User talk:AngusWOOF/Archive 17

Draft: Refugees in Towns (Project)
Hi AngusWOOF, I really appreciated your comments and have gone through and substantially increased references to reliable outside sources. I hope this one is good enough to resolve the issues you outlined, and once again, thank you for your help and hope you have a happy new year!

Jspajka (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Janice Perry peacock tag
Hi. I can't figure out what merits the peacock tag on the Janice Perry article. (I edited it when I reviewed the article; maybe it's something I added.)  The editor who wrote the article has not had a lot of success around here. Her talk page is littered with declines, and this is the first article that has been published. In the interest of encouraging a new user, can you edit the article to get rid of the peacock language and remove the tag? Thanks, and glad to have a reason to leave you a message/say hello - we've been crossing paths on WP for a while. JSFarman (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And then I actually read WP:PEACOCK and now I get why you tagged the article. I don't have time to do the fundamental rewrite/research that would be required at the moment but I will leave info about clean-up on the editor's talk page.   That said, I think that tag is bitey -- particularly for new editors -- and we should have a gentler version that assumes good faith.  JSFarman (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , yes, it's bitey but a lot of newcomers create articles that intend to promote their subjects and end up making them read like those resume profiles that you see at the bottom of journals or as profiles in conventions. Basically anything that leads with "award-winning" is prime for peacock tagging.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

G12 declination
I declined the G 12 you placed on Draft:MAMMOTH (Nuclear Software). I believe the source material qualifies as public domain. Let me know if you consider that and you think I've missed something.

If I'm reading correctly, the declination of the submission was solely based on the copyright concern. I think there are a lot of problems with this draft (see the talk page of the editor for another example), but unless I've missed something, copyright issues are not one of the problems.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , see my response on editor's page. I think the WP:PD part applies. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Approved draft!
Hello, ! I would like to thank you for your approval of my draft @ Draft:List of awards and nominations received by Deadliest Catch. It's much appreciated. Cheers and happy 2020 to you! CYAce01 (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , no prob. Thanks for making it straightforward to approve with the referencing. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:SWARUP SOLANKI
Withdraw Speedy Delete - first two links check out (if this is who the article is really about) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AyushiKaurGill (talk • contribs)


 * , you are missing the point. The person is not notable and the article is promotional, as discussed during the AFD. No news has come since then to make him more notable.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Joust (game)
Hi AngusWOOF, I've been trying to research on the history of this game for the past year or more. I remember playing it or seeing it played in the past, but it was a long time ago, and I don't remember exactly if it was on a physical board or on a computer, or if it was described in a website. I didn't even remember the name of the game. I was fortunate enough to recently stumble upon an article regarding the game, and the article as you know mentions Joust being a computer implementation but whose ultimate origin is unknown. I was fortunate to come upon a YouTube video of the game but a different computer implementation of it with the name "Game of Knights". Both these computer implementations appear to have been made sometime in the mid 1990s or a few years earlier. I've researched a lot, and unfortunately have come up empty on more historical information.

The game is also related to a challenge event in the reality t.v. series Survivor, and that game goes by various names depending upon the design of the board, but one name is "Squared Off". But instead of knights moving around the board and burning the squares that have been previously occupied, people walk one space to an adjacent square. Essentially it's a Chess King's move.

Moreover, I was going to add variants to this article that are related to Joust specifically variants that connect it with the Knight's tour game. The Knight's tour is a solitaire game (only one person plays), but there are two-player variants of the Knight's tour but still using only one knight (whereas Joust is two players and two knights). Instead of writing separate articles for the single knight two-player games, I would just add them to this Joust article. An example of such a game, is where two players move the single knight in alternate turns burning any previous squares that the knight had occupied. The first player that cannot move loses (or in the misere version, wins).

I will try to research more on the history of Joust, and that's why I haven't resubmitted the article yet. But this article will have a lot of content and sources. Thank you.Aamma58 (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Aamma58


 * , another option is to add the variant to the Knight's tour page as a section since it is Knight's Tour with two pieces going, kind of like the light cycles in Tron. Joust (chess game) can then redirect there and the video game part can expand from there. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 14:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will do that then.Aamma58 (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Aamma58

Resubmitted draft - Monte Warden
Hi AngusWOOF I have addressed all of the issues raised by your reviews - redid all section headers following standard sections for musicians, fixed formatted. Replaced citation for Discography with All Music (Wikipedia approved), instead of Discogs. Could you please re-review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Monte_Warden ? Kgregoratx (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Chris Colton
Hello AngusWOOF. Thank you for you quick feedback and your request for me to reformat the draft article with refence to the WP:NACADEMIC criteria. As a novice Wikipedia contributor your expert help is really helpful. I have made every effort to be independent and transparent but I can see that I should remove the bullet points without citations in order to address your comment about it reading too much like a resume profile.

In terms of the criteria for Academics, here is the evidence:

1. The person's research has had a 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 has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association
 * Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons (England) 1963 and Member of RCS Council 1995-97
 * Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons (Edinburgh) 1979

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
 * Visiting Professorships to the Universities of Cairo, Gothenburg, Isfahan, Kentucky, Kuala Lumpur, London, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Florida, Shiraz, Singapore, Texas and Wellington.

5. The person 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.
 * Professor Emeritus in Orthopaedic and Accident Surgery at Nottingham University

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
 * President of the British Orthopaedic Association in 1995
 * President of the AO Foundation 1996-98

7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
 * Member of British Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety 1993-95
 * British delegate to European Federation of Orthopaedic and Trauma Associations 1995-98
 * Founder Member of International Board for Research into Air Crash Events (IBRACE) 2016

8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.
 * Review Editor of International Journal of Accident Surgery (Injury) 2001-2005
 * Deputy Editor of Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 1990-1998
 * Editor-in-Chief AO Dialogue 1998-2002 https://issuu.com/aofoundation/stacks/c8085155b5694a298857c6e498722a64
 * Executive Editor of AO Surgery Reference https://www2.aofoundation.org/wps/portal/surgery

I appreciate that the Significant Coverage definition for Notability is fairly subjective, so I have made direct comparisons with two of his professional peers for whom there are existing Wikipedia articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Wallace and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_P._F._Hughes As you may not be familiar with the field of surgery, I expect that these precedents will be useful for reassessing the approval of Chris Colton's article. Hopefully I have responded to all of your feedback points and I will reformat the article accordingly and resubmit it for your consideration. Thank you. Douglal (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , I copied this over to the talk page for the draft so other AFC reviewers can verify. If there is a way some of the achievements can be rewritten in prose instead of a bullet list. This isn't meant to be a nomination for an award page, but the way the accolades are listed, it seems very promotional. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 00:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you AngusWOOF for your clear guidance. I will do just as you recommend and resubmit it. Douglal (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Your decline
Hi. I think in your decline of draft:Ben Silverman, you did not take note of what was written on the talk page. He meets our notability requirement because he is notable under WP:NGOLF, as "6. ... competed as a professional on the PGA... for at least one full year."

This is stated in the article, supported by an RS ref.

The PGA tour bio.

https://www.pgatour.com/players/player.39327.ben-silverman.html

There is no requirement, as you suggest, that the "Bio needs to explain what events he has played on the PGA Tour." --184.153.21.19 (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , he's competing in the developement tour for the PGA, not on the PGA itself. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 01:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not what the RSs say. Further response here. 2604:2000:E010:1100:E420:A146:1992:B24D (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This one's in mainspace now. Discussion at the talk page. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Wolfgang Hammer 1/22/2020
Hi! You declined this post saying it needs more credible references or else it would refer back to CBS Films. The point of the entry was to highlight that Super Deluxe had a founder mentioned on the Super Deluxe wiki page. Would it suffice if I added more news references?

≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1314:65:B826:35FD:7C2C:36C4 (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , Wikia Fandom pages are not reliable sources. Please replace with external news references that aren't press releases. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:V. M. Obaidullah
Hi AngusWOOF. Draft:V. M. Obaidullah was a difficult one.

You are perfectly correct that "This needs a major rewrite so that it isn't biased on how great the person was."

CSD G11 says:

"This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional" - I'm not sure that it is exclusively promotional

AND (emphasis mine; i.e. both criteria need to be satisfied):

"would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopaedia articles" - this certainly applies

Also: "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion."

I haven't investigated thoroughly but I have a sneaky suspicion that the subject is notable, as their election to the upper chamber of India's parliament probably satisfies WP:POLITICIAN.

In such a case, I do not speedy delete as speedy deletion is for clear cut cases. That said, if you disagree, please seek with my blessing a second opinion from another admin and if they believe the draft should be deleted they can go ahead.

Thanks. --kingboyk (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , the subject is probably notable but the writing is highly suspect that it is likely copied from someone's eulogy or some local promotional article or website rather than constructed with Wikipedia in mind. If it gets a major rewrite to some short stub and cited enough for WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN, then that would be fine. He probably meets politician. I just didn't want it to have such blatant advertising/hagiographic verbiage submitted. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , example "His courage and valour in his speech in the public meetings was inspiring. His Urdu mixed Tamil was elegant, informative and thought provoking." Like I said, this needs a fundamental rewrite.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I already conceded that - I absolutely agree. However, as already explained, the CSD criterion also requires that the article be "exclusively promotional" and that "if a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion".
 * You may well be able to persuade another admin that the draft is "exclusively promotional". I won't be offended if you seek to do that - either my decision will stand or I can chalk it up to experience. --kingboyk (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , my other concern is that if the editor copied it from another article, then it would be a copyright violation and would be speedied for that. But that would require more searching for matched strings. Anyway, it's in draft, so the editor needs to clean up the verbiage before resubmitting, or a different editor can rewrite it from scratch with the basics. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. --kingboyk (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

BRFC player articles
So I did create the 1-24 appearances article for BRFC. I am actually outraged, because that article has more citations than the AUFC player articles, and people thought there was nothing wrong with the AUFC player articles. I even asked why, and no-one replied.

I'm not adding references for a single player one-by-one, because all those citations have statistics that are outdated or only A-League apps/goals. The two citations, the OzFootball.net and WorldFootball.net is ENTIRELY referenced to the entire article.

I've already made a draft for the 25-99 appearances, because I reckon that the other page can stand. Plus, the player pages is longer, because I researched all the statistics from 1977 to 1988 and I added the citation for it. I researched for about 10 minutes, looking for sites, news or pretty much anything to include more references for the entire page.

Please, can we remove the submission declined template...

FastCube (talk) 11:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)FastCube.


 * , you need consensus at the List of Brisbane Roar FC players whether that list should be split into separate articles by number of appearances. However, I do not see any feedback to split that list. It's important to get that consensus since that article is a Featured List. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I have many reasons why these lists are split and why I think they can stand...


 * 1) Now, that I've found the NSL statistics for Brisbane Roar, an entire list of players would be WAY too long.
 * 2) It would be so hard to find the player you want to see.
 * 3) We've already done this for the AUFC player articles and there was nothing wrong with then.
 * 4) Some other clubs in England, Spain, Italy etc., have seperate lists as well.
 * 5) The BRFC lists have more citations than the AUFC player lists.


 * , as I said, you need to gain consensus from the others who edited that list whether to split. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 07:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Request on 20:10:33, 27 January 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Rodallex
There is already a page on Japanese Wikipedia about Jonas "MoonChild" Zekkari, and he is mentioned in several articles as a songwriter. I am also adding additional sources. He's had three world number ones in sales.

Rodallex (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , that's nice that he has a JP Wikipedia article, but you need to provide news sources that cover his life and career, not just passing mentions that he has a production credit for the album. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * This is one of Sweden's largest newspapers with an article exclusively about him: https://www.gp.se/kultur/musik/han-g%C3%B6r-succ%C3%A9-i-japan-1.822663 Rodallex (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * There is also no more citations in his label boss' article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiDE_Kawada) Rodallex (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , are there more? You need WP:THREE AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * There are more, and I resubmitted now. Rodallex (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Btw, are there differing standards between Japanese wiki and English wiki? Rodallex (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , yes, there are differing standards across language Wikipedias. Since he's a producer and not the performing artist, you would have to look at WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. That the people that he's produced for have charting singles/albums doesn't give him automatic notability since he wasn't the performer on that album. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * What is it that you view in the article as reading as an advertisement? Would you like some form of rewrite? Rodallex (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , the word choices are coming from profiles that you normally see in press releases. The opening sentence should not have any stuff like " international multiplatinum", "boasts", "legendary", and be supplemented with name drops.  The discography should show his role in each of the works. Some of the album articles don't even have his name as producer, but maybe his company's name is listed there. So yes, a rewrite would be helpful.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 14:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Annette Thomas
Hi. Since your evaluation earlier today I've added more cites and some content to Draft:Annette Thomas. Do you think it now shows enough notability for me move to into a stub article? I'd organise it better into basic sections, add dates, and generally ce it further first - but there would be no further evidence of notability. It fits in well with the WP:WikiProject Women drive, so I'd quite like to do that. Rwendland (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , the verbiage still needs to be converted to something more time specific. Change "living the past 25 years" to since (year), and put a year on the medal for the Yale part. It should also explain when she became a board member for the various organizations. The best would be to list out the WP:THREE best external news sources in the AFC review section  that cover her life that aren't coming from her organizations. Make sure those aren't press releases or passing mentions of her position changes.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 14:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , this looks like it is in mainspace now. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Nikki Dial
She voiced a character in a hentai named Words Worth, perhaps that should answer your question. ミラP 02:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ...which is now a moot point. —  Wylie pedia  @ 06:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But still, some question had to be answered. ミラP 21:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks. I guess some hentais are actually English dubbed by adult film stars. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well the article does call the English dub notable for featuring real life porn actresses. ミラP 18:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Georgia's 6th Senate district
I do'nt quite understand why you declined it, and a few other like it.. all suchdistricts are normally notable. This hasn't been developed, but there is an official source.W don't seem to interpret 3rd party literally for article on political subdivisions.  DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

", it's because it's only one line that could easily fit in the other article per WP:WITHIN It could be expanded later though with muliple sources.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 13:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I consider it a viable stub..   I shall accept it and the similar ones, and if any have been deleted as G13 already, I shall restore and accept. The criterion for accepting a draft  is not where I  or you think it will go best, but whether it will be likely to be kept at afd I think it will, because  all such articles ar normally expanded, and its easier to do as a separate article that nobody has to do the work of splitting.   DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You can look at Georgia's 2nd Senate district. I think the stub articles can be expanded with previous Senators as listed on their online database. It'd be great if they indicated when the district was created and what it was prior to that. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've updated the 6th district article to include past state senators listed and the area covered. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 00:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , should it be renamed to Georgia's 6th senate district as with the congressional districts? AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * unless I'm missing something, I see the Georgia House districts capitalized as "House districts" not "house districts" ;similarly for some other states I checked.  DGG ( talk ) 21:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft For "Manual of German Law"
Good afternoon, Angus Woof. You graciously reviewed the page and asked for more sources, specifically relating to notability. I have provided six more sources meeting this requirement from both English and German academics, several of whom have their own Wiki pages (en.wiki and wiki.de). Thanks for taking the time to re-review the page. Best wishes, Fridayphilosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fridayphilosophy (talk • contribs) 17:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , I added some feedback. Also, is there a source that shows that it is being used as a textbook? AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Anveshanam (2020 film)
Hi AngusWOOF I have addressed all of the issues raised. Could you please re-review ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anveshanam_(2020_film) Empuran (talk) 06:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi AngusWOOF, made changes and re-submitted. Could you please re-review ? Empuran (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It looks like someone created the article out of the redirect over at Anveshanam, so go ahead and put your edits into that article. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 15:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:United States threat for destruction of Iranian cultural sites
Hello. I need more details. Can you explain that which part of the article is not written from neutral point of view? And about sources, I don't think this is possible to find sources that are more reliable than BBC, the Guardian, CNN, etc.Shawarsh (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You need to talk with about it. I've only seen that nothing was improved in the article since previously submitted to address the tone concerns.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Bkissin said nothing about the tone. He said It "Reads like a WP:SOAPBOX to criticize presidential bluster." According to the link, I am using Wikipedia as "a vehicle for propaganda." But since I don't think that is true, the article was resubmitted without any changes. It is a notable event with so many reliable sources, and written in a neutral point of view.Shawarsh (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * LOL, and I gave them an opportunity to merge their information into the existing article on the crisis. If we treated every war crime that comes out of the president's mouth as worthy of a separate article, half the encyclopedia would be devoted to it. This is an issue within the larger context of the brinkmanship with Iran, it shouldn't be a standalone screed accusing the President of war crimes he has yet to commit. Bkissin (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

If it was important enough that people like Boris Johnson and Joe Biden reacted to it, then it is important enough to have a separate article.Shawarsh (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi,
Why this? Did I post the wrong place, or what? Huldra (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , typo on my part. I was trying to remove a section from a talk page concerning something that wasn't relevant to it. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah yeah, "finger-trouble": we have all had it! Thanks for undoing, Huldra (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:The Red Oaks School
Hi, I'm an student I the 8th grade class of the school above. I would like to inform you that the creation of this wikipedia page is for a school project. I need clarification on the comments you gave on my "Draft:The Red Oaks School." First of all, can you clarify " Elementary / Junior High schools are usually not notable. Please provide more external news sources that significantly cover the school." Also can you please clarify your comment, "Some of the information provided comes straight out of their handbook / website, and needs to be written in a neutral tone."

My school is a small private school and there aren't many sources that can cover my school except the official school page. I need some help. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by C13pyles (talk • contribs) 23:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and Notability (organizations and companies) Those require external news sources besides the school's web page.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft for: Fertility Tracker Method
Hi AngusWOOF, thank you for your helpful feedback for construction of this draft. The changes have been made. Please let me know if it now fits Wikipedia standards. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.96.29.186 (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Paul J. Tesar
January 3, 2020: Hi AngusWOOF, thank you for your helpful feedback for construction of this draft. The changes have been made and references improved to include news articles rather than primary citations. Please let me know if it now fits Wikipedia standards. Thank you- Marissascavuzzo (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC) Marissascavuzzo

January 22, 2020: Hi AngusWoof, I just noticed you had tagged some components of the page to be fixed but by the time I had seen this someone else had already edited to fix. Please let me know if this looks ok and if the article is ready for approval. Thanks so much. Marissascavuzzo (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Marissascavuzzo


 * , please read 's comments on that draft. There's a bunch of tone issues that need to be rewritten and cleaned up, and also if you are connected to the subject in any way you need to disclose that. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Request on 01:07:37, 4 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by WOyster
I want to understand better the feedback and see how i can improve my entry. The sources I cited are from credible sources, such as World Economic Forum, Inter-American Development Bank, Deloitte reports, American Express reports. Is it the way I wrote the references an issue or none of those sources are considered as reliable? If there is one source that is considered reliable among all that I provided, can you highlight one? Thank you!

WOyster (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , the term needs more context as to how it came about. Who coined it? How was it propagated? There needs to be sources that focus on the term itself. The article right now reads more like an essay for a magazine article / blog instead. It has bolding of other internet terms and doesn't explain how they relate. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Resubmitted my rejected article
Hello AngusWOOF,

I had resubmitted my rejected article in Dec 2019, and got it checked in the help page as well recently. The response on the help portal was that this article seems to be for a noteworthy person and can be published as an article on wiki. Can you please have a look and let me know. I have already made the required changes you suggested.

Draft:Suryakant_Chintaman_Chafekar

Manas.chafekar (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , I'm going to let another AFC reviewer check this. Someone who does military articles should also review how the medals and commendations are to be structured. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Sure AngusWOOF, that would be fine. Do you think other than the military medals, commendation structure is there anything which requires a change? I have followed the template and structure of similar military personnels, so the data should be accurate. But a reviewer knows better! 🙂 Let me know if I need to make any changes, thank you again for all the help. Manas.chafekar (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi AngusWOOF, can you point me to one of the AFC reviewers to get this article reviewed for military correctness? Manas.chafekar (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , I accepted the article based on WP:NSOLDIER qualified as #2 Air Officer since he's a former Air Vice-Marshal. It still should be reviewed by someone who knows how to structure military officer articles though and scrubbed for any promotional verbiage so I am leaving the COI on there. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. Is there a way in which the CoI tag can also be removed eventually? As you suggested, I have removed the promotional verbiage, is there anything else I can do? All the details in the wiki page can be backtracked to one of the references. Manas.chafekar (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , if someone from WikiProject Military history or another editor who is not connected can scrub through the article, they can remove any tone or pov issues. I can also make a request at Guild of Copy Editors for tone cleanup. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , I made a copyedit request over at WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Casey Mongillo
I suspect that the user causing problems on the Casey Mongillo article is an IP hopper, since their IP address geolocates to Burbank, California. I've already requested an WP:RFPP on the article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . Hopefully they'll protect it for a bit from the disruption.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 00:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Command: Modern Operations
Didn't realize I didn't use this format the last time I made an entry and that may be why it was not noticed, but to reiterate what I said I've made the one required edit you've indicated and if there is nothing else to be done the page seems fit to be approved to be an article on Wikipedia. I am awaiting your approval as you were the one who had declined it on 2/2/20. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tookatee (talk • contribs) 14:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Detox Tea
Hi Angus,

I'm confused about the latest deletion of my contribution for Detox Tea. I was told to add history, and I did. I have only added information on what detox is, what is included in it, the benefits, side effects, and warnings for use. I'm how sure how this is promotional or soap-box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaitlinChrismon (talk • contribs) 18:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , you were adding verbiage that was similar to the one that was deleted before which was a copyright violation. That would need to be rewritten significantly. Pinging   to confirm.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I did rewrite everything, and I even confirmed using a plagerism checker that everything clears as 100% original work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaitlinChrismon (talk • contribs) 18:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , then why are the sections in all-caps and titles still the same as before? AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

That is just a layout to organize the content so that it is easier to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaitlinChrismon (talk • contribs) 18:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Dog Puller
Hi! Thanks for the comment you left. The article was about Dog Puller competition, not about the PULLER item (if that's confusing, I can rewrite most of the parts where PULLER is mentioned). I don't quite understand, why it's insignificant, though. Dog Puller is an official dog sport as Agility or Disc Dog and these two have their separate pages in this Wiki. Can you please give me some advice, what should I change to make the article clearly describing a type of international dog sport? Thanks! AnimaloverUA (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , I would try to find more news articles that explain the Dog Puller competitions. It's not clear how they differ from agility or other ones. Also how widespread are they? They seem to be focused on the PULLER item though, which is why the article could be about the product. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 08:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , Thanks! The sport is widespread, the World Championship-2019 included 11 countries where the official federations exist and there are more than 30 countries that have unofficial clubs. I'll do the edits you suggested in a few days and rewrite the place where PULLER is needlessly mentioned. Shall I also shorten the Rules section and describe them briefly with the link to the Championship site? And may I create the PULLER (and other PULLER-like dog training tools) article separately and just link the two? AnimaloverUA (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , I have shortened and rewrote the Rules section, leaving only the basic principles. Also I added some words about the difference of Dog Puller, Agility and Disc Dog. I removed the word PULLER everywhere I could, so that it now looks less (I hope so) as an article about the product itself. I added some English sources that are not related to either COLLAR Company or Dog Puller official site and a list of the clubs all over the world. Hope this helps. AnimaloverUA (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , the details of the specific contests such as the points awarded are not necessary at this time, although it can explain some of the types of contents it has. It needs to go more into the history and development of the sport. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , added more about history, accessibility and basic exercises (for hobby use too), also added some sources and delete the scoring parts of the competition. Please, re-check, when you have time? Thanks! AnimaloverUA (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Lelo for Georgia
February 2, 2020: I think this rejection/suggestion to merge is not appropriate. See, among other things, the New_Rights_Party, which was merged into Lelo for Georgia, and even has an empty link in that direction. Sure, the party is new -- and Georgia (because of the economics of journalism) does not get much attention from the New York Times, but surely a national party that takes over a previous long-running party deserves an entry? And no, the party is not the personal property of Mamuka Khazaradze, even if he is the leader and has been mentioned extensively so far.

Yes, the entry could be expanded, but if it keeps getting rejected why should people from small countries ever bother? Among the sources, we have Al Jazeera, so this illustrates attention outside Georgia is there. How can this be reconsidered? I can of course add more local coverage, but the sources I cite are the most reputable and independent ones. Hundnase (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, AngusWOOF now added even more references, linked back to Mamuka Khazaradze, and we have a reference from Foreign Policy -- hope this does it... Hundnase (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , you can resubmit it. I suggest providing the three best sources per WP:THREE in the AFC comments section so the reviewers can consider those.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , this article is in the mainspace now. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 02:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Least used railway stations in the United Kingdom
Hello, I was wondering on what grounds that the draft was denied, and how I might want to get it certified as an official article? Also, your comments: It is not about the website itself; however I have reduced the amounts of citations from it. It is a list of ALL the least used stations since 1997/98 in every county. I hope this helps - please let me know on my talk page if you think anything could be improved to get it confirmed. Thanks IamMattDavies (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , are there some news articles that cover the least used stations? Not just a website. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 15:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes there are quite a few. I have tried to incorporate them where possible. IamMattDavies (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , can you cite the articles up front in the AFC comments section? Also, if it is primarily a list, it should be renamed to List of least used railway stations in the United Kingdom, and the list itself should be exposed instead of hidden in a section. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 02:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , it looks like it's been moved to mainspace. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 02:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Joseph A. Camp
Are we about good with this awesome article -that you help tremendously on?

As you will see if you check out the Ballotpedia page, Joseph has completed all requirements for access to the 2020 General Election Ballot for the House and Senate Campaigns and he will be on the ballot in multiple states that allow him to simply pay ballot access fees.

Thanks for all that you have been doing. Hopefully the article will get published with all our work on it. ~DenverNativ (Not signed in).


 * I'm still looking for articles that focus on his notability outside the state. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

There are multiple articles where individuals are statewide known -or lessor- who are published. Wikipedia policies make an exception for individuals who, like Joseph, who works behind the scenes while his clients -larger big time clients- get the attention and recognition. Even as is, the article is pretty notable, at least for the purposes of placeholding while he continues to obtain mainstream attention as the election season progresses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:500:750:B8C3:31B8:4091:C627 (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Also try Jojo's Event Services and Security, LLC. That is his former body guard / management company. He also owned "An American Hostage" which was a controversial satirical publication. You might also check his connection to the controversy with James McGibney (Viaview), which lead to a lot of international media attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:A02:1D30:99D:64CA:156:6579 (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , it's not going to help to cite sources that are associated with him. Needs more external news sources outside of the state. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Rejection of Nicolas Porter draft
Hi, thanks for reviewing the draft for 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nicolas_Porter_(dentist)'. However, I need your help in making this article better, if you can, please. The moment I add anything that would make this subject stand out, and there is quite a bit of verifiable content to do that, some other editor would call it 'promotional' as it is already written under the review and delete the draft. How do I, then, make a subject stand out keeping the tone and content of the article neutral at the same time?

I have tried everything with multiple article submissions and it now just seems that drafts are rejected simply because they are paid contributions, even though I make sure that I disclose it without being asked. I am trying my best to follow the guidelines and write only neutral content using verifiable sources about notable subjects. A person who has been awarded and recognized by notable sources for his work (links provided), has changed the landscape of dentistry in several US states by providing low-cost and free treatment plans, has provided free treatment worth millions of dollars to thousands of people - I fail to understand how this person is not notable and note-worthy for other editors, regardless of his article's status as a paid contribution.

Sorry for the long message, but I am trying to do better and learn. Thank you in advance for the help. Ashley.Bell (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , if you are creating the article as a paid contribution, then you have conflict of interest in wanting his article to be on Wikipedia, so there is very little you can contribute directly to the article, and a lot of it would have to be contributed by talk page requests. If he's a local dentist who is well respected in his community, that's nice and all, but what makes him nationally or internationally notable? Are there external news articles outside of his local community that cover his life? Is he making regular rounds as an expert on talk shows or has his own television program on a major cable network?   AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 14:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

He has been called upon as a guest on a number of talk shows - I can provide the references and links to them. I thought that would make the article 'promotional'. He has been recognized outside his community, too. Wouldn't adding too many details about these things make it sound like an advertisement? For another article subject, I was asked to include fewer details of this kind because they said the article should be expanded upon by other editors or through edit requests eventually. I would be really grateful if you can provide some actual guidance here. I am trying to comply with the guidelines, but some of the other editors have made it really hard to do so. Thank you in advance! Ashley.Bell (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * If the articles are coming from the shows / newspapers as opposed ot his promotion. For example, if he is a regular writer for a magazine or television show, do not include his own writings / appearances, but provide external sources that describe him objectively. But yes, that can be added later. I wanted to make sure he has national notability like Barbara Corcoran who was a regular on the Today Show, and then became really famous for Shark Tank. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The Draft:Nicolas Porter (dentist) is gone now as the editor was banned for sockpuppeting. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

draft: Staraya derevnya
Hi AngusWOOF, Thanks for reviewing the page. I removed all references to Discogs and Bandcamp. Added reference to printed publication (7), British Library (11) and Allmusic.com (8, 12) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hniu (talk • contribs) 09:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Jess Brown
Hi AngusWOOF, thank you for your helpful feedback for the continued construction of this draft. I am an independent PR manager and was submitting information on singer-songwriter Jess Brown. I received notifications from Wikipedia to edit and/or clarify certain information and remove any unsupported data. I am requesting help in understanding the specific requests and to prevent the draft from being deleted. Thanks for any and all help.

Bryan Ros (Aggie Brown (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC))


 * , please note that you would have a conflict of interest (read WP:COI) and would not be able to edit much of the article directly, short of correcting glaring incorrect information. I don't think the draft will be deleted unless it's blatantly promotional. If it is deleted for inactivity for six months, it can still be restored. See Requests for undeletion/G13  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Request on 06:56:49, 3 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Sarvmangal
Hello dear my problem is how can I prove or verify online about my Draft: Lakshan geet. here I can provide two links and page no./column no. where about Lakshan geet has been written in hindi and I have translated in English language. but dear I don'nt know how it can be linked with my draft Lakshan geet .links are-- []book is Sangeet Visharad page no.132,column no.3,written by VASANT, editor-Lakshami Narayan Garg, Publisher- Sangeet Karyalay Hathras (up)India.

[] book is Sangeet Shastra Parichay,written by Acharya Vishawanath Rao Ringe 'Tanarang'. In column no.18-Hindustani sangeet pranali me prachalit gayan ke prakar--second one is Lakshan Geet.--> dear you are requested to help so that this page can be saved. REGARDS Sarvmangal (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC) Sarvmangal (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , can you find some more online sources that describe this term? It's hard to tell whether those books are notable. Are they magazines/journals that have an article about the term? AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * This article has been deleted as it was created by a banned user. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020
Hello ,

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
 * Source Guide Discussion

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
 * Redirects


 * Discussions and Resources
 * There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
 * A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
 * A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
 * A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
 * Refresher

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here 16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

We are aware, especially me

 * , if you do, please use secondary news sources that indicate that Vee is participating in the show first, and not just depend on her self-published tweets. If someone wants a more complete list they can always go to her website or the not-so-accurate IMDb / ANN encyclopedia. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Mojtaba bitarafan


Hello, AngusWOOF. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Mojtaba bitarafan".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Bkissin (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , thanks, that was probably one of those I renamed and became the author by default. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

adittional voices i read the whole article

 * if you want to help out her article, find some more news writeups on Vee herself. There should be a bunch now that she's become more notable by Miraculous Ladybug. And if she has leading roles in other productions, that will help too. You can see how she's a regular in the Shantae video games.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Request on 20:40:14, 14 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Timofeytv
Hi there! Kalon is a title, as like here: https://tibet.net/dont-wait-and-watch-change-make-it-happen-kalon-lobsang-nyandak/

Added REF to his position at Central Tibetan Administration as cabinet holder: President of The Tibet Fund and Former Representative of the Dalai Lama to Speak at Harford College

Timofeytv (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Woof!
I'm sure you're probably busy with lots of other editing, but when you get a chance, can you have a look at your comments and !vote over at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 15? You, Narky, and I are essentially all arguing the same thing, but your !vote on the proposed target suggests retargeting to one of the subject redirects, which is problematic at closing (see my rationale there). Thus, to make it more clear for the closer, I recommend refining the bolded !vote to suggest retargeting to Multitasking (disambiguation) and then, post-close, to moving Multitasking (disambiguation) --> to Multitasking over the redirect.

Thanks,

Doug Mehus T · C  16:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Will work further
Thank you for your review on Draft:LANDoftheBRAVEfilm I will work further on the article to meet your notes. I have also put in an username change request as per your COI notice.

NamibianCinema (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , thanks. Since the film has been released, there should be lots of critical reviews on it, both good and not so good. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , I will add them. Some of the reviews are in Afrikaans. What's the policy there? Should I translate them into English and link to the original review?


 * They can be in other languages, provided they are from notable newspapers / magazines. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

any tips while I wait for somebody to re-review?
hi. I've finally finished the Discography. does it look good? do I need to type out sources for each release (using CD and record covers)? is there anything more I can do? thanks in advance. ☺ Fulber (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , it's rather excessive. I would just keep the albums and notable singles. Have any of them charted? The goal is to try to present the article so that it clearly meets WP:MUSICBIO, indicating the news articles and sources where his work has charted or been nationally / internationally recognized by major newspapers and magazines. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

yes some were on the charts in the UK. there's a link to the official charts in References. thank you, Angus! 😊 Fulber (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

VoyageLA and like sites
Might be interested to read User talk:Praxidicae/fakenews/voyagexx spam. I don't think that we can call them reliable sources based on the linked article, and the reddit response. — billinghurst  sDrewth  03:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , should this be brought up at WP:RSN? AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * and I have conversations about the xwiki stream of unreliable sources as we manage it, deal with it, and record it in a few places—meta (esp. w/ COIBot), wikidata and here, predominantly. So at some point, though we are still somewhat researching and identifying scope. Seems numbers of business models, definitely scurrilous behaviour, but also numbers of good editors in play. More P's work than mine, I just drive the bot a lot, with Beetstra. — billinghurst  sDrewth  21:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

How should we proceed Re: Neferpitou
The issue regarding how to describe the character isn't settled yet, and I don't like being accused of "pushing an agenda." What if we reached a compromise, by using they pronouns but specifying that the character is referred to using male pronouns in the manga?

Ziodyne (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , the manga takes precedence as primary media for the franchise, so if they used "he" as pronoun, then it's he. But it should be backed up with details, as with Zoe Hange. The description can be rewritten so it doesn't use any pronouns, and then discuss gender in the second paragraph. See Hange's description on how that is done. Using "they" right away is not a compromise as that wasn't used from the start in the manga but only in the English anime. The compromise would be to rewrite it without using pronouns. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Understood. I'll get right on it, then.

Ziodyne (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Suryakant Chintaman Chafekar

 * thanks for the copyedit. Are you okay with the COI tag being removed? Does it read neutral enough now? AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * can I put your name for the "checked by" section in the connected contributor box? AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 15:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Request on 09:49:28, 25 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Antovigo
Hi! I agree it makes sense to move that to discrimination in education rather than having its own page. I was looking for such a general page, but Wikipedia has a lot of articles of this kind with sometimes very redundant content (educational equity, educational inequality, bias in education, sex differences in education). I'm not sure what should be done about that. Before I do the update, are there important modifications I should do to the content itself? As far as I can tell, there is no original research (every statement is explicitly mentioned in the cited source) and I don't think there are any opinions either. Again, I'm happy to correct things if you point out what needs to be. Antovigo (talk) 09:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC) Antovigo (talk) 09:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , I'd see if they can fit in the sex differences in education article, since that has a grading bias section. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 15:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

What are the odds...
...that you would make an edit at the same time a user called "Kittykatty" signs up. Woof!


 * User creation log 17:57 User account Kitttykatty talk contribs block was created
 * N! User talk:Pack Keyy‎ 17:57 +4,732‎ ‎AngusWOOF talk contribs block‎ declined (AFCH 0.9.1) Drmies (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Nice! :) AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Teach-Now Graduate School of Education
Greetings Sir,

I sincerely apologize. I now understand what you mean. Thank you for responding so quickly.

Best,

Andre Barnes

!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3003:3614:1F00:1568:16E4:82B3:587D (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You need to connect the references to the article, not leave them at the bottom of the References section. It should also be more than just two lines of description. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Also if you are representing the organization, you have a conflict of interest that you need to disclose. See WP:COI AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Un pas fragile & fr:Edge of Eternity
Hi Angus,


 * I wanted to translate fr:Un pas fragile in English but noticed it was already done and declined. Since the evaluation, the game was reviewed by French website fr:Gamekult (the 2nd video game site in France) and earned two nominations at fr:Pégase (récompense). Do you think it would be enough to reevaluate it?


 * I also wanted to translate fr:Edge of Eternity which is in early access but got massive coverage since its pre-release in France and some in English    . Do you think it is suitable?

Cheers, FR (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , both drafts need more video game reviews from WP:VG/RS Stuff like Tom's Guide might not qualify as reliable sources. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Angus, thank you for your answer :) I see in Wikipedia:Notability (video games) that it's not only about reviews but commentary and awards. French video games are usually poorly reviewed by American websites but widely reviewed by European media.
 * For the first article, it's an IGF winner and we have Gamasutra, TouchArcade, fr:Gamekult (review), fr:JV - Culture jeu vidéo (review), several French-speaking newspapers (Le Temps, La Dépêche du Midi)... FR (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * How can all those unreleased video games in Category:Upcoming video games be OK as they can't theoretically be reviewed? For Edge of Eternity, it has been previewed and widely covered by Jeuxvideo.com for instance
 * Cheers, FR (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , as long as you have detailed coverage in those video game reliable sources WP:VG/RS they can be used for previewing and reviewing upcoming games. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks :) FR (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

== https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Allen_Van_Wert You were incorrect about the Notability requirements. This might be due to the other editor saying to remove footnotes because there were "way too many" ==

Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching for a particular music genre. (jamplay.com is one of the biggest guitar lesson websites to ever exist. He is their metal instructor for over 10 years. He also invented the Robot guitar tapping technique prior)

Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).(Versailles Records 2 albums that also included famous musicians from huge bands everyone knows)

Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. (Headbangers Ball Project with members of Taking Back Sunday, Transiberian orchestra, doro and american idol). (Also did lots of musical work with other super famous musicians) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shredgod21 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , over half of the sources used are from the musician's social media Facebook / youtube videos. The discography is presented in a promotional style and does not show any charting. Jamplay is connected to him as he is an instructor there so those are considered primary sources. You need more external news sources that are independent of the subject. If you can present your three best sources WP:THREE then you can list that plus the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO it meets in the AFC comments section or in the artist's talk page. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Guild of Copy Request not auctioned for my wiki article
Hi AngusWOOF,

Hope you are doing well. You had submitted a req on WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests page for review and to remove the CoI tag on my recently posted article. I don't think it was auctioned on and it got archived. Can you please check and let me know what are the next steps here?

23:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manas.chafekar (talk • contribs)


 * , it was completed. See earlier on my talk page. I put in the GOCE completed messages on the talk page of the article. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 00:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi AngusWOOF, I can now confirm that the CoI has been removed. Thank you. For your other comment "Need someone from WP to scrub article for structure on honors, medals", I visited a few Military pages and asked for help on this. But it was not auctioned. Can you help me with this by pointing to someone /group who can check this. Manas.chafekar (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , yes, I'm the one who removed the tag. The other tag will have to be removed by someone from WP Military that can scrub it. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * hi AngusWOOF, got it. Thank you. Do you know some one from the WP Military group who can scrub the article, so that I can contact them. I tried a couple of user from various military groups but got no response. Can you help me here? Manas.chafekar (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:MasterCard Foundation AfC
Hello, thanks for reviewing my draft, I think merging to MasterCard article wouldn't be acurate because although the company shareholders made the initial donation to start the foundation this organization is independent from the company, it has its own board, decision making and goals are totally unrelated with MasterCard company. Besides, this draft its just general stub, it has the potential to be expanded as the foundation is still active and growing. Do you think it would be better to merge them to a company totally unrelated with their operations? the foundation wouldnt have the space it deserves. LilaMorillo (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , then you would need to show independent notability with sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay thanks, they have plenty coverage online specially on African news sites. Maybe these helo prove their notability.


 * I only need WP:THREE, pick your best 3 and post them on the draft in the AFC section. Make sure they aren't press releases or news announcements of the passing mention / news cycle kind. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's take a look at these three.


 * , I posted the three on the draft article. I'm concerned though that they are only using them as press release / PR material, and that it only covers their actions and doesn't go into the details of the foundation itself; how it was created and such. Are there news articles that cover that? AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * There is a paper that talks about MasterCard IPO and the impact that the creation of the foundation had at the time.


 * , it looks like has accepted the article.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Resubmitted Draft:GOBankingRates
Hi, thank you for your helpful feedback for construction of this draft. I have made all of the suggested edits based on your feedback for this draft. I updated the citations and footnotes per your suggestions. Could you please let me know if we are now on the right path. Draft:GOBankingRates

Thanks you for all of your help so far.

I apologize my first post was in a strange format so I fixed it.

ResearchProf00 (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It looks like has been banned, so no further action on this article.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Tiger Mask II
A short description about this anime is reported in Tiger Mask. Can you create its own page? Thank you. --79.54.216.166 07:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.54.216.166 (talk)


 * , do you have enough information to split it off? AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Re: Ang Probinsyano (season 7) episodes table
Good day !

My friend I come to you again for help with the episodes table on the page Ang Probinsyano (season 7). You see, since we've hit March, which the last point when I added further episodes, I decided to add further episodes running to May given that the series according to according to various news outlets here in the Philippines may still run up to May 2020. The problem is when I try to render the episodes but putting the invisible note into June (I put templates below the episodes list so that I can create the tables with ease), the episodes table doesn't render properly. Have already tried all possible solutions to the problem but I've already run into a brick wall. That's why I turn to you for help my friend, you've gotten me out of a similar snafu so many times and I know I can count on you.

Warmest regards.

Gardo Versace (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Help With Page (It is for documentation and not promotion). Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Recon_(rhythmic_noise_band)
Hi AngusWOOF,

It looks like you denied a page of mine to be created and mentioned this is not a place to promote a band. I am not using this to promote a band and was just documenting a band like so many bands documented on here. This is for informational and documentation purposes for an article. It is not for any promotion. I can remove whatever need to be removed or change what needs to be changed. Just trying to add a documentation for this band like all the other bands out there have here.

Can you also please update the title to be RECON Rhythmic Noise and Industrial Band?

I am taking a class that is for content creation and the main focus in the class is wikipedia article creation for needed documented information. I want to be able to create more helpful and in-depth articles over time.

Please help.

Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reconnoise (talk • contribs) 21:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 3
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Dinner and a Movie ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Dinner_and_a_Movie check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Dinner_and_a_Movie?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added links pointing to Jaws, Fletch, Staying Alive, Diamonds Are Forever, The Secret of My Success and The Great Outdoors

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:EastEnders Boat Week submission review
Hi Angus, thanks for your message regarding the Draft:EastEnders Boat Week submission and the decision not to get it published at this time. The only reason why I created it was due to the presence of EastEnders Live and EastEnders Live Week being on Wikipedia.

I don't understand why this is different. I have put as many reliable sources as I can. I don't know if you would be able to help because if other special EastEnders episodes can have their own pages, I don't know why the 35th anniversary episodes can't considering they have a significant impact on the show.

These are my thoughts. I just don't understand what counts as reliable sources. It's just a shame considering these episodes really make an impact, I don't get what the difference is between EastEnders Live Week, EastEnders Live and Draft:EastEnders Boat Week.

You also say it looks like plot descriptions have been taken from Fandom, they haven't, I wrote them myself and if you go on the episode pages dating 17-21 February 2020 on EastEnders Wikia, you can see there is no same content which was added on this draft.

Best regards,

KeyKing666 (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , you need more news articles and magazines to over the event, preferably ones that aren't WP:DAILYMAIL. Compare with Shark Week. I'm trying to ensure this isn't just one of those sweeps kind of weeks. If it's to commemorate the 35th anniversary, then you can discuss that too. But it needs more sources. A lot of it looks like it could be fan written, which is why I said it looked like it was copied from Fandom Wikia. The summaries of the episodes should be shortened to about 200-400 words each. The criticism needs more referencing such as who wrote the criticism and what magazine/show/newspaper it came from. Writing quotes about how it's going to be an exciting show isn't that helpful.   AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Coronavirus (disambiguation )
You asked "Isn't this already covered by the main article?"

If you take a very narrow view, I suppose the answer is "yes".

The issue I was trying to address is the popular usage of the word "coronavirus" which is currently being applied to SARS-CoV-2 and to COVID-19. The main page Coronavirus has 5.8 million hits in 30 days, but its a technical page which must have had many fewer hits in previous months (I can't check stats properly on my Android device). It's more likely that people are looking for information on the specific severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (380k hits ) or Coronavirus disease 2019 (800k hits), or possibly the outbreak which has now splintered into about 20 pages.

So it seems to me that Wikipedia is failing in its purpose, to provide relevant information tovthose who seek it.

If disambiguation is not appropriate, do you have an alternative suggestion?

Thanks, Bob. Robertpedley (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , you should discuss this at the Talk:Coronavirus page on whether the disambiguation would be appropriate. What I was seeing mostly was that there were a list of extensive links for the 2020 Coronavirus in (country) and that wasn't really being helpful for disambiguating. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Raoul Bhatt
Hi, just seeing if you received my post for Raoul Bhatt. Re-wrote it as you asked. Thanks Tonystargazer (talk) 06:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft: R Dub!
I have provided the 3 sources you requested to show notoriety on the R Dub! article you previously declined. Also, I mentioned he was cited as a source in Billboard Magazine this week. A major music magazine referencing him on music trends should provide notoriety. Article here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithryanallen (talk • contribs) 17:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Dolphin Club (San Francisco)
Just letting you know I removed your CSD tag. Looks like after you placed that tag there were some in good faith efforts to improve the article. Still a ways to go though. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , thanks. Hopefully the advertising tone will be cleaned up. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Re: "questioning whether the newsletter is that important to mention". FWIW I added the "dolphin log" for much the same reason as universities add their newspapers. The Dolphin Log is a great place to learn both recent events and history about the club.Nealmueller (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

re: "questioning whether the newsletter is that important to mention". Added Dolphin Log cover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Chambers_(swimmer. PTAL Nealmueller (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , the Dolphin Log part should be covered by another news source. Otherwise it's about as useful as indicating when they first launched their website. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Would it help if we cited the source like this? https://archive.org/search.php?query=dolphin%20logs%20AND%20mediatype%3Atexts&sort=-date Nealmueller (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I now understand your position being that Dolphin Log is not notable because it's associated with the club, and because it's a local/minor newspaper. Thank you for explaining that.Nealmueller (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Change of fortune paradox
Hi -- it's tragic. Arata Takeda ruined it -- if he had read Lessing and Dacier right, then his history could be put in Wikipedia because it's such a great third party source. It seems that you win. Unless, you are willing to compromise and say that Takeda got the STRUCTURE of the history right, and therefore he is usable as a source to list the history. But that still doesn't solve the problem. Because the writer or editor of the wiki can't say what Lessing or Dacier think, in a few words, without contradicting Takeda. To really use his history as a third party source-- which you seem to think is necessary -- one has to describe the thing differently than the way Takeda did. I see no perfect solution.

Murnaghan, Bouchard and Heath have been deleted --- those are contributions not in Takeda's history. So in that move, I'm abiding by the standards. I take it that it would not work to put Dacier and Lessing in without Takeda as the source. Personally I disagree though, it is really basic information that no one would dispute. It's like talking about the person who designed the Eiffel Tower.

In addition to that, I suspect you have other ideas about the structure or tone that I don't get. That I'm not aware of how much of it you are referring to. It would be good if you would be more specific. Do you mean the article comes out in the very beginning already with the wrong tone? That seems extreme.Cdg1072 (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Take, for example a statement like, "there is no scholarly consensus on the problem." Is that what you take issue with? That is a normal statement in many instances in Wikipedia. Would it be better if it said, "there is no consensus on the problem," taking out the word "scholarly"?

After deleting Murnaghan, Bouchard, and Heath, who are not found in Takeda, it is hard to know exactly what to change. Various facts or topics, in order to be included in Wikipedia, have to be paraphrased and summarized somehow. Just summarizing a famous topic is not original research. For example, someone had to write the Wikipedia article on Theories of Humor. It is all properly cited, but it is much more creative and giving the appearance of original research than what I wrote. That statement in Theories of Humor about how superiority and incongruity create a complementary effect that results in humor, has no backing in the consensus of humor theorists. John Morreall makes it very clear that the consensus is that superiority is not considered a theory of what humor is, at all. So in Theories of Humor Wikipedia is out in left field citing an article to make an erroneous, fringe-theory view that has no support in the scholars who work on the subject. It's hard to imagine who wrote that junk, or why Wikipedia didn't say it was original research. And here I write something that is just a laundry list of dry historical facts that no one would dispute. Hmmm. And you say it's not neutral? You should be able to point to some specific non-neutral sounding comment or two, that can be deleted. It's hard to see how you say of that whole simple structure, that all comes from someone else, is my opinion. This is off base.

This piece reports that Takeda -- a third party, said these things about the history of this problem. That seems perfect. Many Wikipedia articles don't have that level of neutrality -- at least as an initial paragraph or two, they are more put together by the person editing it, than this piece.Cdg1072 (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , I'm not question the structure or validity of Takeda's arguments. I'm questioning the structure of the entire article as posted. It reads like an essay, especially with the section headers. If Lessing, Dacier, and Takeda are the prime debaters and interpreters on the subject, then that's fine. The article should explain the paradox and then list the common stances and solutions. If, within each solution, you find that there's counterexamples and whatnot, that can be described in the paragraphs following each solution. Compare Zeno's paradoxes.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * 1. You now gave specific advice on what to change. Having done that, perhaps there's no reason to go on discussing. I simply do what you suggest and resubmit.


 * 2. And looks like your suggestion is this: Put Bywater, Moles, and Halliwell all in the Lessing section.  Yes, I could do that, in fact it seems better, since they all relate to Lessing as responses to him (Halliwell least of all).  And it's backed up by Takeda as a third party.  But -- that can't be done to Dacier, who comes before Lessing.  Same thing with Castelvetro.  Takeda misread Dacier, and you don't say whether it's OK to put that real view of Dacier in--not Takeda's misreading of it.  Takeda doesn't have Vettori, but I think you should allow Vettori because he came first in the history.


 * 3. A bit more on that. Could you clarify?  You say "I'm not questioning Takeda." That's right, but it's easy to ignore his misreading and just put the correct view.  So, what should I do about that?  Do you accept that what goes in the article draft is the real Dacier and Lessing, and not Takeda's misreading them?  Or do you require that it expresses what Takeda thought they said?


 * 4. I would also like to say this. Takeda, who handles the history well, but the interpretation very poorly, is being used to find information, and fits the role of what you require by Wikipedia's rules.  Aren't we treating him like a reporter?  Given that role, why would you say he's a "prime debater" on the subject?  He doesn't understand what Dacier and Lessing believe on the issue.  The good thing about him, thank heaven, is that he's there to fill the role of a third party so this thing can be accepted as not original research.  Otherwise, I or someone else could just find the major views on the subject and put them together for a Wikipedia article.  And I suspect that that's what's occasionally done.  For example no one "reported" as a third-party that Peter Marteinson's "Ontic-Epistemic Theory of Humor" existed, so that it could be put in Wikipedia.  Is there a third party in that case, or would "no one dispute it?"  Someone else just put it in--and that was, in fact, original research.  But I have to admit -- two wrongs don't make a right.


 * 5. You mention as a comparison the Zeno's paradoxes article. This change of fortune issue, by contrast, is not literally a 'paradox'. But OK, the analogy is fine, and I see what you mean in that the different scholars are all under a single heading.Cdg1072 (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Takeda was using the word paradox loosely when he gave it that name, as one would use it to refer to any ironic or unexpected result. That is what the Poetics chapter 13 and 14 contradiction is.Cdg1072 (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , is it a paradox or just a phrase? If you want it to be just about the "change of fortune" term, then you can focus on that instead of calling it a paradox. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , more importantly, is it something worth describing as an article separately from the rest of the text? Are there enough sources that focus on the two chapters on their own and coverage in mainstream news and journals? Is it taught as a specific topic in schools, showing notability beyond a handful of scholars? This is the context that is needed for it to be a separate article. If you can find WP:THREE of the best sources that cover this topic and cover it in a neutral manner, then trim the article down to just that information and the basic most common interpretations / stances. That will stop it from being too much an essay WP:ESSAY which is what we AFC reviewers are having problems with as it stands. [[User:AngusWOOF| AngusWOOF ]] ( bark •  sniff ) 00:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

re-review
hey Angus are you the one doing the re-review? if so, then I just wanted to point out that I've done more research and work on it, including another source added (TV appearance). Fulber (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * if it's resubmitted, anyone on AFC can review it. It doesn't have to be me. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 00:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

...but...can't you do it? 😁 please? Fulber (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia wants me to wait "4 months". 😔 Fulber (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , can you cut the discography to just the singles that charted for now? It doesn't need to be every single release he has made, since not all those are notable. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

o k...will do. ☺ thanks for your help. Fulber (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

o k it's done I think. ☺ Fulber (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

o k I've really stripped it down to just a few singles. ☺ Fulber (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , can you fix the album and singles names? I don't believe they all have the word "Blame" in their album title. Have separate lists for albums and singles where he was the main artist or co-artist, and separate singles where he was a featured artist. Remove the "various artists" compilation albums unless those compilations have charted. Some of the works such as Logical Progression are actually under LTJ Bukem as primary artist. Then have a separate list for albums where he has more of a production / songwriting credit rather than as a primary artist on the album.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

o k. I will later today. thanks so much, Angus!!! ☺ Fulber (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

so I've looked at the changes. in this genre, a Producer is the "primary artist". all of the work that was listed was solo work (there were a few collabs that showed the other Artists). so almost all was solo work. in Drum&Bass, a Producer = solo Artist = Songwriter. I hope that explains it. 😁 I guess I'll just delete the extra categories? (Remixes were never included and would take another month or so to list.) Fulber (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

also, somebody typed that the releases are "unverified" but I had each catalogue number included. then I was instructed by a previous editor (Dianna?) to remove those details. so do I go back to the original discography I compiled for Wikipedia months ago with all of the catalogue numbers? that could take weeks. then I might be told to remove it all again. what now? Fulber (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , that's fine to delete the extra categories. The discography can be filled in later. I was thinking more if the producer was a supporting role as with Peter Saville (graphic designer) who did album cover art. If he's credited in the song itself as the performer then he's primary artist. If he's only credited as a songwriter, supporting musician, or audio editing then that should be a separate list. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 14:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , Logical Progression 2 would be an album that would go under the Various artists subsection and supporting producer credit. He has a few tracks on there that he is primary artist on, but isn't the primary artist for the entire album. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 15:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

thanks so much, Angus! I haven't been here in a days. whilst gone, somebody declined my work. help me please. I don't know if you can see this so I'll copy & paste...

"...not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was: This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved." Fulber (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

so...additional references??? Fulber (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

my existing sources *are* published and reliable. some of those magazines are the biggest in electronic music worldwide. what more can I do for Wikipedia? I hope you can let me know. thanks. Fulber (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Request on 00:58:32, 11 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by DigitalRafa
Thanks for reviewing my post on Aurora Expeditions

DigitalRafa (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Reason for revert?
Hello. Just wondering why you would revert my request for page protection? Ifnord (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , looks like a mistake, sorry. I added it back. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Santa_Clara_Coronavirus_Data AfC
Hi - Thanks for your rejection of posting coronavirus incidence numbers in the Bay Area. Note that many countries / places do this - see for example South Korea. So your point is that the SF Bay Area corona virus statistics are not interesting /relevant? Could you please reverse and allow this to go online - thanks!

jan.liphardt@stanford.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by JTPaloAlto (talk • contribs) 21:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , those are for states and countries. You might want to add to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in California AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok - let me do that - Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JTPaloAlto (talk • contribs) 22:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , maybe adding an external link to the coronavirus databases pertaining to the state would be helpful. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks note
Hey Angad, Thanks for sparing your valuable time for recorrecting and adding additional information on the article - Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival

Cheers!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhialmish (talk • contribs) 15:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , please state your case over at Articles for deletion/Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival (2nd nomination) Also if you are connected to Mishral in any way, as indicated by your username, you must disclose your conflict of interest. WP:COI AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I need help deleting
Hi,

Today is 3/14. I erroneously submitted the same article twice. The first article was accepted :)) but the second was declined because it was a duplicate submission. My problem is I can't figure out how to clear up my sandbox. This is what is there:

Draft:Victoria Romanoff second submission Symbol redirect arrow with gradient.svg This page is a redirect: From a page move: This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name. When appropriate, protection levels are automatically sensed, described and categorized.

I would like to be able to start abother article in my sandbox but right I now can't because of the above.

Any suggestions? Thank you, MarinaDelaney (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , I cleared out your sandbox User:MarinaDelaney/sandbox so you can use it again. The second submission one will have to wait until they see the CSD. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for helping me - I appreciate it MarinaDelaney (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks like Victoria Romanoff is in mainspace now and the other drafts are cleared out. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Request on 06:34:47, 27 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by 157.51.22.133
Hi, thanks for reviewing the Tribal Student's Union page. Can you please let me know if any of the current sources on this page count toward notability? I know you asked me to provide three.

Thank You Sir. I'm waiting for your Help. 157.51.22.133 (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , please read WP:GNG and WP:THREE and you can pick out the three that you think will work. The whole point of WP:THREE is that the AFC reviewers don't have to go through 30+ sources to see if your draft article is notable. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

081 artical
Yeah its a minor character but why would you prefer a 5 line text about him then a hole artical, it's not like wikipedia is out of space or smth ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lydrogic (talk • contribs) 17:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , see WP:WITHIN. The character can already be covered by a section in the List of characters. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

So, is there anything from darling in the franxx i can create an artical about. Im here to help if you need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lydrogic (talk • contribs) 17:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , only if some of the media are independently notable on their own, like the soundtrack, manga, or other stuff. Otherwise, continue to contribute to the existing articles. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 02:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Drug-treatment-options-COVID-19
Hi, I understand my article is not ready for publication but someone seems to try and delete even my user(name). A) I have no conflict of interest. B) In the introduction, I explain why the current layout of the article is like this. This article differs from the drug development article. This article is about clinical treatment options and not about pharmaceutical product development. The latter has a higher chance of COI. The former is based on national Center of Disease Control's (or analogs) guidelines or recommendations. Pharmaceutical product development is a profit driven science process. Clinical treatment guidelines are not profit driven. C) It would be nice to get an actual review and not just a swipe. It would seem wrong to integrate national guidelines or recommendations. It is not up to a Wikipedia to make a universal standard. I guess however, that all standards have some overlap and that part is universal and can be extracted.

So, please, first cancel the user deletion request. I do not represent anyone or anything. Second, please point me in the right direction or leave the review to someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drug-treatment-options-COVID-19 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , you need to discuss this at the other talk pages concerning COVID-19, whether a large extensive article should be created or split from the rest like that. Also, your username implies it represents some topic, so renaming would be appropriate. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 10:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Drafted Articles
See these articles - David John, Prasanth Alexander. Both of them drafted there in Wikipedia. Enough references are there for both. How to make it public? -Manjusha &#124; മഞ്ജുഷ (talk) 09:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , you need to indicate how these folks meet WP:ENT. David John only has one role as an ensemble cast in a reality show. He needs multiple lead roles in multiple lead shows. Prasanth Alexander it is not clear what role he had a lead / star billing on, and on what show is the most important. These should also be backed up by multiple external news sources independent of the subject as per WP:GNG. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 13:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Request on 21:03:43, 29 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Dora's ice lolly
Hi Angus

I hope you are well and thank you for your reply.

I sent you a message about half an hour ago but I can't see it anymore so it may have been deleted. 'Treat People with Kindness' has already been defined in Harry Styles' main articles (in the Personal section, under Philanthropy). Adding my whole article to that short section would swamp it in my opinion. I think it would be better to create a separate page as it was done for each of his albums, his tours, etc. Adding my article to the main article would be a last resort and I would really appreciate it if you would help me out or reconsider your decision.

I am aware he has a song called Treat People with Kindness, I mention it in my article and it's also in the external links section.

I have read your suggestion regarding the Paris Hilton's slogan, in her case the whole section seemed to revolve around legal issues. Harry Styles' use of this slogan has wider scope, it is to do some good. He is widely regarded in the industry as a very kind person himself, the slogan was not created as a marketing gimmick but developed organically.

I have seen similar versions (e.g. Treat Rabbits with Kindness) used by others which is what gave me the idea to credit Mr Styles as his slogan has become extremely popular since it was first used in 2017.

Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you. Dora&#39;s ice lolly (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Dora&#39;s ice lolly (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , did he make it an actual organization or is it just a catchphase / slogan? It can be condensed into a single paragraph, unless it's become an actual organization, then it needs to meet WP:ORGCRIT. Other celebrity slogans have been similar in starting as a section, and then if it's too big to contain, become an article later with a split request.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:W.B._Fox%27s_Villa,_The_House_of_the_Gentle_Bunyip
Hello, Thanks for reviewing an early draft of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:W.B._Fox%27s_Villa,_The_House_of_the_Gentle_Bunyip. The house is very notable as having been saved by the longest community picket in Australia. You declined an earlier draft. Have since added references to parliament and other sources. Some of the links need technical formatting. We will continue to add sources and links to newspaper articles but it takes time. Each time I have to save it so it gets published and submitted for re-review. Is this the right process to follow. Regards, Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intotecho (talk • contribs) 02:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , do not keep resubmitting the same article after every minor draft. That is too annoying and will only provoke AFC reviewers into rejecting the article and getting it deleted. If you have enough sources for the house to meet WP:GNG, you can present those in the article and point them out. Also, what do you mean by "We". You're not allowed to use a shared account. Also please note WP:COI  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 14:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , please also pay attention to the other AFC reviewers comments. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 14:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Angus, Thanks for the feedback. Re "we", A colleague is researching pre-digital newspapers for references, but not editing the page.

I believe I have added sufficient criteria to establish the notability and also sufficient primary references to support the publication of the page. I also responded to the other reviewers comment by clarifying the citation. That's why you saw the draft resubmitted. Can you see drafts if I don't submit them? I am not a Wikipedia expert but I think the quality of the article is now sufficient. Once it is published other people will edit it and the quality can improve and the notability will be established by the nu,ber of page views. I didn't think the starting point was a Britanica entry! Not sure when that happened. I am completely stuck now with an unpublished page which is to no one's benefit. I have no idea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intotecho (talk • contribs) 23:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , I see it's resubmitted with the issues addressed. That's fine then, any AFC reviewer can pick it up and look after it now. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 00:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Request on 06:51:01, 28 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by 82.217.168.15
The Wikipedia official guideline is:

"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner."

The reviewer's message is: This looks like it is swiped form somewhere. So that review disqualifies the reviewer because of the difference between the standard and the review.

82.217.168.15 (talk) 06:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , please see WP:NOTESSAY. The article reads like it was written for another website and contains redundancies with other existing articles. A lot of it is original research and not cited to any reliable sources, which is why I questioned the sources.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 06:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Change of fortune paradox
RE: change of fortune paradox. If you find that the topic isn't notable, then there shouldn't be a Wikipedia article on it. The topic is five hundred years old. And Lessing is a very famous writer, as is Stephen Halliwell, who devotes a whole chapter to the issue in his 1986 book on the Poetics, still widely read today. As far as editing, you changed your request. Once I deleted Bouchard and Heath, you didn't say to remove also Halliwell and Moles, you said to re-structure them. The last thing you told me to do before your March 8th message, was to re-structure the article so that the main opinions after Lessing weren't separate sections. I said I thought your advice was fine. I didn't act immediately, because I didn't have time. But now you turn around, and it sounds like you want more of the history removed, in particular Halliwell? So you want only Vettori, Castelvetro, and then Dacier and Lessing? And nothing contemporary, from our current time period? It's up to you. Here's what I'll do. 1. We keep Vettori, Castelvetro as background, they're in Takeda--third party. Not a matter of opinion, and they establish the topic's notability. They establish how old it is, going back the renaissance. 2. Dacier and Lessing after them, and Moles, Bywater, and Halliwell all in the same section as Lessing. I'll make that structural change and submit it. If it's not accepted I drop the whole idea, and I'll just keep a copy as a memento. Cdg1072 (talk) 04:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , it still reads more like an essay on the analysis of each person's take or solution on the problem. It needs to be more clearly stated. (Person) wrote in (year) that (their detailed take on it). Then it can be followed what others thought about their take in another paragraph, but should not have the perspective that WE editors think of the their take. Does that make sense? For example:


 * Vettori published the first mention of the problem in 1560.[29] Mention of Vettori does not require a third party source, because he was the first person to study the problem, all other scholars on the subject know about his mention of it, and no one would dispute these facts.
 * The first sentence is fine, but then the next sentence should be what Vettori's take on the problem is. Describe what aspect he studied and wrote about. But "Mention of Vettori does not require a third party source, because he was the first person to study the problem, all other scholars on the subject know about his mention of it, and no one would dispute these facts." doesn't say anything about it, and is regarded as an editor's take.


 * "Castelvetro engaged the problem in his translation and commentary of 1570.[31][32] Mention of Castelvetro requires a third party source, which is Arata Takeda. As Arata Takeda writes, "Castelvetro suggests that in chapter 13 Aristotle is right; in chapter 14, he is wrong."[33]"
 * Again, first sentence is good, but now what is Castelvetro's take? Please describe Castelvetro's interpretation/solution.  What is he proposing or saying about the problem?  Why is there a mention of Arata Takeda?  Does Castelvetro know about Arata Takeda?   Who cares about Takeda?  If Takeda wrote a rebuttal to Castelvetro's interpretation/solution then that can be discussed in the second paragraph, such as "Arata Takeda in his (paper) in (year), criticized Castelvetro's solution, saying (Arata's analysis that refutes Castelvetro's solution). "


 * If you have modern solutions/ interpretations, those are fine. They can each get a new subsection, but should follow the similar structure. Mention the person, what they wrote, what year they published their work, and then a summary of their position / interpretation of the paradox. Then in a later paragraph in that section, you can detail the criticisms. As an example:


 * Angus, a philosopher, thought the world was flat. He wrote in the 2019 book The world is flat that he measured the atmospheric pressure in one location and then walked a mile to another location, and saw that the pressure was the same. He did that for 500 days and concluded it was flat.
 * Woofer, an essayist, disagreed with Angus. In his book The world is not flat written in 2020 that Angus's method was severely flawed and that even in a round world the atmospheric pressure was going to be the same.


 * I hope that clarifies what I mean by essay-like and how it needs to be restructured. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 06:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You mention a lot of names: Lessing, Halliwell, Bouchard, Heath, Moles, Dacier. Do they all have unique and well-known takes on the issue? Or are some of those people known more for their responses to the main person's take. Are they the Angus in proposing a unique solution/interpretation or the Woofer in criticizing the solution/interpretation? If they are an equivalent of Angus, then it should be a fairly well-known take, like it's studied by more than just one philosopher / source.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 06:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * THanks. Yes, I think in the outline below you will find that I understand your advice, and am now applying it. But first, I never said Vettori had an opinion or solution. He should be mentioned because he introduced the issue to the world, that's all.  I included the quotation from Dacier stating that Vettori didn't try to solve the problem.  Perhaps that was incomplete or could be made clearer.  Next you ask, what is Castelvetro's view. And you quote my statement of it: "Castelvetro suggests that in chapter 13 Aristotle is right; in chapter 14, he is wrong."  ??  But I think I see your point.  You see I stated Castelvetro's "take" on the problem, but you find that I don't explain it for the reader.  I did include other ideas of Castelvetro you might have found unclear. I remember that. Fair enough.  You say "who cares about Takeda"?  Fine, but he only belongs in the footnotes, I never meant to talk about him, only to call to your attention that he was there -- so that you guys would see my article isn't original research.  It was a precaution I took.

Lastly you say I need clearer structure as to which writers introduce a mostly new interpretation, and which ones are attached to someone before them. Great, here's my answer. I'm not filling in the details, just enough to answer you. With your request accomplished, the article is slightly different. In my view, two things must be different: Castelvetro's opinion a bit more clearly defined, and 2. John Moles goes in Bywater's section, just the name "Ingram Bywater." Instead of, a section entitled "the theory that Aristotle changed his mind." Now I understand you. So here is the whole structure after the introductory parts.

First, those that are in Takeda, so that their inclusion cannot be considered O.R.

Dacier, own section. Introduces the first solution, original to him. Lessing, own section. Responds to Dacier with a different original solution. Bywater--it's up to you, but I find that he gets his own section. Bywater introduces the idea that Aristotle changed his mind. Moles is very notable, because so often cited. He can go in Bywater's section, since he tries to strengthen Bywater's view, that Aristotle changed his mind. Halliwell, own section--introduces the theory that Aristotle follows a standard of tragedy in chapter 13 (misfortune) and gives way to ethics in chapter 14 (no ending misfortune). Halliwell is definitely notable.

Then there are these three guys. Bouchard does have a third party source: Andrew Ford. But it's my understanding that you find it OK to put in these three. But they would have separate sections, as before.

Murnaghan-- thinks that Aristotle's contradiction reflects our ambivalence toward tragedy as something both needful and dangerous. That's a terse summary, but the paragraph I wrote explains it more fully. Bouchard-- she took the classical studies world by storm in 2012, introducing a brilliant idea (not that I agree with it), Bouchard thinks that Aristotle is speaking from a refined point of view in chapter 13--tragedy ends badly--and from a common audience point of view in chapter 14, where the best tragedy ends without terrible misfortune. Heath--best known classicist for this solution: Aristotle doesn't claim that the best kind of tragedy ends in misfortune. Rather, he claimed that ending in misfortune is merely correct, and is only correct because it excludes the possibility of a double plot (where a good man is rewarded and bad man is punished). And this in Aristotle's view is inferior to all the great tragedies--including in chapter 13 and 14.

I'll get it done as soon as I can and see what you think.Cdg1072 (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Where you quote me saying "Vettori does not require a third party source" I was just bending over backwards to respond to your rules. That's not me talking. I myself would never have written that.

And the answer to your next question was contained in what I said. What I wrote about Vettori was already complete, there was nothing missing. I believe I quoted Dacier, who explained that Vettori didn't try to solve the problem. So respectfully your criticism of this part was empty. I also stated that Castelvetro said that Aristotle was right in chapter 13 and wrong in chapter 14. A reader can understand what that means, maybe it requires a few more words, but not much. The substantive advice that you do give, and which I'll follow, is that sections shouldn't be titled by concepts, but titled by people's names. Because that's what you're saying. You're saying that the section for Bywater should be called "Bywater" not "The Theory That Aristotle Changed His Mind." I find that, led by the reaction of other editors, once I deleted other material, then you come along, seeing the truncated article for the first time, and you think that the other names are just a jumble of names that I'm throwing at you. Not so. I already wrote the whole article as it was first submitted. I saved all the second half that was deleted---which I thought was complying with what editors wanted. Now I learn that it was all unnecessary. Ultimately, the article turns out to look exactly the same. With one difference--Bywater's paragraph, and also Halliwell's are to be titled by their names, not by their theories. And I guess that's OK. It's not a big difference, though.Cdg1072 (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , if Vettori wrote something and you're quoting him via a book / paper from him or someone else, then that's fine, those are either primary sources (Vettori's paper) or secondary sources (some other writer publishing material that describes Vettori's take). You don't need to write in the "does not require a third party source", just cite that paper. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 15:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I would never have done it. Someone is editing the article, who is that?Cdg1072 (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC) I think surely we must be getting somewhere, we have everything we need to make necessary changes as you or others suggest. It's resubmitted, looking forward to the next review. Thanks.Cdg1072 (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , it looks better. Please see my two minor edits that try to include the year and paper HERE. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 15:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I see, thanks.Cdg1072 (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Please do your edit again if I did not get it right, I didn't see what you did on Castelvetro.Cdg1072 (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I anticipate that this thing is never going to go through. One editor has a different opinion from another, and the current declining editor, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sulfurboy doesn't give specific advice. The topic is good, but not something crucial that absolutely has to be in Wikipedia.Cdg1072 (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging for comment.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yeah I'm not reading that huge block of text, sorry. I can tell you that the overwhelming issue with the page is the third party commentary. The whole thing reads like someone's research paper for a college class. An article shouldn't be a point by point argument on a subject, no matter how neutral the approach. An article should focus on the subject, the history of that subject and the impact and lasting notability of that subject. Wikipedia is not an outlet or consortium of philosophical theory. The entire article is a latent minefield and completely unapproachable by an uninitiated reader. The only way that article would pass an AfD in its current state is by a complete reworking and/or slash and burn. If another editor wants to approve it, I won't stand in the way. I just can't personally approve an article that I couldn't justify in an AfD. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)