User talk:Kethrus/Archive/2016/March

VCAPS process page
Hello Kethrus, You mention that the article lacks a lead section. I could write one that links this page to the Adaptation to global warming page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation_to_global_warming Do you think that would be a good idea?Jellyfish343 (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I honestly have no idea what you're referring to. A link to the article you're talking about would he helpful. -- Kethrus &#124;talk to me 07:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, please visit to my talk page regarding to your message. I leave there a reply message for you. Tnx Mystywave18 (talk) 08:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've copied it over here so I can respond quicker, hope that's okay. -- Kethrus &#124;talk to me 08:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

== Re: AfC helpdesk response - Regarding this helpdesk question and this draft ==

Hi, In regards to your response, may I ask to you Kethrus if do so, give me some suggestions from you if what will be the correct & right sentence to the phrase " which is very common and popular by most good-looking & handsome men to do dubsmash"? How can I make construct of it??? Please make some more response what should be the right sentence? The explanation of it is, he is the most popular man who gain popularity in dubsmash in the Philippines especially the track "Twerk It Like Miley" among the other good-looking men. Tnx. --Mystywave18 (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Calling someone "good-looking and handsome" is not adhering to a neutral point of view, it's an opinion. -- Kethrus &#124;talk to me 08:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @Kethrus Kethrus I already fixed of it. sir. So I will re-submit of it to you. --Mystywave18 (talk) 08:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * From what I can see, the issue has not been fixed and is not ready for resubmission. -- Kethrus &#124;talk to me 08:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @Kethrus I've already fixed. Its been a while now I waited on this draft to be approved & I'm already fixed of it sir.. -Mystywave18 (talk) 09:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I can assure you, the issue is still not fixed. Please, read through the article again. -- Kethrus &#124;talk to me 09:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @Kethrus Tell me sir, in what part of the draft that I wanted to be fixed? I read it again & again my draft but for me there's nothing a problem of it. It's OK. Please, help me. I beg it for you. tnx. -Mystywave18 (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @Kethrus I am new one. So please give me some assistance of it. -Mystywave18 (talk) 09:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd much rather you read the article for words like 'handsome' and 'good-looking', instead of me pointing out every little detail that's wrong with it. I'm not here to edit for you, I'm here to help you. You'll not be able to learn how to speak neutrally if I just point out a sentence and you only change that sentence. Please also read WP:NPOV and WP:PEA. -- Kethrus &#124;talk to me 09:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @Kethrus Yes sir, I got your point. And Im already deleted the words on my draft 'handsome' & 'good-looking'. try to look again to my draft. tnx -Mystywave18 (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Please remember to indent your messages. I'll take a look at the article now, and I do believe calling him an "internet sensation" sounds like puffery. References are also needed on the Personal life section of the article, as there are no references there. Some of the sentences aren't really understandable either, and I would try to improve that as much as possible before submitting it for review, as I said before I'm not just going to point out all the errors to you (I'll point you in the right direction, but it's not my responsibility to point out every individual sentence), as you'll only fix them, which you have shown multiple times now. -- Kethrus &#124;talk to me 09:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @Kethrus It's already ok sir. I've already revised of it.- Mystywave18 (talk) 10:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @Kethrus I am sincerely apologize to you sir. Hope you will understand of it. But I want to THANK YOU for your assistance. I'm highly appreciated of it.- Mystywave18 (talk) 10:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to help, just make sure to read over the article and improve it as much as you can. Also, add as many independent, reliable sources as you can. As it's a WP:BLP they are very strict policies to prevent any incorrect information getting through, and everything must be verifiable. -- Kethrus &#124;talk to me 10:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @Kethrus I hope you sir at this moment you will approved my draft since I've already revised & according to your suggestions, I've already fixed of it. I hope you never feel dissapointed to me. I have in good faith & polite one. tnx. -Mystywave18 (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Another reviewer will check the article over, it might take a month, rarely more. -- Kethrus &#124;talk to me 08:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Submission declined, some of the secondary sources overlooked - Draft:Advanced Simulation Library

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello Kethrus,

8 days ago I was looking for advises for my first article submission on the Wikipedia IRC channel and talked to you. Thank you for all the remarks you provided.

One of the issues was too high number of primary sources (which I reduced since then). This caused you to overlook the secondary sources and you declined the submission on the grounds of lack of notability. Later we (together with another user - JA95) went through the references and established that several of them fulfill Wikipedia's requirement for independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject (here they are #: 2, 11, 13, 14; I also added #1 later). The rest of the references, probably do not fulfill all the requirements, but (together with Google/Bing/Wikipedia search) do provide some hints on the significance of the subject. Both of us had no more time back then and left the draft as it was. I have resubmitted the article but now I'm afraid that new reviewer might rely on your decision wrongly assuming that you checked all the sources and found them unfit. S/He will see that no new references have been added to the article and decline it again.

Maybe you would agree to resolve this situation in one of the following ways?
 * you will review my re-submission, since you know the background.
 * you will revert your decision and the new reviewer will start the process from scratch without any assumptions.
 * we will leave it as it is, just add a comment with a link to this talk page.
 * any other suggestions?

Thank you! SimulaModel (talk) 09:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Pinging . First of all, I'll not be reverting my decision. If it's notable, references from google/bing/etc must be added to the article to establish notability, we review articles based on what is placed within it. A good reviewer will never decline an article based on previous declines, they'll check over the whole article, and if they still agree with the previous decline - it'll be declined based on that (or another reason - whatever they see fit) or may be accepted. -- Kethrus &#124;talk to me 09:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , OK, let's hope the new reviewer will be a good one :) SimulaModel (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * A note has been left on the draft page. -- Kethrus &#124;talk to me 10:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thanks for review. Edited accordingly. - User:Abhiabhi94/sandbox
Hi,

The intention is to provide only that information which makes universl sense. Edited the article to stick to the facts. Let me know if you think I have missed the point. Thanks for reviewing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KritsVoice (talk • contribs) 12:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've re-reviewed the article, see my comment here. If you have any further questions feel free to contact me. -- Kethrus &#124;talk to me 14:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments. I will give it more time and gather more reliable sources before submitting again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.21.186.54 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi, I believe you're (so I've pinged that user). Please remember to sign your posts with   so I know who's contacted me. Thanks! --  Kethrus &#124;talk to me 08:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Article on Gerald Schwarz
Hello again. Can you tell me how one contacts the reviewer who left the tag: This biographical article needs additional citations for verification, as a more targeted directive is needed to address the issue. That is, I'm confused about what s/he is looking for, since all claims are linked to peer-reviewed journal articles and professional websites. Thanks, Margery — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.137.115 (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That doesn't appear to be needed, accepted the draft. Also, please remember to sign your comments with   --<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;">  Kethrus &#124;talk to me 13:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The tag was placed due to the fact all references are non-independent or his own work. We require citations from independent and reliable sources, especially for biographical information. This is not a grave matter, given he passes WP:PROF, but it would certainly improve the article's quality, hence the tag. I also advise you to be careful with what you add to the article at this point. I cleaned the article considerably before accepting it, and you seem to be trying to reinstate some of the stuff I removed (I'm assuming your username is KravitzSchwarz). If you're involved with the subject in any way (or you're indeed Schwarz) I suggest you request edits be made to the article, or otherwise place your suggestions on the article's talk page. Regards, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  15:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)