (talk) 09:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC) 188.174.117.64 (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. First, WP:CITEKILL is not a good way to show notability, in fact, it's usually a sign of weak notability. And when its used in the way you did, to appear to show they pass the peer requirement, that's the most problematic of all. Add to the fact that the quotes are all from non-notable people themselves, and are in fringe sources, and the argument for notability isn't strong. He's not cited that often - his highest number of cites is 225, which while better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, isn't that strong. However, that said, another editor may see it differently. I'm going to ping a couple of other editors who take an interest in scholar/academic articles: Hey DGG, Mscuthbert, Vanamonde93 and Randykitty - any of you care to take a look and comment? Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 15:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, 225 cites for a single article is very good (225 cites in total would have been far into the non-notable region). Schleip seems to have several articles cited rather strongly. I didn't take the time to determine his h-index (he has no Google Scholar profile, so one has to do this by hand), but just the cites to his articles would probably make this pass AFD. However... The article is a complete disaster at this point. It looks more like a CV than an encyclopedic article. There are unsubstantiated claims (being cited does not necessarily mean "respected", you need an independent reliable source to say such a thing) and the list of works (including abstracts, really...) is way too long. A list of, say, his three most significant publications as well as of the books that he has authored/edited (but not any book chapters) could perhaps be included (but the books only if published by a major reputable publisher, which may not be the case for all of them here). Memberships of editorial boards of reputable journals can be mentioned (but Schleip clearly is not very discerning, apparently having accepted to be on the board of a Bentham Open journal, so we should be selective). Memberships of societies is ridiculous, unless there are independent sources that comment on his involvement with such a society or if it can be established that he was president of one of them. The awards are decidedly minor, so should probably be deleted, too. In short, this draft needs a complete rewrite to make it NPOV and encyclopedic. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Randykitty's assessment of the article's notability based on the citation counts and of the need for a lot of trimming, especially of the publications section. I don't think it would need a complete rewrite though; I think that the lede and most of the first paragraph of the bio can stay. Agreed that "respected" should be cut unless there's a real citation that he's more respected than peers -- having the article approved here would be good indication that he is respected so it doesn't need to be said. Definitely cut memberships of societies and citations that don't show anything more than he wrote an article (which probably should be removed). A single good quote from the Sciencemag article explaining his significance would go a lot farther than all of the other citations. Thanks for working through the draft process. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Randykitty and Mscuthbert - see? This is why I asked for help. And I will file away the citation assessment for use in other evaluations. What's a good cut-off range for citations for a single article to be less than notable? 100? And based on the above comments, 188.174.117.64, if you make the above suggested changes, resubmit it and let me know here on my talk page, and I'll move it to the mainspace. Onel5969 TT me 17:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the shout out @Onel:. Unfortunately there's no single good number. It's hugely dependent on the field, unfortunately, and even then on the subfield. We try as much as possible to look at numbers that tenure and promotion boards use -- but they're almost impossible to come by, so I'm frequently looking at people who are definitely above the bar as evidenced by other GNG criteria and then seeing what they have in terms of cites and library holdings (worldcat is extremely important for that) and then apply that back to people that don't have citations specifically about them but about their work instead (as allowed by WP:PROF which is an alternative to GNG). Some fields, especially computer science and medicine, have very high average citations. This can be because of the style of citation. For instance, a CS article might start with "The use a AVL trees to represent time intervals is widespread [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]" -- boom! eleven papers get citations! While in my field (musicology), a paper might have something like, "Controversies about Telemann's education have dominated the field recently.1" where the footnote reads, "1 Evelyn Butler gives the main arguments for various sides in her three-part review article, 'Telemann as autodidact?' found in Journal of Musicology 2009, and Music and Letters 2010 and 2012." -- only one citation, even though it might actually be referencing twenty papers and the Butler article should actually get three cites. Then depending on how important citation counts are to the field, the journals can take time to make sure that all references are in a standard computer-extractable format or, if they're not important (as in many humanities fields), they won't. So citations of the style [2] [4], etc. where there's a clear references section, then to get picked up. In the second example, Butler might not get a single citation counted because her name is too far from the article title and too far from the journal titles, and the actual full article titles, "Telemann as autodidact? Part 1: The Schlumpenberg hypothesis" might not be cited.
  • I can use my work as an example: I publish about half the time on traditional musicology (humanities) subjects and the other half on computer musicology subjects (between CS and digital humanities) which uses the science citation standards. My traditional articles average 30 pages, are single authored, come out about once a year (if that), and are lucky to have 6 or 7 citations that a computer can abstract after five years. My computer music articles average 5 pages, have three or four co-authors, I can write five or six a year, and I'll get 10-20 citations within a year or two. (those numbers would be low for pure CS). So in assessing notability, my tenure board was very conscious of the differences in the field and tried to look at the norms of the field. (One of my traditional articles had only two citations at the time (now five or six), but was considered important enough to have a symposium at another university dedicated to attacking or defending it). So it's really hard. But over time, we've learned some shortcuts. Quality of press is very important for humanities books (e.g., published with Oxford University Press = probably notable) while it's much less important in CS (where even a superstar might never have written a single book). Absent a top press name, we can look for number of library holdings, whether it's assigned on syllabi, and so on. This is probably too long already, so I'll stop now. :-) But I can't think of a field where a paper with 200 cites or an author w/ 1,000 cites total wouldn't be kept. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Maharani303First of all, see my comment on your user talk page about conflict of interest. Second, The draft is promotional: do not use adjectives like "renowned" or "prestigious", or include minor material such as Book forewords or abstracts or journals of which he is a reviewer. Academic CVs include everything possible, but not encyclopedias. . Third, you need to make clear that the therapeutic applications of his method have not been verified--just as you did in the article on Fascia Training.
Now, about notability: I would usually consider someone with 2 or more articles cited 100 times or more as likely to be notable, even in the biomedical sciences--a field with a very high citation frequency. But both his most cited paper & his 4th most cited, were published in 2003 in Journal of Bodywork and movement therapies, a borderline notable journal not included in Medline at the time-it wasn't included until 2008 . And his 2nd and 3rd most cited papers are in Medical Hypotheses, which was at the time (2005) not a peer-reviewed journal. His 5th most cited paper is , judging by the PDF, actually just a conference proceedings, not a peer reviewed journal article. Given these problems, I do not see how he can be considered a notable scientist on the basis of citations. I see it passing no other WP:PROF notability requirement: The awards are not major. He is not editor in chief of any journal. Though he is ed. or author of several books--based on the library holdings at WorldCat, none of them are significant [3].
Frankly, based on the lack of notability, I do not see how the article could be improved sufficiently to ever pass AfD if it were submitted to WP. DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Sjeez, I missed that completely (i.e;, the journals in which this was published). Strange that GS gives so many cites, someone with more time than me could perhaps check WoS to see what that gives... (GS sometimes counts strange things as citations). I stand corrected and agree with DGG about the notability issues here. --Randykitty (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Took a few minutes and went ahead myself. DGG saw it correctly, something is fishy with the GS citation counts, as WoS gives hugely different results. Total cites (all articles combined): 135; highest counts: 30, 23, 17; h-index = 7. None of this points to any notability at all, but the opposite. --Randykitty (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah, if these are the real numbers, then there's probably no hope for the article. Non-indexed journals/non-peer-reviewed publications, and conference proceedings (esp. in some fields like CS where they are very important) can count towards citation counts, but they tend to be discounted heavily. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

MathematicsDay and BF-MINT

188.174.117.64 (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)Dear reviewer of MathematicsDay and BF-MINT, the quoted references are reliable. They contain the original publications from 1983-2015 of this first MINT program invented and organized by Gudrun Kalmbach. The Begleithefte have been distributed in the past century in 50 copies to four universities Karslruhe, Konstanz, Tuebingen, Ulm Baden Wuerttemberg, an Institute in Bensheim Hessen and to the ministery of education Baden-Wuerttemberg, as well as to the sponsors listed in the publications. The same holds for the course work done and is available at all participants in 50-100 copies produced until 2015, also in the MINT (Mathematik, Informatik, Naturwissenschaften, Technik) books available in the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Frankfurt/M, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Muenchen, Universities like Ulm, quoted also the interent presentation of the Landeswettbewerb Mathematik Baden-Wuerttemberg under history. The press information on the program was at least in two to five Newspapers from Baden-Wuerttemberg yearly until 2002, mentioning the names of the organizers very often beside the prize winners of the program and a description what was done. Why are you trying to foster history which is true, well documented and well-known in south Germany? The MINT author from 1985.

First, got rid of the horrible formatting. Second, refuse to enter into a discussion with someone who only wants to argue. Onel5969 TT me 15:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hosahalli S. Ramaswamy

Hi my username is anubhavsingh1987.

I am writing about the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hosahalli_S._Ramaswamy.

For Dr. Ramaswamy, criteria 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) are satisfied. He has 400 research papers, is author of several books, his work has been cited >6000 times, has been awarded Life Time achievement awards & is a fellow of many international societies, & is the editor of Journal of Food Engineering, best journal in food engineering. I am sure he deserves a wikipedia entry according to criteria 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.

This person is an academic. The wikipedia notability academics says (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)) that:

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. 3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE). 4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. 5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon). 6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society. 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. 8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. 9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.


Please suggest how we can improve his page & make him a part of the wikipedia.

Thanks Anubhav — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anubhavsingh1987 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Wiki page for Dr. Hosahalli S. Ramaswamy

Hi my username is anubhavsingh1987. I am writing about the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hosahalli_S._Ramaswamy.

For Dr. Ramaswamy, criteria 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) are satisfied. He has 400 research papers, is author of several books, his work has been cited >6000 times, has been awarded Life Time achievement awards & is a fellow of many international societies, & is the editor of Journal of Food Engineering, best journal in food engineering. I am sure he deserves a wikipedia entry according to criteria 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.

Please suggest how we can improve his page & make him a part of the wikipedia. Thanks Anubhav — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anubhavsingh1987 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anubhavsingh1987 - Unfortunately, his highest cited article is only in the low 100s, which doesn't really help him pass WP:ACADEMIC. But I see you've already submitted it, so let's let another editor take a look and comment. Onel5969 TT me 15:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Help with Uproxx?

Hi Onel5969. Last month, I suggested an expanded draft for the Uproxx entry, an article you accepted through AfC back in April. I haven't had much luck finding editors to review my draft and since you initially created the article, I thought you might be interested in taking a look. I'm working on behalf of Uproxx to propose the changes, and as an editor with a financial conflict of interest, I will not be making any direct edits to the article. If you have time and interest, I'd really appreciate any assistance you can provide. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Heatherer - I really don't have a large interest in this subject. However, since you are doing the right thing, I want to encourage that behavior, so I will help you. Be warned, I do have a lot of interest in other areas, so I will only have a limited amount of time I'm willing to spend on the article. I see that you've created a draftspace to work on changes at User:Heatherer/Uproxx, so we can work there before uploading to the mainspace. Onel5969 TT me 16:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! That sounds like an excellent plan. I completely understand time restraints—if you do need to focus elsewhere, I can seek out other editors. That said, I'm pleased to have your help! Let me know if you have any questions or concerns while reading. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi again. I just wanted to check in to see if you'd had time to read the draft. No worries if not! Thanks, Heatherer (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey there! Just wanted to let you know that I will be away for the rest of this week, so I'll be slow to respond. I can address any questions or feedback you may have next week. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 19:21:39, 12 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Holanthony


-- Paul Norman article -- Hi!

I saw you rejected my article on Paul Norman on the grounds that you questioned his notability. He is a member of the AVN Hall of Fame and I have sourced several books that are reliable and that outline his notability. So my question is, why was the article rejected and in what way is Paul Norman's notability in question? Thanks in advance!Holanthony (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Holanthony (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Holanthony - While I may not agree with the guidelines in WP:PORNBIO, I have to abide by them. None of the sources you use in the article are either independent or reliable. The AVN hall of fame, for example, is not considered a sign of notability. Interviews are primary sources, and therefore can't be used to show notability. The Bret David source might be valid, but you don't use page numbers, and since it isn't about the article's subject, there is no way to ascertain the level of coverage in that source. But even with that, that is a single, independent, reliable source. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 16:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi again,

I must admit that I am slightly confused. You refer to the WP:PORNBIO and yet you claim that membership of the AVN hall of fame does not signify notability? Point 2 in WP:PORNBIO specifically reads: "Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or is a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent". How does this go together?Holanthony (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Holanthony - that was definitely my error. Moved it to the mainspace today. Onel5969 TT me 23:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Kerala vision

You removed my updates but I made that updates because I know it is true that means I am partner in that industry If you want mor details I will send that to you Jowelvjoy (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jowelvjoy - I reverted it since it was one more uncited piece of data being added to a paragraph which is already suffering from a lack of citations. Do you have a citation for that information? Onel5969 TT me 17:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Oussama_Belhcen

Hi Onel5969. I've done some edits on the draft Draft:Oussama_Belhcen and wonder if you have time to take a look at it. -- Othmanebenjelloun (talk) thank you.

Hi Othmanebenjelloun - When I reviewed it back in September, there were clearly not enough references to show notability. Now, there might be enough, but not being an Arabic speaker, I do not have the experience necessary to evaluate (one of the reasons I haven't re-reviewed it). Reading the article, the person does not seem to be notable enough, but as I said, I can't evaluate the current sources. You'll have to be patient and wait for someone more qualified to review it. Sorry. Onel5969 TT me 17:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Notability claims

I was asked to look here by the author who is a wiki-acquantance. He is asking me why the AFC process is throwing back his article for notability when it has a number of reliable 3rd party sources. One of which is the ODNB which some might regard as a touchstone for notability. I can see some ways to improve this article, but I won't get the opportunity if it isnt published. Does the AFC have some version of notability that I'm not aware of? I would like to recommend the AFC route to new editors ... Victuallers (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Victuallers - Can't really speak to the specific question you pose, simply because I have no clue what article you are referring to. However, not sure that inclusion in ODNB is enough to show notability by itself. Can you point me to the specific guideline where that is mentioned? It's not in WP:GNG in WP:BIO. But I'd have to know the article to see what other sources, if any, were mentioned. Also not sure why the editor is asking you, and not asking the reviewer. Take it easy. Onel5969 TT me 17:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
It seemss to be the one linked to above, after the word "here", and it was you who declined it. But many AfD decisions have shown that it is. Furthermore he had an obit in the Times, and that alone has also been considered enough Putthe two together, and is exceptionally clear notability . (Victuallers, I've accepted it). DGG ( talk ) 17:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
See above. Thx DGG. I think he's asking me because I welcomed him to Wikipedia when he arrived and told him to ask me if he ever needed help. His article has been bounced a number of times and he tells me that he is feeling that publishing an article is too difficult. My understanding is that the AFC process was to assist, but he feels he is just being knocked back whilst he tried to decide what notability means when he clearly has something that is notable. The AFC standard template finishes with the message that if its not improved then go away. I understand why ...... but this message is also received by editors who want help and need to appeal their reviewers decision. HTT. Victuallers (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks DGG, and my apologies, Victuallers - I did not see the hyperlink under the word "here". And I've never run into a case at AfD where either the Oxford Bio or a Times obit was enough to show notability. Not that I've ever run into an article at AfD where having either of those was not enough, either. Simply hadn't run into it at AfD. Onel5969 TT me 17:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Spreadofknowledge

I see you also reverted an edit by User:Spreadofknowledge. This certainly looks like a sophisticated vandal. The user has been warned in the past to stop adding unsourced demographic information. Could you please have a look at other edits? I'm wondering if many edits need to be reverted, or the editor reported as a vandal. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

No problem, Magnolia677 - I reverted a couple of edits he made on two of the FL city pages I watch over. I'll take a look at his recent edits. I was going to anyway after my second revert, but I've been working on getting my first list ready for a FL nomination. Now that it's nominated, I'll go have a looksee at what SoK's been up to. Onel5969 TT me 18:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
You seem to have already reverted his other uncited edits. Is there a way you can keep an "eye" on a particular editor? Onel5969 TT me 18:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ThePaintedDesertFilmPoster1931.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ThePaintedDesertFilmPoster1931.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Toledo

You'll probably see this anyway, but you might want to weigh in at Talk:Toledo, Ohio. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

PF DIN

Hi, I have all the independent and reliable sources for the article in the "reference" section. The external links are from the designer's website. I am getting a message for "not reliable sources". Should I change references with external? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:PF_DIN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yiannis Lampropoulos (talk • contribs) 09:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Yiannis Lampropoulos - It's not the quality of cites, but that large parts of the article are uncited. Please provide citations in the body of the article. Once that's done, let me know and I'll take another look. Good luck. Onel5969 TT me 16:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I just added cites for all the paragraphs. Is that ok? Yiannis Lampropoulos (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Onel5969- Thank you so much for taking the time to review the page I am trying to create - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Leonard_Albanese

I really thought I had addressed the issues and rewrote the promotional language. I really don't know what else to do.

I am an experienced writer, but this is my first go at Wikipedia. As I compare it to other bio pages on Wikipedia, mine seems to be adequately referenced. Could you give me some specific advice to improve my article?

Regards, Bdoctor23 Bdoctor23 (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bdoctor23 - There are several issues with your article currently. First, there is an informal, POV tone to the article. Be careful of using phrases like "share his passion", "a proud member", "expert masons and builders", and the like. Second, all of the sources are local, and more importantly, most are about the company, not him (although they include him, he is not the focus). Those types of refs are good for sourcing (verifying), but not for notability. Even the one that is ostensibly about him (the one about him living where he builds, only briefly speaks about him, and is mostly about the company and its project). Third, this is a blp, so almost every assertion made in the article will need to be sourced. There are quite a few places where you'll still need citations (e.g. SigmaCrete Kit Homes, Mission Possible). Finally, fourth, you need to remove all the "raw links" in the article. Raw links are where you hotlink to an exterior website in the text of the article, like to Mission Possible. Links in an article's body should only be to other wikipedia pages, like you did at green building. Hope this helps. I know it looks like a bit of work, but I actually think you might overcome the notability issue. Good luck. Onel5969 TT me 00:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 18:29:40, 14 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Lynch Johnny


Hello. I was wondering why my page was rejected. Have I done something wrong? Thank you for your help in this matter.

I did include over a dozen independent reports online about my opening of the Star Wars Convention in Mexico City?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Johnny_Lynch_(producer)

All the best.

Regards Johnny Lynch


Lynch Johnny (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lynch Johnny - There are a few issues with your draft, and you've just raised another one. I'll deal with that one first. Please read WP:COI and WP:AUTO. You'll need to address those issues before anything else. Second, in its current state, it's quite difficult to ascertain notability. Please see WP:REFB and WP:CIT on how to use and format citations. Remove all imdb.com references, not a reliable source. Also, WP:CITEKILL doesn't help. Pick out one or two of the best citations to use to verify facts, and get rid of the rest. Opening a convention is not enough to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Your article also suffers from structure, style, and grammar issues. Please see WP:My first article, WP:MOS and MOS:LAYOUT to help with those. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 00:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


Hello. thank you for the reply. All appears very complicated for me and a bit overwhelming but appreciate very much you getting back to me. Thank you.

Not sure I have posted this in the correct place but hope you get my response as want you to know I appreciate you taking time to help.

Not sure Wikipedia is for me.

Regards Johnny Lynch


Lynch Johnny (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Keith A Schooley

Hi again, If you have been messaging me about https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Keith_A._Schooley&action=edit or if the rework has appeared in some other section I haven't found it. Could you please message me at chasehillary@gmail.com and let me know the status? Thank you for all your help. Appreciate it. Hillary Hillary Chase (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 20:49:33, 14 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Itamardori


Hi, Can you please clarify for me what is the meaning of 'reliable sources'? All the sources are checked and verified. Please note that the page is translated from Hungarian language. I appreciate your help.

Itamardori (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Itamardori - #1, #5 and #6 aren't really references, but merely a descriptions of a magazines Laszlo was supposed to have written in. #2 & #4 merely prove that he was published. #3 is from YouTube, which is not a reliable source. We need 2-3 good, in-depth articles about Laszlo from indpendent sources in order to show he's notable. Onel5969 TT me 21:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

21:11:07, 14 December 2015 review of submission by Orbyn


Hi,

I'm just looking for advice on how to improve this submission. Heritage is a Guardian columnist and TV critic who is quoted several times in Wikipedia articles (for example, here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatboy_(EastEnders)) so I feel he is a good candidate for a personal page. I've read the guidelines but I'm still unclear about what exactly I need to change, as all the sources I've used seem solid. Many thanks.

Orbyn (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Orbyn - First, stuff which he wrote, or is published by any group he has any association with, is a primary source, and can't be used for notability. So, that's 7 of your 8 sources. Imdb is not a reliable source. The Guardian article would have been okay, if he didn't work for them (that could be seen as them ranking him in order to build up the reputation of their own staff). But even that alone wouldn't have shown notability. What you need are 2-3 in-depth articles about him from independent sources in order to establish notability. And if the sources are obscure it might take more than three. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 21:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

21:46:51, 14 December 2015 review of submission by Pianogac


Hello Onel5969 - I've taken note of what you said and hope the Olga Jegunova draft article is now more formal.

Cheers Geoff or Pianogac

Hi Pianogac - I see you've resubmitted it, so perhaps another reviewer will feel differently, but I would probably decline it again. There is still an informal tone to the article, you talk about what the artist feels, and you use a tense not appropriate for an encyclopedia. For example, the article has "... here interviewing Vadim Repin", where that should most likely read "... where she interviewed members of the jury, such as Vadim Rapin, as well as other internationally-known pianists." In addition, statements like "She is also is a very keen chamber musician." are commentary and should be removed, or, if a source can be provided, get rid of the very keen. You might want to take a look at MOS:LAYOUT, to get an idea of how to structure and layout your article. My apologies about this last one, I should have provided you with that link earlier. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 16:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

22:15:29, 14 December 2015 review of submission by Prehensile Tale


Hi there,

I have indicated in the article Ross Bell's importance in terms of his contribution to knowledge of rhysodini. I have included a list of relevant publications, though it feels a bit weird having such a 'referency' type thing in the main text. I'd appreciate a steer on whether this is moving things in the right direction?

Kindest.

05:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC) DGG ( talk )

Prehensile Tale, as I understand it , w consider describing a species (or certainly describing multiple ones), as enough for notability, In any case, even if one doesn't want to accept that, I think the publications here show him an expert on this group of beetles, and so and I've accepted it. However, the various facts in the biography section do need a 3rd party source, so pleas eadd that. DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

strongly disagree

In all WP:AGF I am very sorry, I do not appreciate your comment. There is no such thing as Perth, Australia, it does not exist despite a wide range of misnomers on the internet, and unfortunatly wikipedia. There are more than one Perth in Australia, so Perth Australia happens to be incorrect.

I am sure there are similar errors in the geography of the USA, which are perpetuated despite better intentions of wikipedia style of qualifing locations to a state rather than a country JarrahTree 14:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi JarrahTree - Excellent point, and one I did not consider. And that's my bad. I simply saw it go to the dab page and made an assumption. And we all know what happens when we assume. A simple glance at the dab page would have shown that there are quite a few Perths in Australia. I have self-reverted, and consider myself fairly trouted. Onel5969 TT me 15:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Please do not be convinced by my bluster. Please see the comments at Bkonrad's talk page (in my recents), the edit history for Perth and the lack of anything but google hits to go for primacy of Perth over other Perths. I dont like Perth Australia as it lacks qualification of state (ie like NY NY, etc) but then there is the ultimate rejoinder to me (irony hits me in the face here) in Perth_Australia_Temple - I darent touch it lest I offend one of the US's best exports... and really I think I have trouts from all directions at this instance JarrahTree 15:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Trust me JarrahTree - I am never convinced by bluster. You made a spot-on, cogent argument, which made absolute sense. So much so, I couldn't see a single legitimate reason to counter your argument. I'm not saying there isn't one, simply that I don't see it. In fact, having now looked at the dab page more in-depth, I would argue that there is even a stronger argument to have someone who goes to the trouble of typing in "Perth, Australia", rather than simply, "Perth", should be directed to the dab page. And that is that there are other Perths in Australia. And folks who are searching should be made aware of that fact. I completely agree that Perth should go directly to the one in western Australia, not the one in Scotland, but if they type in the Australia qualifier, than I agree with your change. Onel5969 TT me 15:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
well, interesting how resistant some ideas are https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perth,_Australia&curid=315240&diff=695392048&oldid=695363099 I do not edit war, and simply believe I understand why some eds leave wikipedia so easily. JarrahTree 00:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Alias French Gertie Poster.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Alias French Gertie Poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Interchanges

I just noticed a group of your prods don't pay all that much attention to roads etc., but last time I noticed them, I think we did keep all interchanges, or at least redirected them. Do we have some other precedent now? If there is an established custom, & you want to challenge it, would it be better to just challenge one or two? DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi DGG - It was borne out of this AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide. If I don't know enough about a particular subject, and how notability is determined for it, I tag a nomination on AfD, and then review it. I then took a look at the project page, which in this case meant looking at several Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways, Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Europe, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Transportation. The main project (Highways) offers no standard of notability for interchanges, indeed it infers that a simple list included in the article of the roads the interchange affects is sufficient. The other two offer no guidance, and neither did their talk pages. When I did a search of discussions regarding road junctions, it did not up anything which I can see as relevant. So I felt the AfD discussion was well discussed and made the cogent points. I've begun to review the intersection articles and those which show no notability I either prod or AfD, depending on the circumstances. I don't see this as challenging an existing custom, but rather as following consensus at AfD. Am I missing something? Oh, btw, thanks for helping out and responding to some of the questions here on my talk page. I really appreciate it. Onel5969 TT me 12:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I see at the AfD there was no consensus. I'm therefore going to remove your prods. AfD if you wish. I do not prod articles where I know the notability is likely to be contested, or where very similar articles are contested. The purpose of Prod is to remove those articles that no one will defend and therefore do not need a discussion.
I also use AfD to test notability or other standards, but I always probe first with a single one, to avoid wasting my effort & the effort of others at WP:AfD if there is no agreement to delete. I do not probe with Prods, because the point of a such a probe is to get a discussion. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
And if these particular interchanges had been "no consensus" at AfD, I'd agree 100% with you. However, the AfD was no consensus because of the format of the nomination, and the discussion appears to have reached the level where individual AfD's on all these interchanges is simply a waste of editors' time. Several that I did choose to go the AfD route have already been speedy and snow deleted. Of course, you have the option to de-prod, and yes I will submit them to AfD (I don't prod articles I think don't deserve to be deleted, and since you appear to be de-prodding on a procedural matter). Take care. Onel5969 TT me 01:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

declined article

surprisingly you declined to post this bio of a very noted cosmologist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Licia_Verde my user is Cantizan). This is shocking to say the least. She is one of the most cited cosmologist (https://scholar.google.es/citations?user=njSOe-cAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra please see the number of total cites, h index etc) around; winner of the Gruber prize in cosmology (the nobel of cosmology http://gruber.yale.edu/cosmology/press/2012-gruber-cosmology-prize-press-release see her name among teh list of winners) and a significant figure in CMB cosmology via the WMAP team. Your decision is somehow remarkable given the list of italian astronomers/cosmologists listed in the wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Italian_astronomers) which includes PhD students, are this remarkable and notable people? more than prof. Verde? where are the hard facts justifying your decision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantizan (talk • contribs) 13:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry you're shocked that an article which is virtually without valid indpendent references would not be approved, Cantizan. You need to supply references in the article to support any claims, as well as to establish notability. WP:REFB can help you out there. Onel5969 TT me 17:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
You did not address the real issue. The page does contain links to extrenal references and as far as I can tell contains as much information as many other noted cosmologists. Can you convince me that other noted cosmologists have got pages more different? look for example at noted cosmologists Marc Kamionkowski page? I do not understand besides links to prices, citations and articles and faculty jobs at distinguished universities worldwide what else you are asking for? being concrete would have been extremely useful.
Actually, I did address the specific issue. I'm not here to get into a protracted discussion with someone who only appears to want to argue. Your issue is with referencing. Don't worry about other articles, that's called WP:OSE, and isn't germaine to this discussion. I've pointed you to the best source for referencing for beginners. Beyond that, can't help you. Good luck. Onel5969 TT me 17:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Cantizan, I've accepted it, and made a number of changes in format to match our usual manner of presentation. I consider the references probably do show notability under WP:PROF. (WP:PROF is a completely independent guideline for WP:GNG, and the notability is generally based upon being an expert in one's field, usually shown by citations) But I'm not sure about notability , because the question is going to be whether her role in the large projects which received so many citations is a significant enough one for notability. Showing this will need some 3rd party external references to her work. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

16:52:46, 16 December 2015 review of submission by Orbyn


Hi, I just need some guidance on improving the references in this draft. Firstly, Stuart Heritage is a popular UK journalist who is quoted all over Wikipedia. His notability is similar to his contemporary [Dowling], whose page I used as a model. I'm aware that I've referenced him wrongly but I'm unsure how to go about improving what I've done. I've read up on the guidelines and I'm still in the dark, probably because I'm quite dim. Do I need to include less subjective information? Please could you advise (in plain English)?

Many thanks in advance.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Orbyn (talk • contribs) 16:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Orbyn - When using another article as a model for your own, it's probably not a good idea to use one which has been flagged as having citation issues, and which may not be notable. My earlier comments were pretty clear about the issues on your article. To reiterate, you'll need several (2-3) in-depth articles about the subject of your article, which come from reliable, independent sources (usually newspapers, magazines or books), in order to show notability. Currently you have none. Also, your article should never contain subjective information. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 17:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

17:04:22, 16 December 2015 review of submission by Alicetate


Are you able to help by further advise why this draft wasn't accepted - there are various sources and citations from reputable publications. How could the language be change so that it doesn't appear like advertising?

Alicetate (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Alicetate - I'll try to help, but this is one of the most difficult concepts to get through to others. An ad is trying to sell us a product - it tells us about its benefits (like how it "started doing things differently"), how great it is; it uses fancy adjectives (like "creative neighbourhoods", "expensive mini-bars", etc.), and goes into descriptions of its goods/services (like "Bedrooms were fully refurbished using local design talent and feature parquet wood flooring, leathers and rich textiles. The lobby and front desk area were re-designed and eclectic furniture, reclaimed feature lighting and objet d’arts were added." Articles, on the other hand, are dry and simply informative. The hotel exists, it opened here; it expanded there; it had this major thing happen to it then, it's been awarded with these accolades (that's where it's okay to show how others like the product). Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 17:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

14:00:27, 18 December 2015 review of submission by Mkteffect


Because this is my first article on Wikipedia and mostly i prefer to write biography of the peoples i want to know that did i violate any Wikipedia rule, if it so please let me know i will fix the issue.As you have mentioned this article looks promotional will you elaborate how it looks promotional. The person Mahendra Trivedi is saying or doing something which is hard to belief but he is proving his action by the scientific research so that why i want that more people should know about his work and analyze it whether he is a genuine or not.

Please let me know how i can publish my articles because mostly it will be going on person biography.

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bzuk - Thank you very much. Same to you and yours. Onel5969 TT me 16:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Phoenix Climate -- average temperature vs. average high temperature

Hi, in regards to the sentence stating "...an average high of 75 °F (24 °C), compared to Miami's 77 °F (25 °C)," isn't that wording incorrect? The article that is referenced is talking about "average temperatures," not average high temperatures.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gymtime101 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

You're spot on, Gymtime101 - I misread the source. I reverted to your correction. Nice catch! Onel5969 TT me 18:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Isabella, Fayette County, Pennsylvania

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Isabella, Fayette County, Pennsylvania a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. – Gilliam (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Pardon the templated message, but it sums up the policy well. It's no big deal, but please use the Move function in the future, instead of copy/pasting so the original author can get credit for the article. Thanks.– Gilliam (talk) 07:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, no worries, Gilliam. And I understand the above. That certainly wasn't my intent. Due to the naming conventions in Pennsylvania, I was unaware of the existence of the article you created when I created Isabella, Chester County, Pennsylvania. When I went to create Isabella, Fayette County, Pennsylvania, I came upon your article. I would have renamed my article, and then moved your article to "Chester, Pennsylvania", except that the redirect from my article would have blocked the move. So instead I moved the interesting tidbit from your Chester article into the new article and renamed yours to follow naming conventions, but changed the info to the Fayette Isabella. In the history, you're still given credit for creating the article. Sorry, definitely didn't mean to step on your toes. My apologies. Take it easy. Onel5969 TT me 13:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Invalid NAC

Please undo your close of the wainwright AFD, Your rationale is essentially vote counting and you have not addressed the issue of the merge or assessment of the sources. Consensus is measured by arguments against policy not counting votes - which is what your closure said you did. Please leave it to an admin to dispose of. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 17:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Spartaz - That's not exactly what I said, although I can see why you might have interpreted that way. What I meant was that there were arguments on both side of the issue, but the preponderance of policy-based arguments was for keep, as the consensus of the discussion showed. I don't have a dog in the fight, so I can change the verbiage of my rationale for closure, or I can undo it. But in light of what my intent was, do you still request I undo it? Onel5969 TT me 18:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes please. Undo it. If there are arguments on both sides then its even more clearly in the admin zone. Spartaz Humbug! 21:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

MarnetteD|Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Onel5969 as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk 04:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much MarnetteD, same to you and yours. And thank you for kind words and guidance throughout the year. Onel5969 TT me 16:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 18:46:22, 20 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by John Neville Cohen


This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability.

I am concerned about this decision about my Draft. As a not so young new editor struggling to understand all the rules etc. I have put this message on the 'Articles for Creation Help Desk' but perhaps you can help me?

It seems that, as I am a grandson, it is more difficult for me to write this article. But only I have the Scrapbook of the original press and Photos (that I have recently uploaded to my own website), so please could someone assist by looking at my website where there are photographs of newspaper cuttings, photographs and British Pathe Videos.

I did not include many of these, because I realised my site would not be considered independent, although most of the material is from other sources. http://www.jncohen.net/JaceyGroup/JosephCohen.htm http://www.jncohen.net/JaceyGroup/JaceyCinemasLtd.htm also Please see the material on the following link taken from the Scrapbook


The Reason I believe my Grandfather is notable is because: - Joseph Cohen (amongst other things), provided International, National and local News to the British public, by being the Pioneer of Provincial News Theatres and by subsequently acquiring several in Central London. Furthermore, with his son George Cohen they introduced the specialised Continental cinemas that showed the best feature films from the continent that otherwise would never have been available.

Any assistance would be most welcome. John Neville Cohen (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

John Neville Cohen (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi John Neville Cohen - I'll be more than happy to help you on this article, but I won't have time until at the earliest the middle of January. I already have two other requests for help that I have to get to first. First, take a look at WP:COI, since this applies to you, and make the necessary postings on the draft. And you are partially correct in that your website, being technically a primary source, can't be used. However, the articles you have on it, can be. We just need to make sure all the information is there in the citation: (publication, date, page number, article title, author). In those instances, you can also put a url to your website, to give an image of the article. That way, you're not using your website as the source, but are simply using your website to give web access to the underlying source. Let me know if you want help. Onel5969 TT me 16:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I have been blocked and had some problems being able to edit again. Thank you for the offer of help, but before proceeding I am trying to find out dates and pages of rather old newspaper cuttings etc. Not finding this easy, but I will add details once I find any. Best Season's Greetings to everyone. John Neville Cohen (talk) 12:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

the naming of America

I don't understand why you consider it not constructive to correct the commonly believed myth that America was named after Amerigo Vespucci. If you look at what Waldseemüller wrote, it's clear he was making a pun, he said he thought it was appropriate that the land was called America, not that he had decided to name the land America. Waldseemüller had reasons for wanting to big up Vespucci (he was making money from publishing this book), who was a minor explorer compared to Columbus. I also don't understand why you have the right to decide. I have done years of research on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susiehelme (talk • contribs) 12:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Susiehelme - because they were uncited. Onel5969 TT me 17:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

declined again - too much like an advert

Hi Onel - thanks for reviewing my article again. Can you push me in the right direction so it's not too much like an advert? I'm not sure how to best proceed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Blur_Group_PLC Kentunderstand (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kentunderstand - You've already resubmitted, so I'm guessing you received direction from elsewhere. Onel5969 TT me 18:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas!!
Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!

   –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 16:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks ever so much Davey! And a very Merry Christmas to you and yours as well! Onel5969 TT me 18:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Arena Football Hall of Fame

Hey, Onel5969, I just had my Arena Football Hall of Fame draft declined and was told to tell you once I have some more 3rd party sources. I have found two others that talk some about the league but the problem is there really are few articles about the Arena Football League as it is and even fewer about the Hall of Fame. Like I said, I've added a few more but I'm really hitting a wall on finding articles because this is not something that most sports publishers would write about; they would rather cover the nonsense of the NFL or College Football than the notable stuff from the AFL.

-NHB55840 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhb55840 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nhb55840 - I'm in the Phoenix area, so we know a little bit about Arena football down here. Check out this search, it should help you get some nice citations. Don't use the Press releases (like from PR Web), but there are others. I also formatted your first reference in a more proper format, which would help if you used throughout the article. After you add some citations, let me know here and I'll take another look. Onel5969 TT me 19:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hanns Diehl

Hello Friend at Wikipedia:

I've just finished putting in a link to this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Diehl, making it no long an orphan. I didn't think it proper for me to delete the line since I'm just a user.

.

Thanks, George.boeck

Hi George.boeck - No worries, I can take care of it. But whenever an article is tagged with something, and you fix it, you can remove the tag yourself. You shouldn't remove a tag without fixing, of course, but if you've corrected the issue, no one will have a problem with you removing the tag. Like you, I am "just a user". On Wikipedia, we are all "just users", even the admins. The admins have no more status than regular editors, they simply have agreed to do more of the grunt work and administrative details, and they have a track record of doing those types of things judiciously. But they have no more say than any regular editor. That's one of the keys of the entire concept.
Additionally, a few procedural things. First, always sign any comments you leave on either a user's talk page, or the talk page of an article with ~~~~'s. That automatically puts your signature on the post. Second, whenever you edit, kindly attempt to leave an edit summary, which you wonderfully did on the Diehl article. Third, as I said in the edit summary of the article, don't be afraid to ask questions, which you are obviously not, since you are here . Fourth, when you do leave a comment on a talk page, if it's not a response to someone else (like this is my response to your comment), always use the "New Section" button at the top of the page. That automatically creates a new section on the page, making navigation easier.
Finally, there's a problem with your user page. You created the article Annie Harmon by renaming your user page. When you want to craft an article, use your "Sandbox". You can then either choose to submit for review, or simply create an article with that name, and then cut and paste the contents from your sandbox (which is what I do). The Harmon article is a nice little piece, btw. I've removed the redirect, so you now have yur userpage back. Hope all this helps. And nice work. Onel5969 TT me 15:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

04:48:25, 23 December 2015 review of submission by Pnanda1


Hi, Thanks for reviewing this article, give me suggestion.

Please let me know the exact reason for this article deletion, as i cannot get due to reliable source, i have seen many profiles which only have external references.

But still this article is deleted.. i have two reference url which are totally from third party i.e http://www.consultantsreview.com/vendor/article14/acquisory-india-consulting-pvt-ltd

http://www.mydigitalfc.com/views/focusing-asset-management-212

http://www.acquisory.com/Team/Sumchit-Anand

http://www.globalrealestate.org/Assets/ProgramBook/India-GRI-2014-Program-Book.pdf


and http://www.yatedo.com/p/Sumchit+Anand/normal/356c445a9a87ab715fbf95843b194d1e


http://www.brunchnews.com/tag/sumchit-anand-news https://www.quickcompany.in/director/03049150-sumchit-anand

Check these url, as i got this from google search, if these are reliable than tell how to put them on this article. Please resolve this problem and help for approving this profile

Pnanda1 - To show notability you need to have several in-depth sources about the article's subject, in this case, Anand. They also need to be from independent, reliable sources. Currently, your article doesn't have any. Either they are not directly about Anand, or they are not independent (e.g. interviews are primary sources, and so are not independent). I can't check the above links at the moment (there's a filter where I'm currently at), but I wanted to respond to you while I have a moment during this busy time of year. Also, press releases, and stuff from companies he's associated with aren't good either, since they are connected to the subject (for notability purposes). Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 18:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays...

 Season's Greetings
Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Hafspajen (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
And a very Merry Christmas to you and yours, Hafspajen!

18:01:22, 23 December 2015 review of submission by Olympiclin


Hi OLympiclin here. I am having a hard time figuring out how to finish this submission to the required standard for approval. Can you supply some advice?Olympiclin (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Olympiclin. There are a few issues with your draft. First, it's probably not going to qualify for notability reasons. At least, not with what I see currently. There's a concept on Wikipedia called people known for one event. This individual is a hair stylist who raises funds for olympic athletes. You're going to have to show in-depth coverage about him from several sources to show that he's notable. Laudable, certainly, but I'm not seeing notability. In addition, your article is written from a very informal tone. Avoid using the first name of the subject, avoid making unsourced assertions like "with roots deep ...". Also, please take a look at WP:CIT on how to format citations. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 19:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Keith A. Schooley edit

Many, many thanks! And now I have to ask just one more question. Did you put the corrected version back on the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Keith_A._Schooley&action=edit page? Or is it in Sandbox somewhere? In the above link I see two different references for footnote 3 (which is what I think I'd done and thought it might be wrong) there. Just want to be sure I resubmit the corrected draft. Happy holidays and thanks one more time. Hillary at chasehillary@gmail.com Hillary Chase (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hillary Chase - You can find it at Draft:Keith A. Schooley. And there are several citations which you used more than once, which is perfectly fine. Onel5969 TT me 21:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


78.26's RFA Appreciation award

The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
No worries, 78.26 - I haven't commented on many, but you certainly seemed deserving. Good luck! Onel5969 TT me 04:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Dick Hogan

Hello! Your submission of Dick Hogan at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


Miniapolis is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

 ... And a very Happy New Year as well! All the best, Miniapolis 14:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much Miniapolis!

17:34:06, 24 December 2015 review of submission by Alfshire


Thank you for your hard work in reviewing the Draft:Glen Gabriel, I have added some citations and references accordingly. I feel the subject is notable as he's scored many commercial films and music and won awards/nominations. His current project has involved scoring a movie starring major Hollywood stars. I have put a lot of time and effort into compiling the page and hope you can now allow it to be accepted by Wikipedia. If there is any particular text you feel I should delete to conform to standards, perhaps you can kindly let me know? Merry Christmas to yourself in Arizona from the UK. Alfshire 17:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)Alfshire.

Hi Alfshire - There are several issues with your article. The first is that with its current sourcing, it does not meet the notability criteria. Virtually all of your citations are either from non-reliable sources (such as youtube, linked, imdb, iTunes, myspace), or from cites which are not independent of the subject (cdbaby), or only mention him briefly (e.g. articles about Thomas, etc.). To show notability you need at least 3 in-depth articles from independent sources which speak about him. Usually these come from newspapers or magazines. And since you have so many sources which aren't valid, it makes it difficult to wade through them all. First of all, get rid of all the imdb, myspace, linkedin, facebook (if you have any), and any other social media links. Second, find a link which shows his film/tv/music credits, and use that one reference and get rid of all the youtube links. Get rid of the commercial section. None of those commercials are notable enough for inclusion. Informing readers that he does do commercials is fine.
Second, the tone of your article is very informal. The entire early life section is full of anecdotes which really don't belong in an encyclopedia.
The career section is fine. That's how the rest of the article needs to be, dry and factual. Right now, it looks like this might be a bit of a case of WP:TOOSOON, based on the information currently in the article, but if you can come up with those three in-depth articles (not interviews, which are considered primary sources), then that should work for notability, and then just clean up the non-encyclopedic content. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 23:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Keith A. Schooley article accepted

That's fantastic news just in time for the holidays... I had submitted a photo that was accepted a few months back. Do I need to activate it somehow? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_A._Schooley Thanks a million! Hillary Chase chasehillary@gmail.com 67.86.13.35 (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hillary Chase - Two things: always try to remember to log in. If you notice above you are simply talking to me as an ip editor; and always sign your comments with ~~~~, that leaves an auto signature. Now regarding the pic, if it's the one that was on list of whistleblowers, I've added it to the article (along with an infobox). Onel5969 TT me 00:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Keith A. Schooley "start page"

Sorry... Also noticed Start Page status. Is this just an initial listing or is it considered to still need sourcing? Do I need to do anything at this point or will it go through a process with or without input from myself and others? And is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_A._Schooley now accessible to the public? Thanks... Hillary Chase chasehillary@gmail.com 67.86.13.35 (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Once you put stuff on Wikipedia, anyone is free to edit/change it. Since you created the article, it's on your watchlist, so you'll be notified whenever someone works on it. Just remember you don't own the article, so if someone adds something you don't like, but it's sourced from a reliable source, it has to stay. That is, as long as it doesn't violate bio of living person's rules. Don't worry about the start status. That simply means the depth of the article. Some articles never rise above that level, others have other, encyclopedic details (not trivia), added, and get reclassed. Hope this helps, and Merry Christmas. Onel5969 TT me 00:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again, for your diligence, if it wasn't for people like yourself Wikipedia would be a lot poorer. I have now added more information to the career section of Draft:Glen Gabriel. I feel his music compositions for several US movies (featuring some well known stars) make him a notable subject, and hope this is sufficient for the page now to go into article space. Best Regards, Alfshire.Alfshire 12:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

And now for 2016

A view of Lake Bondhus in Norway, and in the background of the Bondhus Glacier, part of the Folgefonna Glacier.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 15:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Simply stunning, my dear friend. Thank you for sharing. Although it looks cold!!! There's a reason I live in the desert. Onel5969 TT me 13:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Onel5969/Archive 25. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Sam Walton (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Keith A. Schooley starter page

Thank you so much for all your help! Happy New Year!! Hillary Chase chasehillary@gmail.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Onel5969#Keith_A._Schooley_article_accepted Hillary Chase (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Pleasure working with you. Keep editing, and have a very happy and blessed New Year. Onel5969 TT me 13:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

About improving my article about Chef Tony Khan

Hello, Onel5969 I am just wondering how I can improve my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tony_Khan. Please give me some advice about how to go about writing the article. Chef Tony Khan is very popular in Bangladesh and has contributed to many philanthropic groups, such as creating awareness for better hospitality and working to make food healthier in Bangladesh. He has appeared in many TV shows on National TV for cooking recipes and for making healthier food but those are not documented in newspapers. The Tv shows are all available on Youtube but not documented in news and as a result, I am not being able to cite or even mention them. Please help as I really think this article needs to be on Wiki as part of Bangladesh culture. Any advice is welcome. Thank you for your time. Islammanwarul Islammanwarul (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Islammanwarul - What we need are in-depth sources which are directly about the subject of the article, and which are independent. Interviews are primary sources, and therefore can't be used to show notability. Press releases, likewise, don't help notability. Also, brief mentions that he was the judge, etc. also don't go to notability. Blogs are not reliable sources either. Lot of short articles, many of a promotional nature are what is currently in the article. I see you've resubmitted, so perhaps another editor will see it differently. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 20:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

20:00:59, 28 December 2015 review of submission by Mattschorr



Thanks for taking the time to review my article -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Consuelo_H._Wilkins. I'm not requesting a re-review at this time, but can you provide me with a quantifiable number of additional citations needed for this to qualify? I'm working with a group of people to piece this together, and it would be helpful if I can give a specific number to shoot for.


Hi Mattschorr - It's not so much the quantity, but the quality. You will need at least 2-3 in-depth articles from independent sources. No press releases, not from companies/organizations they are associated with, no routine announcements (e.g. X was named director of such and such ...). Hope that helps. Also, be aware that user accounts are supposed to be set up for use by an individual, not a group. Onel5969 TT me 20:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

21:03:56, 28 December 2015 review of submission by Nanos1066


Not sure where in line citations are needed. If Carnegie Hall, NY TImes, etc., there are many individual published, credited photos but no one link that would provide any information beyond that individual photo use. Please clarify. Thank you! Nanos1066 (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

--Georg nonduality (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Georg nonduality - basically, since this is a blp (bio of a living person), almost every assertion in the article needs sourcing. So when you say "...best known for his work in the musical performing arts, and specifically the classical, jazz and folk genres." Who says that, how do we know that's true? Likewise, the other professional work section is almost wholly unsourced, as is some of the personal life section. In addition, the music publication section needs to be almost entirely deleted as it stands now. Adding all those other names is irrelevant to this subject. Finally, I think you can make a case for the notability of the book, but the current sources don't show the author's notability. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 21:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:James Swartz (Ramji)

Dear Onel, Thank you very much for your time and energy reviewing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_Swartz_%28Ramji%29. It is indeed much appreciated! My name is Georg Nonduality and I am eager to learn about how to fulfill wikipedia reference standards and avoiding promotional language.

You wrote the following comment:

"There are two main issues with this article. First, with the current referencing, they don't meet notability guidelines. Right now, the citations appear to be either by the subject, an interview with the subject, or from an organization the subject is associated with. None of those help to show notability. Second, the tone of the article has a large POV issue, meaning it is promotional in tone. Onel5969 TT me 18:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)"

1) Referencing: Could you please elaborate on why the nine references do not indicate notability. Seven references are from other people than the subject. There is one book published in which James Swartz is discussed in a whole chapter. Out of the nine references only two are by the subject himself. Can you please elaborate why these nine references are not showing notability? I am asking this question because I found other wikipedia pages on spiritual teachers with only four references out of which two are by the subject himself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Foster_%28spiritual_teacher%29. Another example - among many - is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adyashanti who got seven references out of which five are interviews.

Or put differently, how many references and especially what kind of references would you like to see? I mean for a spiritual teacher nine references is already above standard (if you compare it to other spiritual teachers on wikipedia). All references are in the end interviews or books by the subject himself. Within the community of spiritual teachers they do not write about other teacher's methodology and teaching. Unfortunately, everybody sticks to ther individual one. Thus it is very unlikely to find other resources than interviews (please see other wikipedia entries on spiritual teachers to see that all their references are in form of interviews or books by themselves).

2) Promotional language: I changed the section on teaching. I avoided as best as I can promotional language and instead used as many citations as possible. Hhowever, every article in the end is promotional by promoting one view over another. This cannot be avoided because every comparison and summary already implies a certain philosophy of the writer which will influence the outcome of his/her writing. I hope I have reduced the promotional language as much as possible. If not, please give me cite parts of my writing which is overly promotional so that I can directly change it!

I am looking forward for your suggestions! And thanks again for your work and commitment! It is indeed much appreciated! It is my goal that the article will once meet all above wikipedia criterias. If not then I am happy to delete the draft to save your and my energy and time.

All the best from sunny southern Germany, Georg

  • Hi Georg nonduality - What we need are about 3 in-depth sources from independent sites. Interviews are considered primary sources, and therefore are invalid for notability purposes. As are press releases, or articles from sites associated with the subject. And they should be about the subject, not about his books. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 21:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

05:43:44, 29 December 2015 review of submission by Chis Maxwell


Dear Reviewer, Could you please re-examine the latest saved version of this article, and send me your comments. I have addressed your comments as follows: 1. Given the historical significance, I am surprised at the query about notability. Nevertheless I have added a secondary source regarding the subject's prominence as the first Chisholm to arrive in Australia, and his founding role in the Clan Chisholm Society. 2. I have substantially edited the article as per the suggestions in your last review, to make the content more encyclopaedic and have tried to remove any hint of "peacocking". 3. I have also revised and expanded the citations. I have cited every existing reliable secondary source on the subject, and relevant primary sources. Note that there are few secondary sources and I have omitted two unreliable ones. With thanks for your assistance Chis Maxwell

Hi Chis Maxwell - I see you've resubmitted, so perhaps another editor will have a different view than I, so I'll refrain from reviewing it again and give someone else a chance. But here are my opinions. First, in an effort to overcome earlier objections, you've engaged in what is known as WP:CITEKILL. To experienced editors, this is usually a sign of lack of notability. Unless an assertion is very contentious, a single citation will suffice, or at most two. Second, the article contains what I would call some pretty trivial information. Stuff like "He never returned to military service nor the tailoring trade", "a block of more than one acre", "wherein it conducted business until 1853", "next to the Bank of NSW", are all unnecessary. Third, there is a bit of commentary in the article, declarations like "Chisholm was not a radical", "remained loyal to his friends", and "Because of these duties, Chisholm did not have active involvement" all need to be stricken (there are others). Just tell the reader the facts, don't tell them how to interpret them. Fourth, take a look at those links I left on your draft regarding layout and style issues. Fifth, there seems to be a conflict of interest issue. Take a look at that link and take any steps necessary as recommended there. I hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 21:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Abdul Hyee has been accepted

Abdul Hyee, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Onel5969 TT me 20:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Cebu Pacific fleet

According to CEB's website, Flightradar 24, and Airfleets.net, Cebu Pacific has a fleet 6 for their Airbus A330 and according to their website, their A330's can accommodate up to 436 passengers, not 440. This not include their 2 Pilots, and 4-6 cabin attendants including their Flight purser. Aiviationlover (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Aiviationlover - Excellent. Simply include the citation in the article if you make any changes. Onel5969 TT me 19:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

language=Spanish parameter

So it's necessary to translate the quotes, ok. BTW: Where "language=Spanish" parameter goes?

Thank you very much for your explanation. Really appreciate this new feedback! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.45.180.97 (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi 81.45.180.97 - First, might I suggest that you get an account on Wikipedia? It makes communication, at least, simpler at times. Second, if you leave a comment on someone's talk page, it's always nice to leave a link to whatever article you're talking about, like this: [[Draft:Millan Berzosa]] gives you Draft:Millan Berzosa. That way the person you're requesting something of doesn't have to go searching to figure out what you're talking about. Third, I formatted the first reference for you, to give you an example (don't laugh at the Spanish translation, I simply plugged the Spanish into Google translate). So that should give you an example. Hope this helps, and have a very Happy New Year! Onel5969 TT me 19:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 19:30:18, 30 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Historianmultipleinterests


I am bewildered by the reviewer's comments that I inserted original research and that my submission is too much like an essayHistorianmultipleinterests (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


Historianmultipleinterests (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

21:10:03, 30 December 2015 review of submission by Vicgrout


I refer to the rejection of this submission: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vic_Grout Thank you for this information. But can I have some clarification please? I understand the principle of the rejection but not the specific application. I believe the criteria for ‘notability’ is met by the subject by direct comparison with other academics (Full ‘professor’ is the highest rank of UK academic – not a general description) so I’m assuming I have to do more work on the referencing? This is where I could use some help. I’ve used as a reference/starting point, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scott_%28academic%29 This has a single reference, which is exactly the same type of independent university reference as my first reference. I’ve then gone on to provide several more references. True, not all of them are independent but some are (the Google Scholar and CPHC links, for example. So what exactly needs correcting? Should I be looking at supplying more references or fewer? (Bearing in mind that the above example only has one.) Or should I be taking out material that isn’t so easy to independently reference? If possible, I’d really appreciate guidance on what exactly needs to be done to which parts. I’m even happy for this to be done for me if that’s appropriate? Many thanks.

Hi Vicgrout - There's two issues with the article. First, from your username, it appears there might be a conflict of interest. Please read the link and take any appropriate steps. Second, it's the notability of the person. Clearly, he doesn't meet WP:GNG, which are the general notability guidelines. However, Wikipedia realizes that folks in certain areas might not be able to reach those levels, and so they have notability criteria for those types of people. Academics/professors are one such group. From the current article, this person does not appear to meet WP:PROF. Looking at another article is a good impulse, but sometimes it can lead you astray. Just because an unqualified article exists, doesn't mean another unqualified article should exist. I've tagged the other one for notability concerns as well, and if it remains unchanged, it will most likely be deleted. A "full professor" isn't notable (by itself). Take a look at the link to PROF, and if you believe this professor meets any of those standards, make the changes to the draft and resubmit. Hope this helps, and have a very Happy New Year! Onel5969 TT me 20:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Vicgrout (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC) Many thanks again. I appreciate the help. I'm gradually understanding! I'd thought I would qualify under the 'named chair' route but I've also now added a lot of extra references from the BBC, etc. about public service and awards ... and resubmitted it.

Vicgrout (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC) Hi again (and Happy New Year!) I've also received this (appended) from the help desk so I've tried to act on this too. (I've left in one of the CPHC links because I think it's relevant that I sit on the top table of the top UK academic bodies - it's just odd/unfortunate that I'm also the web/social media coordinator for that committee! It can come out if it has to.)

Copy/Pasted: "The CPHC links are not independent, since the material seems to have been posted by Vic Grout, and in any case he seems to be a member of that organisation, so it is not a third party or independent. Google scholar is not suitable to show notability, as it is not selective, instead trying to be complete. However from the article I would say that the criteria in WP:PROF are met, being in a named chair, and having a large influence and number of publications. Independent examples would be where some journal or newspaper, or web site decided to have an article on the person, without any prompting from the subject. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)"

Thanks again.

Request on 00:13:56, 31 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Historianmultipleinterests


I am asking what constitutes opinion in what you say is more of an essay than an encyclopedia entry? I have provided reliable published sources but I do understand that the use of Ibid does not meet your standards.Historianmultipleinterests (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


Historianmultipleinterests (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Historianmultipleinterests - I see you've already resubmitted and been declined again. Please read the link regarding essay, it says it much better than I can. The key sections would be WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTESSAY, and WP:PROMO. I hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 20:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

2016

Happy New Year 2016!
Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.
   – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cullen. Thank you so much. May you have a very happy, blessed, and prosperous New Year as well! Onel5969 TT me 04:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Sydney/Sidney Howard Gay

Hello, Onel5969. I was wondering if you would be able to either merge two articles together or start a discussion to do so for me or at least advice to do so. The articles in question are the Sydney Howard Gay and Sidney Howard Gay articles. I believe you might have some knowledge of at least the Sidney article due to approving it as an accepted Articles for creation submission and might be able to determine which name is more appropriate. Plus, you seemed to be more experience than I am in editing and likely know how to fix both articles into a single article. Sorry for all the trouble, --Super Goku V (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Super Goku V - Sure, I'll fix the issue. Someone's added a merge discussion tag, which isn't really appropriate, since it is clearly a dupe article. I didn't catch the misspelling in the name when I approved the article from AfC. There's not much merging to do, the only thing in the incorrectly spelled article which isn't in the earlier article is his marriage info, so I've added that. Thanks for pointing out my error. Happy New Year! Onel5969 TT me 20:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The merge discussion tags were my work, since I was unsure how it should be handled, not to mention that I was unsure which name is the more appropriate name. Still, thank you for the help and I hope that you have a Happy New Year as well.  :) --Super Goku V (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Katherine Timpf Twtter link?

Katherine Timpf has a verified Twitter account (https://twitter.com/KatTimpf), so I added a Twitter link to her Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Timpf). It appears that you removed the Twitter link. Will you please tell me why? Thanks. Joekollege Joekollege (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Joekollege - I explained it in my edit summary. Twitter links are contrary to WP:EL. Have a happy New Year! Onel5969 TT me 20:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onel5969/Archive_25&oldid=1137161472"