User talk:DrStrauss/Archive 3

Correct edits?
You have reverted my edit to the kerry county football championship page. Namely removing 2010 Championship section. It is entirely appropriate to remove 2010 championship especially seeing as it is now 2017 and the championships from 2011 to 2017 are not included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickiwookie (talk • contribs) 22:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi you have reverted a number of my edits which are factually correct and also this page is very outdated:


 * Yorkshire Post Tower has been approved
 * Bridge House (Wellington St) has been approved
 * The former British Gas building has been approved
 * Millgarth Tower and Manor Point have both been cancelled

Do you want me to provide citations to prove what I am updating? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyscraper777 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * yes, generally citations are required. Please see WP:V and WP:RS.   Dr Strauss   talk  13:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

AFD notice removal on Kendra Timmins
The actress meets the criteria of notoriety. I've added reliable sources of newspapers and magazines, So i do not consider it fair to delete the page. I ask you to remove the AFD requests on the page. Thanks! Mitofire (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Mitofire Mitofire (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, unfortunately I can't remove it because AfD is a community discussion forum and once it's been taken to that stage we must work on WP:CONSENSUS. Feel free to voice your opinion at the article's AfD entry.  Don't be offended or disheartened by your page getting deleted, if it does, ask the deleting admin for a copy so you can improve it.  Thanks!   Dr Strauss   talk  15:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Protection of your talk page
Hi there. I protected your talk page because of your request but pointed out correctly that good-faith anon and new users now cannot use this talk page as well. Per WP:PP, you are encouraged to create a subpage for those users to contact you. Unless you create such a way for users to contact you with legitimate concerns, I'll have to reconsider the decision to protect this talk page. Regards  So Why  21:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've responded to 's concerns on your talk page and User:DrStrauss/temptalk is the subpage which IPs and new users can edit. They are directed there by my editnotice.  Thanks!   Dr Strauss   talk  21:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was a bit of an overlap. Glad this has been resolved. Regards  So Why  21:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to also link to it from the top of your user talk page until protection expires. Note that IPs no longer see an "Edit" button when they're on your page, just "View source". Many will not know what that is and may not click it. The edit notice only appears if they happen to click on that button and read well past the prominent notice at the top saying they're unable to edit the page. Pinging so they're aware as well. ~ Rob 13 Talk 22:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * done.  Dr Strauss   talk  23:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ~ Rob 13 Talk 00:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:3a-band-logo.svg
Thanks for uploading File:3a-band-logo.svg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 12:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:Hm39422 created.svg
Thanks for uploading File:Hm39422 created.svg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 12:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * NB: for the record, I just incorrectly templated SVG conversions that I did to reduce the backlog.  Dr Strauss   talk  17:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Culture
Why added this tag to the article, while other articles such as Lemonade (Beyoncé album), Unorthodox Jukebox and Joanne (album) that had the critical reception section as long or longer than this article, but not tagged. And the tag doesn't make sense either, these are reviews for the album, not anything else. It doesn't need to be split to other articles. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi !
 * In response to your first concern: of the just over 15kB prose in total on Culture just under 9kB is on critical reception - that's 60%. Lemonade's just under 70kB total prose includes just over 11kB on critical reception - that's 15%.  There is no hard-and-fast guideline on how much of an article on an album should be dedicated however it stands to reason that having more content on the response to something than the thing itself changes the topic of the article.
 * There must be something to be critically received for it to receive critical reception, if that makes sense? I think you would find WP:LENGTH helpful for future reference when considering the proportional size of sections of an article.
 * As for your second concern, the template I placed on the page said consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding or removing subheadings. Note that it does not explicitly say that its content should be split into separate articles as that would be silly as you say.  It offers the alternative of splitting it up with subheadings or condensing it, either of which would be fine endeavours for the article's creator or major contributors considering its pitfalls.
 * I hope this answers your questions, if not, let me know. Thanks!   Dr Strauss   talk  20:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No offense, but that was a unsatisfied answer. Joanne (album) has a longer critical reception section of that of Culture and that wasn't tagged at all, don't make any sense to me. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * it's all to do with proportionality. For example, if we divide Culture up into 10 peanuts, 6 of them will be on critical reception which leaves many of the other sections with little content.  However, if we divide Joanne up into 10 peanuts, only 1 of them will be on critical reception.  Sorry, I had to do that considering the username :D Did you read WP:LENGTH by the way?   Dr Strauss   talk  21:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay I look at the guidelines, but I still disagree that tag should be in that section of the article, because there are some other album related articles that have the critical reception as long then Culture and nobody have no problem with it before. I have talked to Ss112 about this problem before talking to you about it, and he too disagree with some of your edits also and have reverted them. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * it's not about the length itself it's to do with the length in proportion to the rest of the article. Looking at my curation log, I can see that most of the issues I have raised on 's articles have not been reverted, the most pressing issues are the NPOV ones and Ss112 is an experienced editor whose ability to rectify these issues I do not doubt.   Dr Strauss   talk  21:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit: in fact I can't see any edits of mine that have been reverted by Ss112. Even though the comment about nobody before this having taken exception to the length of critical acclaim sections is irrelevant as it's not to do with the length in itself, on a general point just because nobody has raised an issue before doesn't in anyway detract from its validity.   Dr Strauss   talk  21:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I get what you're saying now, if I removed some of the reviews in the article, it will cut down to size? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit: I have made this edit in the article, what do you think of it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * looks good.  Dr Strauss   talk  08:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay now it look good, can the tag be removed? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Dr Strauss   talk  08:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Good to have this problem solved. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Self-requested block
Per this confirmation I have blocked you until 3rd July 2017 (00:00) as requested. The fact this was a self-requested block has been noted in the log, and I hope it gives you the break you require. I've left your ability to send emails unaffected, so please feel free to contact me at any time. -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 12:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

About your declination of my Thaitone article
I wonder about your comment to my references. Why it's not reliable since the PDF. file reference one is belong to the ministry of culture of Thailand about the study of Thaitone. And another one that is the tv program came from NOW26 which is the news agency in Thailand. According to these two references, are they still unreliable? Nattanich Eng (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Thaitone has now been moved to the article namespace as further improvements have been made since I was away. Congratulations on the successful article!  Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk  17:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Odysseas Papadimitriou Draft
Thanks a lot for taking a look at my draft. And just to be clear, I'm not questioning the abilities of. It just seemed like they were providing the same rationale repeatedly and not really addressing what I think are valid reasons that rationale did not apply. Having said that, is your main issue with the draft use of the word "expert"? I used that because it was commonly used in news coverage of the subject, but I have no qualms with removing such phrasing. Thanks again for taking the time to consider this! Surfjk (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, that’s absolutely fine, thank you for clarifying that. The issue with words like “expert” is that they often lead to an unencyclopedic tone in an article.  Please see Wikipedia’s “words to watch” guide for more info and don’t hesitate to ask me for further help or info.  Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk  17:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Khurmal District
Khurmal is a small city in north Iraq, you can see in the google map Kurdistantolive (talk) 05:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, the template I left on Khurmal District didn't contest the location's existence, it merely flagged up the citation style used which is a bit strange. Please see WP:CITESTYLE for tips.  Once the issues are fixed, feel free to remove the tag.  Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk  17:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

11:42:16, 22 March 2017 review of submission by Kofiguy233
Hello please I've made the necessary changes that needs to be made, would be glad if you check back on the article /draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kofiguy233 (talk • contribs)
 * Hello, it appears that another reviewer has declined it again, a decision with which I agree.  The article has improved but it needs a copy-edit to comply with the manual of style and also to establish a more neutral tone.  If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to ask.  Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk  17:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The draft has been deleted and they are a blocked user Strauss. (Thanks for the tag) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Page mover granted
Hello, DrStrauss. Your account has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ADrStrauss granted] the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when  is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:
 * Requested moves
 * Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 17:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

20:34:01, 27 June 2017 review of submission by NatalieMartin82
Hi, can you please give me some pointers as to what I can do for this article to be approved? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatalieMartin82 (talk • contribs)


 * sure! A copyedit is probably in order to make the tone less promotional - try avoiding weasel words.  The introduction contains too many external links which need cutting.  Once you've done this, feel free to resubmit it.  Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk  20:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Changes to my Immortality edits
Dear Dr Strauss,

I recently added a section to the 'Immortality' page, beginning to document some philosophical arguments for the immortality of the soul. You indicate that you did not judge my changes to be constructive. Since the entry lacked (and now, thanks to you, still lacks) a discussion of the history of arguments for immortality, it seems to me that an addition of such a discussion would be highly constructive. What are your qualifications for judging the non-constructiveness of my work, and what was the basis of your judgment?

respectfully,

Dr JS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.37.145.218 (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, while your edits may have been correct, content on Wikipedia requires reliable sources for verification purposes. Feel free to add sources to your edits, the diff can be found here.  Thank you for contributing!  I used the wrong template on your talk page in error, for that I apologise.   Dr Strauss   talk  21:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Good to see you back
Very good to see you back. As an FYI since you started the conversation at the village pump about page creation restrictions in Feb if I have recalled, a lot has happened since then. You might want to check out WT:NPPAFC :) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for your kind message. That page looks very encouraging at first glance but I'll read it properly in the morning.  Thanks again :)   Dr Strauss   talk  21:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello sir, Yes now the article is appearing but with a small error on top of it saying copy editing error. Can you please help me in improving it. Thank you once again. Jayanagas (talk) 08:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I reviewed Karunakara Mardi Reddy once it went into the mainspace and added the copyedit tag because it needs a rewrite for style and tone (WP:COPYEDIT). I'll give it a go myself in a couple of hours.  Thanks!   Dr Strauss   talk  08:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC) Note: discussion carried forward from here and here pertaining to Karunakara Mardi Reddy.

2017 Men's Euro Winners Cup
Hi! Just wondering why you decided to close the requested move discussion for this page, the 2017 Men's Euro Winners Cup? I know that it has been going on for a while, however the discussion had just finally sparked some activity the last few days and I was having an ongoing conversation with another user in which I only replied to less than 12 hours ago. That active discussion has now been cut off because you closed the move as no consensus. This user, who was originally against moving, was clearly open to having their mind changed if I could provide evidence to a certain subject matter of our conversation which I had just provided but you've now closed the discussion before giving them a chance to reply. If they were to change their mind the discussion would be 3 for and 1 against the move (the sole vote against being the user who originally moved the page to the current controversial title). I appreciate your time on this, thanks. TurboGUY (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC) TurboGUY (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, apologies, I should have looked at the most recent comment. I've re-opened it.  Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk  09:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay I see, no worries. Thanks for reopening it! TurboGUY (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

15:27:24, 28 June 2017 review of submission by Tobiastan
Dear DrStrauss, Mr. Endresen is the Norwegian ambassador to Singapore, a diplomat, and has held various international positions. He is also listed in the largest Norwegian encyclopedia. Please let me know what else you need for him to be seen as notable enough. I see a number of similar diplomats on Wikipedia, so I need to understand why you rejected him. (See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_F._Grady which has no references and does not seem to have had any other senior positions). Thanks a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobiastan (talk • contribs) (UTC)


 * Hi, Mr Endresen may indeed be notable but the draft you submitted did not adequately indicate it. Wikipedia articles require independent, reliable sources are needed which give article subjects in-depth coverage.  You may find WP:42, WP:RS, WP:POLITICIAN and WP:DIPLOMAT helpful.  With regards to the other article, I've tagged it for improvement.  Let me know if you require anything else,  Dr Strauss   talk  19:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Model-based enterprise
Regarding notability: I had thought that my cites were sufficient -- particularly for an article defining a term of art that's not in any way a commercial product.

In any event, I've added more and diverse citations, one of which notes that MBE was developed under the auspices of the Secretary of Defense, Army Research Laboratory, Armament Research Development Engineering Center, Army ManTech, NIST, NIST Manufacturing Extension Partnership, General Dynamics, Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, Elysium, Adobe, EOS, ITI TranscenData, Vistagy, PTC, Dassault Systemes Delmia, Boeing, and BAE Systems.

Let me know if I need more. Cinteotl (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, I see you've re-submitted it so either myself or another reviewer will have a look at it in due course. Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk  19:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

17:50:10, 28 June 2017 review of submission by IdahoPolitics
Hey DrStauss thank you for reviewing a page that I have been working on Draft:Tommy_Ahlquist. I was wondering what references that you have issues with? They are from local news organizations/newspapers. Once again thank you for your review and future help! IdahoPolitics (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for your message. While some of the sources were indeed suitable, some of the affiliated sources were unnecessary and could be cut out.  Let me know if you need anything else,  Dr Strauss   talk  19:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me so quickly. I cleaned up the page more and got rid of CITE:KILL issues. Please look over it again and if there are still issues, let me know specifics of what I need to do to get this page "live" so to speak.IdahoPolitics (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio
There have now been 2 instances of copyvio reviewed but not tagged for deletion, including G11. Please keep a careful eye for this. SwisterTwister  talk  18:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for your message. I'll bear that in mind in future and Earwig all the drafts I review, they should have been G11-ed but as they were declines it wasn't catastrophic as they didn't reach the mainspace.   Dr Strauss   talk  19:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Two new examples of G11: Draft:Ryder Industries and Draft:PhotoConcierge. Advertising not being in mainspace is not covered by WP:What Wikipedia is not. SwisterTwister   talk  16:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * those aren't copyvios so they're not the most urgent of things, and I wouldn't say either of them are promotional to they extent they need deletion. G11-ing promotional drafts is in my experience counterproductive because they're made in good faith and will just need editing, so it's better to decline with on adv grounds than speedy.  I'm well aware of WP:NOT and they're not in the mainspace, they're in the draftspace.  Although they'll have been deleted now, please can you point me to the two copyvios I missed yesterday?  Thank you.   Dr Strauss   talk  16:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There are some instances where promotionalism can be improved or removed but not when it's entirely, which would mean it's fundamentally G11 ("where unambiguous advertising would need a rewrite"). Especially in cases where either a company-named account started it therefore violating WP:Paid. 2 copyvios are Draft:Fab Lab Tulsa and Draft:SharingXchange. Also nowhere in WP:NOT is it suggesting userspace or Draftsace is exempt from speedy tagging.
 * SwisterTwister  talk  16:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * no, but your argument specifically mentioned the mainspace so I was just pointing that out. The draftspace is a holding pen, so it doesn't matter if its contents aren't perfect, just so long as we don't move attack pages and copyvios into the mainspace we should be fine.   Dr Strauss   talk  17:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Another example, Draft:Hicare contains clear policy violations, 1, "Our trained technicians use only the latest technology and techniques" and 2, a paid employee. We have no policy to keeping in Draftspace without deletion as WP:G11 actually is clear it applies to all areas. The user is now banned for unconfessed paid contributions so the page is therefore qualified for as by Foundation Terms of Use, without exceptions. SwisterTwister   talk  17:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

21:00:25, 28 June 2017 review of submission by Phanosphilippou
what am i doing wrong? :( please advice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phanosphilippou (talk • contribs)  (UTC)


 * Hello, thank you for your message. Your draft lacks independent, reliable sources which give its subject in-depth coverage which means we can't verify the claims you make nor the notability of the subject.  See WP:42 for more.  Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk  21:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

An area you might to help out in
Hi, it's great to see you back and helping tackle the backlog! You might like to help out at the AfC help desk where people whose drafts have been declined are directed, but currently there's only a handful of us helping answer queries so quite a few questions are being left unanswered. It'd be great if you could watchlist it and lend a hand! Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi : I'll take a look :) Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk  07:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Request on 23:08:33, 28 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Canadianhistory
Hi DrStrauss You recently declined my draft article on John Le Couteur (1760-1835) for failing to 'adequately show the subject's notability'. The subject was a lieutenant-general in the British army, and served as governor of Curacao. This would appear to qualify him for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Further, the basis for the article is partly an out of copyright Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry on Le Couteur, as well as a lengthy current ODNB biography updated in 2004. The ODNB is clearly a reliable source independent of the subject, as Wikipedia's guidelines demand. In light of this clear evidence of notability, please approve the article or provide a further specific justification for declining the submission. Canadianhistory (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Canadianhistory (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Happening to look here,, you're completely right, and I've accepted the article. ( it took me a while to find the correct article from your link -- it's at , print vol.32, p.336-337,)


 * DrS, I assume you did not notice the reference to the DNB, for anyone with a full article in the DNB is always notable without exception. (this does not of course hold for people just mentioned there, but it probably does hold for those in an add-on article) This is the rule at [] point 3 -- it has always been interpreted that for a major national biography and especially the DNB, it alone is enough, regardless of any other factor.  DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for approving the article. Sorry about the broken link, and thank you for mentioning this – the original DNB article is also on Wikisource https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Le_Couteur,_John_(DNB00) but evidently I didn't format the DNB citation template properly when originally drafting the article.
 * Cheers Canadianhistory (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, you're right, I didn't notice the reference and I'll bear in mind the ANYBIO provision in future. Thanks for pointing it out!  : congratulations on a successful article!   Dr Strauss   talk  07:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, you're right, I didn't notice the reference and I'll bear in mind the ANYBIO provision in future. Thanks for pointing it out!  : congratulations on a successful article!   Dr Strauss   talk  07:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

00:14:54, 29 June 2017 review of submission by Deepakpuranik
Dear Dr Strauss, Thank you for reviewing my article on Basavaraj Puranik. I wanted to understand the reason for declining the article so that it can help me improve the article

Please let me know
 * Hi, your draft needs more independent, reliable sources that give Basavaraj Puranik significant, in-depth coverage so we can establish his notability. Sources 1 and 2 are good ones, more in that vein would be appreciated.  Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk  07:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dr Strauss, Mr Basavaraj Puranik began writing at a time when internet was not available ( 1970s, 1980s )so most of his works are in physical form. Also, because he wrote in Kannada, he has coverage in Kannada language media. Will that be a suitable reference. Some of these papers are available online and some are offline media. How do I reference that

Thanks

Deepak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepakpuranik (talk • contribs) 17:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

01:27:23, 29 June 2017 review of submission by Aashishji
Respected sir, As you know in Nepal to get electronic coverage of news of person is difficult so i request you to go to the youtube link given in my draft's reference and view it thoroughly so that you can verify this person is real and you can visually see what he has done for the country.This person is very notable in Nepal almost 7/10 people in Nepal know him for his spiritual work. the only hinder is there is no electronic coverage. CAN I SEND THE PICTURE OF NEWSPAPERs giving covergae of him??? and i can also send various pictures of him involving in notable works.
 * you don't need pictures of the newspapers, just reference them and mention title, volume, author, date, etc. Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk  07:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Move review for James Martin Hayes
An editor has asked for a Move review of James Martin Hayes. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * thanks for the heads up, I probably won't participate as I was merely judging the consensus and I'm fine with somebody coming to the opposite conclusion.  Dr Strauss   talk  07:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Request on 07:36:59, 29 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Passionfruitvine
Hi DrStrauss, This is my first time trying to get Wikipedia editors help and the third time my Joyce Stevens AM draft has been declined. You wrote that the draft appears to read like an advertisement - I am working with a group of women and they and I don't understand why you think that about the entry. It is only a Stub and I would welcome others to add or improve the content. I thought about deleting the introduction paragraph that outlines Stevens's work and also deleting the two paragraphs from Steven's book "Healing Women: a history of Leichhardt Women's Community Health Centre" (1995) that end the 'Work' section. Would this improve the article ? In the meantime I will read more Wikipedia entries.

Hoping to hear from you,

Passionfruitvine. Passionfruitvine (talk) 07:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Passionfruitvine (talk) 07:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes, I think that would be a good idea. Have a look at WP:WEASEL and tell me if you think there's anything you can change.  Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk  11:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

11:40:57, 29 June 2017 review of submission by Archaeologysoldier
Please tell me how to improve my page so that i can submit it? Earlier the problem was that the username and the name of the page was same so I had to create a new account and still I don't know why I can't submit it. Please help

Archaeologysoldier (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, you need to include reliable sources that give the topic significant coverage and are independent. Half of the sources are currently from allevents.  Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk  11:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The Sandford Open Championship
Hello,

Might I enquire as to how the tone of the article I have contributed needs to be addressed? I've endeavoured to compose said article in as neutral a tone as possible.

Kind regards,

Peter | pdobbin88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdobbin88 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, phrases like enjoyed widespread success without references are POV. Please see WP:WEASEL.   Dr Strauss   talk  14:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Request on 13:10, 29 June 2017‎, for assistance of submission by Japan808080
Dear Dr Strauss Thank you for reviewing my article Draft:Kingmax. I would like to let you know why my submission was declined. Kingmax is well known to offer SD cards, USB flash drives, Solid state drives, etc. all over the world, as I searched them on Amazon.com etc. The business type and scale is same as ADATA, Silicon Power and Transcend Information, as I described. So that is the reason why we need the article of Kingmax on Wikipedia English, we already had put the article of Kingmax on Wikipedia Japanese. I think I used the reliable sources and data of Routers, Bloomberg, and Cnet, because I would like to observe the rule. And more, I think I avoid the conflict of interest regarding Kingmax or others. So please send a message to me here. - Japan808080 (Talk) 02:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * the sources you provided were inadequate for displaying notability. The sources from Bloomberg and Reuters are useless for establishing notability because they are merely stock entries.  Similarly, the sources to Kingmax's own website cannot be used to prove the company is notable because they're affiliated.  The CNET source is better but it still describes a product and not the company.  We require, independent, reliable sources that give significant coverage to the company.   Dr Strauss   talk  07:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear Dr Strauss
 * Thank you for a message. I just edit the artcle again, using Taiwan Excellence and China Times sources (Chinese), erasing Kingmax own sources, etc.
 * However, I do not have the confidence whether its notability is enough.
 * So I would like your assistance for completing the article.
 * - Japan808080 (Talk) 13:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, sure, I'll take a look at it in a bit.  Dr Strauss   talk  14:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

My new article Traudl Wallbrecher
Hi DrStrauss,

you declined my article Traudl Wallbrecher. I worked on it according to your notes. Please have a look at it, I think it should be acceptable now.

Paddy Pillow (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'll have a look at it in due course. Nothing personal, but I don't review drafts on demand otherwise my talk page would be a flood of messages.  Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk  19:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Request on 21:12:47, 29 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by C. Gelber
Hello Dr. Strauss, I am baffled regarding the "lack of notoriety" of this major figure in Japanese architecture, especially in light of the fact that there already exists a Japanese wiki page for the same person. I was merely doing the family a favor in offering to create the page into English because, as you have noted, he has not received much visibility in the English speaking world. I am certain I could obtain Japanese publications attesting to his notoriety but I would (as I presume you would) be unable to read them and not certain if they are even appropriate for an English Wiki page. While I agree that some of my rhetoric would benefit from Weasel editing, which I will do ASAP, I am not quite sure how to resolve the notoriety issue.

thank you, Christopher C. Gelber (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'll have another look once you've trimmed the weasel words, let me know when that's done. Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk  21:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello and thank you for your prompt reply. I have removed the "weaselisms" and humbly ask for your reconsideration. Thank you. Christopher C. Gelber (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Bob Sweeney (actor and director)
I reverted your close at Talk:Bob Sweeney (actor and director). Requested moves shouldn't be processed until at least seven days has elapsed, and there's absolutely no reason that RM should be an exception (eg: WP:SNOW). Please be more careful in the future. -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'll only close ones which are elapsed and in the backlog in future. Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk  21:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Roy MacLeod
I'm afraid I may have done or said something at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers that has resulted in some backlash at Articles for deletion/Roy MacLeod. Since I suggested that wholesale deletion of Envale's contributions was something I'd consider, I feel responsible for the work that may result from resolving that discussion. I will add my feedback later, but please do let me know if I can help in other ways. Mduvekot (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, don't worry, it was unlikely to succeed anyway. I'll ping you if there's anything else.  :)   Dr Strauss   talk  08:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

03:30:34, 30 June 2017 review of submission by Bluedreamer1
Why are you asking for more references, why actually was this declined rather than a drive by snub the new wikipedia user

This is a list of actual published books, in the RPG area there are many such lists of book - which is why the all have ISBN's. What other proof do I need these are real books

I could link a review for every single book that is there but what is the point, the point of the article is to provide a list of books for pathfinder

Do you have any knowledge of the area or the subject? Or did you just pick a random article to review, did you check how other articles in this area were written?
 * I have no doubt that they are real books. You just need to prove that they are notable with sources.  ISBNs are given to all published books and infer no notability.  Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk  08:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * So you have no knowledge of the area, and obviously you haven't looked. You are just declining a list of books because you didn't desire to address a single one of my questions. But, it seems that you can. Is that a correct assumption of your actions so far? Why does it have to be notable? I find this to be counterproductive to the purpose of wikipeida. So, please, define 'notable'. Is not the fact I created the page itself making them notable. Why is there resistance to creating a list of published books? Is not the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathfinder_Roleplaying_Game notable? Do I have to prove the 'notable' existence of every book? Did the person who created this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_rulebooks have to jump through these ridiculous hoops. The books exist, millions of people buy them and yet all you are doing is giving pathetic short 'nos' with no real explanation of how to avoid these comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedreamer1 (talk • contribs)
 * my knowledge of the area is entirely irrelevant. We have specific policies about notability, it's not just me.  You can find the general policy here and the policy for books here.  Getting angry at me isn't going to solve anything, don't throw your toys out of the pram.  Follow the advice that we, experienced reviewers, give you and your draft will be published.   Dr Strauss   talk  14:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * So yet again you have said nothing about what is wrong - just throwing links at me. Tell me what exactly is different about the page I linked for D&D and the page I created for Pathfinder? I am angry because you are being obstructive and unhelpful, so much for the wikipedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedreamer1 (talk • contribs)


 * okay, sources 1, 2, 12, 15 are useless because Goodreads has no editorial oversight, same with the blog posts. The other references are okay, they're a bit crufty, the only real independent, major, reliable source is the Denver Post one.  More like that and it'll be published in no time!   Dr Strauss   talk  14:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that I can do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedreamer1 (talk • contribs)

Oleg Bezuglov for deletion
Dear DrStrauss,

Since you sometimes contribute to AfD discussions, and also review the new articles could you, please, take a look at the Oleg Bezuglov article and express your opinion in discussion on whether it should be deleted or not. It was nominated on suspicion of not passing the WP:MUSICBIO criterion. The discussion is currently dead in the water, and I'm afraid it might be relisted again because of that. Thanks in advance! Fiddler11 07:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look.  Dr Strauss   talk  08:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

08:10:37, 30 June 2017 review of submission by Carrymat
Dear Dr Strauss, I submitted the article on Vivomed due to their involvement for the 3rd time with the British & Irish Lions tour including links from the Lions tour Wikipedia page. They have also been involved in almost all the major sporting events in the UK and Ireland for the past 10 years including the Rugby World Cup, the Rugby League World Cup and the Olympics. The article is similar in size and nature to other Lions suppliers who already have Wikipedia pages e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Pink I was therefore wondering what else needed to be added to make it a viable listing considering it is similar in nature, content, relevance and references to Thomas Pink which was approved? Thank you in advance for your help. Carrymat
 * Hi, thanks for your message. That may be the case but we need independent, reliable references which give the company significant coverage to establish notability.  It's nearly there though, keep it up!   Dr Strauss   talk  14:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

10:48:01, 30 June 2017 review of submission by Dr.khatmando
Hi there. Thanks for looking over the Japan Pharmacuetical Association draft article. Could you tell me which of the English and Japanese references were the most fit for purpose and those which were not? Also did you look at the content translated from the Japanese article? What content needs to be translated from the Japanese content so that it will pass the review? Thanks for your assistance. Dr.khatmando (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, the affiliated sources can go for starters. Anything that confers notability is worth translating.  Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk  14:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources state that the Japan Pharmacuetical Association is the peak professional body for pharmacists in Japan. Therefore this should meet notability as it stands. The article as it is now is comparable to the scholarly rigour for the Japan Medical Association article when it was approved. I think it is best to accept it now so other editors can contribute as was the case with the JMA article. Thanks for your help Dr.khatmando (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

11:19:50, 30 June 2017 review of submission by Yuval Filmus
I looked at another random math article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_analysis, and it also contains no explanation for the average reader. Unfortunately, I don't think that mathematical research areas typically lend themselves to such explanations.
 * Hi, on reflection I'm starting to agree with you so I've accepted it. Congratulations!   Dr Strauss   talk  11:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

13:52:32, 30 June 2017 review of submission by Msteckl
The request to remove references to Wikipedia makes complete sense. These have been removed and the article resubmitted. Thank you Msteckl (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you, I'll have a look at it in a bit!  Dr Strauss   talk  14:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Request on 16:28:58, 30 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by PTSaputo
I have tried hard to write this article addressing the earlier reviewer comments. Could you help me by providing some examples of problems with the article. Your comments are identical to the comments from the first review. I do not mean to debate your judgment. Rather, I need help understanding. You note that I need to summarize reliable secondary sources. I tried to do so with multiple references most to well-known recognizable theologians. What am I missing? What suggests that it is not a NPOV? I thought it read neutral, assuming the reader wants to comprehend the Christian view of sovereignty. What do you see that is not neutral? The article reads like an essay. I need some help understanding what provides that flavor. As an attorney, it is probably embedded in my legal writing style and I just don't see it. Any help would be appreciated. PTSaputo (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

PTSaputo (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll take another look at your article and give you some in-depth feedback here later.  Dr Strauss   talk  17:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you PTSaputo (talk) 03:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

16:43:24, 30 June 2017 review of submission by Duncan R2
Hello DrStrauss and thank you for reviewing my draft article on Contarini Fleming. I would appreciate a few more specifics on where the references aren't sufficient. I realise that the "synopsis" section is completely unreferenced, but that is not uncommon in Wiki pages on books. I think the other sections are mainly referenced OK (the Blake book is generally regarded as the definitive biography on Disraeli), although they do only draw on 2 sources, so is that the problem? On reflection, the "Quotes" section is a bit subjective (it basically comprises my favourite quotes in the book!) so should I just delete that? Anyway, any more specific guidance you could provide would be welcome. Regards Duncan R2
 * Hello, it's a whole lot better than most drafts, see if you can squeeze out a couple more citations, ping me here, and I'll re-review.  Dr Strauss   talk  17:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, DrStrauss - I've added a few references and will now resubmit. Hopefully it's good to go now. Duncan R2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncan R2 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Request on 16:51:39, 30 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Abhishekyadav246
Abhishekyadav246 (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh not again

Can you please an example of signifant coverage because in India there is nothing bigger then times of india covering a person and my article has all of that
 * your article contains two Times of India references. One is just about Khanna getting married which isn't WP:SIGCOV as it's not a critique of her career and the other is about her going swimming.  A "celebrity" going swimming confers no notability in an encyclopedia.   Dr Strauss   talk  17:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

17:39:24, 30 June 2017 review of submission by Abhishekyadav246
Can you please give examples from this page ((Smriti Khanna)) the significant coverages in this page just to give me some idea it would be a great learning for me
 * Hi, thanks for your message. That is the issue: the sources don't give significant coverage to Khanna.  Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.   Dr Strauss   talk  18:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Trouted
You have been trouted for: Your decline of the submission for creation of Draft:Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, on the grounds of "it is not adequately supported by reliable sources". This draft already has twice the number of citations for articles on comparable publications for the Canadian and UK governments, the Canada Gazette and the The London Gazette, although not quite as many as the US government's Federal Register. Once created, articles can always be improved. Bahudhara (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the whole idea of the draftspace is to improve articles as much as possible before going to the mainspace... Dr Strauss   talk  18:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

04:05:56, 1 July 2017 review of submission by Yujinkimang
Hi Dr Strauss,

Thank you for the review. I was wondering if you could possibly re-review my drafts because I think the sources that I used are pretty reliable. It includes Bloomberg and other media and if you google the company and owner, you will find a significant amount of information. Additionally, the contents are verifiable because there are from government documents. Could you please take a time to look at the sources again? Thank you very much for your time and consideration and I look forward to hearing your approval.

Best regards,

Yujin Kim

Wakayama Marina City
DrStrauss: When you reviewed the draft article, did you read the Draft:Talk page behind it? Oddjob84 (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Request on 12:46:13, 1 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by BeaglePower
The changes have been after reading comments by Dr Strauss. The title has been change from: Ranking Order of Acid and Base Strengths to: A Visual, Graphical Comparison of Lewis Acid and Base Strengths. Other changes have been made as suggested. BeaglePower (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'll look at it in a bit.  Dr Strauss   talk  18:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

AfC templating
I'm digging through userspace for abandoned drafts and pushing potentially useful ones forward into Draft and AfC so hopefully someone will improve them (maybe even me). If I move the page to Draft space for collaborative editing AFCH sees me as the creator and I get templated. Don't worry about templating me. I'm watching the pages and I just delete the templates. Just keep up the good work at AfC. Legacypac (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the explanation! Best,  Dr Strauss   talk  14:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

14:17:30, 1 July 2017 review of submission by Tlcfl
Hi,

I'm really getting confused. While i appreciate the reviews (even though they take 4-5 weeks for each turn...), i get a different point of view each time. The last reviewer just asked me to provide more credible sources which i did.

Would it be possible to take one paragraph of my submittal and edit it such that i can see more precisely what you mean my 'neutral" and "encyclopedic"? The guidelines say that the encyclopedic content must be verifiable--which they are. Do i have any references that are not encyclopedic?

Thanks in advance, Tim Tlcfl (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Editor wants to 'appeal' your AfC decision
I note that you deleted User:Oddjob84's request for an appeal of your AfC decline on Draft:Wakayama Marina City. They have since posted on the AfC help desk and left a lengthy diatribe on their sandbox. I think it would be wise to respond at the AfC help desk. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * JFC, I am a "he", not a "they". The information in my sandbox is not a diatribe, it is a rather well-reasoned response.  It is in my sandbox because I am still gathering information, rather than engaging in a discussion.  I have asked DrStrauss a question, and am awaiting a response.  I have asked NewYorkActuary a question, and am awaiting a response.  Are you simply a concerned bystander, or have you some other motive?  Oddjob84 (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologise, however please appreciate that I am in a catch-22 situation when it comes to unknown genders and it is safest to go with a neutral 'they'. Secondly, I watchlisted the help desk where you asked the question. I then noticed that DrStrauss deleted your earlier question so I have attempted to help by re-raising the question on your behalf. My 'motive' is to help AfC writers, part of the reason I have been reviewing drafts for a number of years now! jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * DrSTrauss did not delete my earlier question, it is five topics above. Further discussion noted, it's on the help desk page. Oddjob84 (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The page history shows it was later restored. I am reviewing your draft now. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Any further discussion on this will take place at the help desk as it's a central location. Dr Strauss   talk  20:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Early close of Elizabeth Grant (songwriter) RM
Is there any reason why you did not allow the discussion to go through the full 7-day listing period? f e  minist  02:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, you forgot to update the links to the article, which now point towards the disambiguation page. f e  minist  02:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It looks like it's back ... for now. Better do what you can while you can. — Myk Streja  ( who? ) 05:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

thanks for your message. I'm still getting the hang of RM, apologies. Dr Strauss  talk  07:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

07:36:12, 2 July 2017 review of submission by Obie Willis
Submission declined Draft:Ken Clark (filmmaker and artist) I would appreciate a bit more detail about the decision. ie Was it specifically to do with; inadequate references?, national notable achievemnts instead of international achievements? or something else. I ask because there are more New Zealand animators/filmmakers, international award winners and even Oscar nominated I would like to write articles about. My research about these New Zealand art practitioners has uncovered very few sources and references. This is more indicative of the media's coverage of arts achievement in New Zealand than a reflection of the quality.Obie Willis (talk) 07:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia biographies require independent, reliable references which give the topic in question significant coverage. This is especially important when the person is alive.  Clark may well be notable, but the sources just don't show that and I understand your frustration re media coverage but as it is one of our criteria for inclusion we can't overlook it.   Dr Strauss   talk  07:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Linda Zecher
Hi, you have recently declined Draft:Linda Zecher. Even though I haven't been reviewing AFC recently, I do think the draft looks fine and has enough references to assert the subject's notability. Perhaps the article sounded a little WP:WEASELy when you reviewed it, but with a few edits after your review I do think it is fairly neutral. Do you mind if I accept the article? Thanks! Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 12:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * not at all!  Dr Strauss   talk  16:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Sajin george
This page was blank, as the creating editor had blanked it. Rather than tagging it as Orphan and Dead End, it might have been better to nominate it for speedy deletion A3 (no content) even if you hadn't noticed that G7 (blanked by creator) applied! I see you did it using AWB - are you going too fast to notice special cases? Pam D  13:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, probably, I'll slow down, just a bit keen since my wikibreak expired! Creators usually find orphan and dead end tags helpful as it shows them how they can improve their articles but I'll probably hang fire in terms of the just-published ones.  Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk  17:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Advertising
Since you immediately removed the last thread, I will say again, Draft:Ask Apollo and Draft:Days for Girls International,  needed to be speedy deleted as G11, as it even had clear promo copypaste. Draft:Terence Tan is another case and the user should've been given a final warning about resubmitting advertising without changes. Still examining, I also found Draft:Pixhug and all three were within the past morning hours. Although I am not lenient on advertising, I am willing to allow the user some space to improve but only when they are either informed about our policies so they know, or when the promotionalism is simply beyond excessive, and this is covered by the WP:G11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs)
 * Hi, apologies for responding in numbered points but I'm tired...


 * 1) I did not remove our conversation, I archived it. "Removing" suggests the attempt to evade criticism.  It wasn't immediate either, you had more than enough time to respond.
 * 2) As I already said, draftspace articles aren't indexed by search engines and are very difficult to find by people who are not explicitly looking for them. This means that copyright violations matter less than in the mainspace.  Yes they should ideally be removed but declining them is the most important bit.  The drafts you're referencing are mainly WP:PROMO as far as I can tell as they've since been deleted but I recall declining them on "adv" grounds.
 * 3) Using ad hominems is something I try not to do but I must point out the irony of this situation. You were removed from the Articles for Creation helpers list for accepting drafts into the mainspace which had copyright violations in on several occasions.
 * 4) Please sign your comments with four tildes.
 * I really don't want to get into an argument and it's clear that you're following my contributions and while you're perfectly within your rights to do so I respectfully ask that you refrain from doing so. I don't mind criticism as long as it's constructive.  We all make mistakes from time to time.  You've made your points, drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.
 * Dr Strauss  talk  20:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I opened this thread because I was being open and honest with you about concerns and keeping advertising as is, is unacceptable. Mentioning anything else here is a clear attack and I ask that you remove it immediately or else this will eventually be taken to a community intervention thread, by anyone. Also I had not responded because my questions were not properly answered, thus I had nothing to add. If I'm following any contributions, it's because policy is that we remove advertisements so such an attack must be removed as there's no substantiated evidence. Therefore reviews cannot be reviewed like this. I asked twice now for a reasonable explanation as to how these could possibly be saved and why the user is not being consulted about our "No Advertising policies, with no answer. SwisterTwister   talk  20:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems to be starting to get out of hand, so here are my comments. First, it would certainly be good if DrStrauss would mark drafts that advertise with G11. Second, DrStrauss' comments about signing seem a bit snarky, but meh. Third, SwisterTwister's thought that "[m]entioning anything else here is a clear attack" is... confusing. Anyways, why don't we stop talking and just have DrStrauss say, ok I'll do it. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録  20:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * After thinking about it with some input on IRC, I think that G11 is best not to be applied to notable articles in AfC. I won't go into my reasoning for this, but I just want that to be clear now (although it doesn't mean that G11s should not be applied to articles at AfC). RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録  21:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * For the record, this is the previous question that was unanswered until archiving. As for RileyBugz's question, I was referring to the personal attacks, that are unrelated to the questions, above in the last 2 columns. I asked again to give you an opportunity to respond as I had previously and there's been enough time to not only remove the attacks but to also say something differently. SwisterTwister   talk  20:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh the fucking irony "I asked twice now for a reasonable explanation as to how... ...with no answer." coming from SwisterTwister. I've lost track of just how often editors and administrators have asked ST questions only to be completely ignored. I know several users are still awaiting responses from ST at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants, I've only been waiting since 13 June, so I'm towards the back of the queue. Nick (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Chill, please. No need to keep hounding DS. AfC is a place where inexperienced editors, regardless of intention often go in lieu of main space. And while I agree that both articles are rather promotional, they don't really warrant the deletion tag at AfC barring copyvio. However, DS DID decline due to promotional content, so what do you expect? Why do we even have the option of declining for adverts at AfC if the only option is supposedly to tag for G11, why not autotag like g12? (Here's a hint: we don't delete copyvios except for revdel if there's anything salvageable, why would this be any different?) In any case, I think you should probably rethink your hounding of . I'll also note that his removal of any conversations here is acknowledgement that he's read them, so chiding him for doing so is even more ridiculous and you should know better. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  20:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh for fucks sake, what personal attacks?! I mean, that comment about your record was snarky, but by no means a personal attack. Also, you can't remove his comments on his talk page unless they are a serious personal attack. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録  20:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Simply within the last morning, I looked and there's one with both promotional copypaste and clear advertising, making both G11 and G12 valid: Draft:Chef Sarah Stegner. The author clearly has a COI yet no comment was offered to them, either with the review or apart. Ensuring reviews are free of any advertising is not hounding at all, and especially when the authors are at least given an explanation of some sort. SwisterTwister   talk  22:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's a copyvio, why haven't you tagged it yet? CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  22:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Because DrStrauss is the one who reviewed it and, as linked above earlier, had ensured he was copy-vio checking each Draft, and after all, said "copyvio" would definintely be removed. Also, so he could see exactly what the page was and its copyvio, before deletion. SwisterTwister   talk  22:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you mind sharing the source for copyvio? CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  22:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs)

FWIW re: copyright
I voiced no opinion at the ANI thread, but did want to let you know that it is very common in new pages and AfC to have sentences/paragraphs lifted from a copyrighted source, that does not meet G12 criteria. I always double check the sourcing, but anything over 20% or more on Earwing deserves at a minimum a Ctrl+F search of the text to check if it was a copyvio with one or two words added that throw the search algorithm off. Anything that is lifted from a source without a a clear release into a compatible license and that isn't public domain by age/nature of the text should either be removed or rewritten and the offending revisions should be tagged for revision deletion using Template:Copyvio-revdel. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for the advice, I usually do Earwig it but I'll bear the threshold in mind. Regards,  Dr Strauss   talk  08:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * or, alternatively, if it would be suitable as a quotation, put in quotation marks and referenced. For a single sentence describing, for example, an organization's purpose, that can be the simplest solution. Many of the copyvios in some recent controversial accepted articles could have been dealt with that way. However, an article should not be composed from just quotations. Many of the copyvios in some recent controversial accepted articles could have been dealt with that way.  DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * none of my accepts have been brought into question though. Although clearly G11 criticisms only apply to me .  The long and the short of it is that I'm staying away from AfC until this ANI thread is closed.   Dr Strauss   talk  16:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I was just referring to the general situation.  DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Contest for speedy deletion
The article is so essential to us in Nigeria and it will be our pleasure to see it on this great encyclopedia. We shall make sure that it is being updated time to time.

Thanks. Dr. Strauss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibabanaija (talk • contribs) 13:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * the reason I reverted your edit was because page creators are not allowed to remove CSD notifications per WP:SPEEDY. You must click "contest this deletion" which I see you have now done.   Dr Strauss   talk  17:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit: I know the edit I made but I can't remember the article title, could you remind me so I don't have to scroll through my contribs? Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk  17:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note for record: user blocked per spam policy.  Dr Strauss   talk  19:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the National Center for Functional Glycomics page
Hello DrStrauss, I thank you for reviewing the page for the Draft:National Center for Functional Glycomics. It has been my first contribution so I am still learning what it takes to get a published page. I understand that more references are needed. Would references from journal articles such as those found in Google Scholar or PubMed make the NCFG page of greater significance to be published? Coolazxc (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, certainly. Anything that establishes notability is appreciated.  Please let me know if you have any other queries.   Dr Strauss   talk  16:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks I will update it sometime this week and inform you here to see if you can review it, if that is ok? Coolazxc (talk) 03:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * of course. Just drop me a line in this section and I'll take a look.   Dr Strauss   talk  08:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: I have added a few references on the page, and I have also put references 9-13 from journal articles to help show the notability. Note that these articles are in top quality journals, showing the significance of the work done at the center. The tools developed in these citations have been references a number of times by other researchers. Please let me know your thoughts and if you think these edits are sufficient then I will resubmit for review. Thanks.Coolazxc (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * looking good at first glance, reviewing now.  Dr Strauss   talk  19:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: I have accepted your draft. It is now an article in the mainspace.  Congratulations!   Dr Strauss   talk  19:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks DrStrauss. Coolazxc (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

08:33:43, 3 July 2017 review of submission by Duncan R2
Hello DrStrauss - just to let you know that, as you requested, I've added a few more references so hopefully this article is OK now. Sorry if you've got this message more than once but the protocol for notifying you seems to have changed over the last few days. Anyway, there's no rush from my side and I can see you're super-busy so I'll leave you in peace now. Duncan R2
 * Hi, thank you for your kind message, your politeness is appreciated. Yep, it's much improved and I've accepted the draft.  Congratulations on your successful article!  It can be found at Contarini Fleming.  Regards,  Dr Strauss   talk  08:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

16:28:01, 3 July 2017 review of submission by ComPol
Hi Dr. Strauss, I hope you are doing well. I just came across this page and found it very interesting, so I wanted to implement some of the recommendations you have made for it to get improved. I hope you like these few changes and will approve it or give some insights on how better improve it. Thank you very much for your time. ComPol (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm glad you found my advice useful. I see you have submitted it so either myself or another reviewer will come and have a look in due course.   Dr Strauss   talk  18:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your willingness to help me out on getting this article published correctly and more importantly, on improving its content so that it can be useful for others. I appreciate any assistance or guidance on getting this job done just like you have been doing so far. Again, thanks for your support Dr. Strauss and the quick reply.ComPol (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Discouraging AfC participants from posting here
Hello, Dr. Strauss. I am writing to urge you to reconsider the position you are expressing with that large banner at the top of this Talk page. The AfC templates that the participants see on their Drafts encourage them to contact reviewers at their Talk pages, and it is a bit off-putting for them to meet a large banner telling them (in effect) to "go away". There also are some practical difficulties with your approach. Believe it or not, some new editors don't know how to find the draft's Talk page. And even when they do, many more will not know how to "ping" someone. Other reviewers have addressed the volume of AfC messages in more constructive ways. It is always possible for you to respond on the draft's Talk page, leaving a "ping" for the draft's creator. Of course, this won't work for IP addresses but, even for them, there is the other option of answering the question via a new comment on the draft itself. Either one of these approaches will be far more user-friendly than the large banner that they meet when coming here. I hope you'll reconsider your approach. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've done that, I had notifications on my phone and was in a bad mood! I'll adopt one of those positions.  Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk  16:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)323
 * Thanks for the prompt response. I came here in the first place because a posting at the AfC Help Desk mentioned you, and I wanted to be sure that the poster wasn't asking the same question in two different places.  I see that they haven't.  If you wish, I can direct the AfC poster over to here for more explanation of the comment you left on their draft.  Or, if you prefer, you can address the question directly at the Help Desk.  Again, thanks for the prompt response.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * responded at AFCHELP. Thanks for the advice and heads up,  Dr Strauss   talk  17:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this post: that "Go Away" notice isn't particularly helpful or welcoming. Also, as far as I am aware (and, I would imagine, many others too), "ping" is a Windows command related to networking. I have no idea of its usage in relation to this massively multi-editor online encyclopedia. Anyway, in relation to your recent rejection of the draft AfC: "International Board Game Studies Association" I have posted comments in support of a second review on the article's Talk Page and invite you to have a look and, if necessary, post a response there. You may also notice I have added yet another reference, bringing the total up to eight. The accretion of references should satisfy the "notability" requirement (further edits by other will surely add still yet more references over time).

82.30.20.170 (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to leave the IBGSA review to another reviewer.  Dr Strauss   talk  18:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

17:13:26, 2 July 2017 review of submission by Nramesh
Dear DrStrauss I am not sure about why my article for Brodha V was declined. Could you please provide more detailed feedback? Thank you.
 * It seems the reason it was declined is because of formatting. First off, you should use section heads. You can make a section head using equal signs. So, if you wanted an early life section, you just do ==Early life== . Notice how I used two equal signs on each side. Never use one on each side. It seems that another problem is how you bold too many things. The only things that should be bolded are the real name and the stage name of the person. So, all those song titles should not be bolded. Hope that helps! RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録  17:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Dr.S, the reason you gave was Please see WP:MOS and clean up sectioning. it is not acceptable to decline an article because of formatting, unless it is so bad as to make the article unreadable, which is not at all the case here. I have reverted your review, but I am not reviewing it myself, because I cannot properly evaluate articles in the subject field.   Please re-read the instructions for AfC reviewing, []. I'd like an explanation of what provision there you thought this article violated., you might want to review that section also, and I'd like to know what you, too, thought it violated.
 * , please submit again. But first, please make sure that the material you submitted is not copiedfrom any prior publication. Sometimes that's the origin of formatting problems--and, as you know, copying material from another source is not acceptable.   DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * oops, I probably could have cleaned that up myself (per WP:SOFIXIT), thanks for the tip.  Dr Strauss   talk  08:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Question about declined page ...
Hi,

I'm seeking better understand and address the reason the following page was declined as an article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Chittoor_V._Ramamoorthy

It seems like there are many specific publications, awards and one of the largest bodies of scientific publications l seen listed (and in top science journals). What can be done to improve this article? It would be very time consuming to reference each article (they can be found in google scholar or found on a google search), but it can be done if that resolves the problem.

Just looking for some direction on what to do next.

Thank you, Rgnod (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC) (Username: RGNOD)
 * you're right, I meant to decline on the grounds of neutral point of view, I've now rectified that. You need to remove phrases like "looking to the future" because they're subjective and biased which is against our policies.   Dr Strauss   talk  11:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

approving the page of Jayathma Wickramanayake- UNSG envoy on youth
Dear DrStrauss,

I'm the campaign manager of the incoming UN secretary Generals Envoy on youth jayathma Wickramanayake. We noticed that her draft wiki page has been rejected by few people, last was you. I would like to request you kindly to publish the page as she is holds the most important youth development role in the world today as UN SG's envoy on youth. https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/personnel-appointments/2017-06-20/ms-jayathma-wickramanayake-sri-lanka-envoy-youth

All her work is widely cited and specially on UN data sheets.

Yours

Sanka — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sankachandima (talk • contribs) 10:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not going to approve the draft until it has enough independent, reliable sources that give Wickramanayake significant coverage are cited to verify what's said in the article and to establish notability. The tone of the draft needs fixing as it is not written neutrally, something which we require.  I've also created a userpage for you with a conflict of interest declaration per your message above.  Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk  11:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

12:35:09, 3 July 2017 review of submission by Devendra Kalkar
Hi DrStrauss,

Thank you for taking time out to review this article. Can you please provide a feedback on Draft:Arunava Chaudhuri. Also, can you please offer suggestions to get this article through the AFC process.

Thanks
 * Hi, we need more reliable sources that are independent of the subject and give him significant coverage. Currently, your draft has some of these but more are needed.  Find any sources which fit this description and cite them.   Dr Strauss   talk  12:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Move Land Securities to Landsec
Hi DrStrauss

Thank you for taking the time to review the change of name for Land Securities to Landsec. Could you provide me with some feedback on the decision not to move the page and perhaps suggest any changes that could be made to allow the move to go ahead?

Thanks

Mattbur (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, apologies, I should have accepted that one, I was looking at several discussions in tabs got two mixed up. I've moved it now.   Dr Strauss   talk  13:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks DrStrauss for moving the page, really appreciate it. Do you know when that change will be live?


 * Thanks


 * Mattbur (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * it's live now.  Dr Strauss   talk  14:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much!
 * Mattbur (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)