User talk:LaMona/Archives/2016/03

Request on 01:20:23, 1 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Prinshukr
Prinshukr (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear LaMona,

Now i fully understood the concept of external links and based on that i have removed unrelated links and placed there external links of press's website and blog. Thank you for eliminating most of doubts pertaining to creating an effective article. If any change is still needed i would be grateful and thankful to you if it can be done at your ends. So far i have utilized all the resources i personally able to collect it according to suggestions. If i come across further citations and contents in the due course of my research i will be keep on adding and modifying the article under the rules and regulations of wikipedia.

hoping for the draft to be moved into the article space.

best wishes 01:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Prinshukr (talk)

14:13:35, 1 March 2016 review of submission by GreyFoxBluegrass
Hello. I put the coordinator of the Grey Fox Bluegrass Festival's email as a contact because I thought you might need verification of information, and for use of photos (which I have been unable to attach to the draft). Please replace that email with my own if that will clear up the problem. I am jmocapitol@aol.com. Thank you. Sincerely, JMOGreyFoxBluegrass (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, JMO. We don't use email much here at WP, so that's not the issue -- the issue is that you seem to have confused the idea of a username with that of an article. The username is supposed to be YOU. You can edit any article on Wikipedia (and I hope you will contribute in that way) and your Wikipedia username represents you for all of those edits. You should not have a username that represents the festival -- that's the subject of the article. They are two different things. So you need to create a username for yourself, as a person. It can be anything you'd like, as long as it isn't the subject of the article. LaMona (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

10:53:37, 22 February 2016 review of submission by 158.169.40.9
Hello, the purpose is for the Competition to get is own wikipedia page in order to add correct category and not to mix with the violinist page. Is it possible to do so ?


 * I'm still uncertain on the inclusion of winners for various reasons. One is that they are often minors, and are not public figures, so including their names in such a visible source may not always be what they would choose for themselves. The lists are available on the competition's site, which seems more appropriate to me. Next, unless someone is committed to updating this every year from now to eternity, that list will soon become out of date. How will future winners feel if no one has updated the page? Will those who took second place be upset that their name isn't in Wikipedia? The same is the case for the list of jurors -- is that for every year? this year? how often will it change? Remember, this article will remain after you "finish" it. Think about what it should look like 5-10 years from now. I know that this article is very similar to ones for other competitions. I have some of the same reservations about those, and will probably start a discussion about naming minors here within the WP community. LaMona (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello LaMona, thank you for your comment, you're right I have removed the winner list from the page. There is a link anyway to the public site.

concerning Notability, I ve seen other reference than newspaper from Belgium. (From Turkish, US site etc ...) for example the competition has an article on the famous Strad Magazine from London, and theviolinchannel from US.

So maybe this competition is not known as the queen Elizabeth Competition, but there are a lot of similar competition in wikipedia and I don't see a lot of more notability for them. Here are some examples : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citt%C3%A0_di_Brescia_International_Violin_Competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Fritz_Kreisler_Competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Violin_Competition_Henri_Marteau https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Violin_Competition_of_Indianapolis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein_Competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leventritt_Competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Thibaud-Crespin_Competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mykola_Lysenko_International_Music_Competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nishinihon_International_Music_Competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prix_Henry_Vieuxtemps ... ...
 * Article on The Strad
 * theviolinchannel

and many others from this category : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Violin_competitions

Even if this competition began is 'young' notability, I think we can put the Grumiaux competition on the same level than the others ...

The page is already included into the Arthur Grumiaux page. but the problem is that we cannot tag it with Violin Competition category. As the page talk about the Violonist himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.40.10 (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * We have a saying here: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's both a good argument, and a bad one. Most of those competitions have the same problem as yours, so I'm trying to get opinions from other editors about them. They are also similar to some of the sports articles where the majority of the article is lists of competitions and winners. It seems to me that WP needs a policy about these. But in any case, there is still general notability that must be met. As an experiment, I have created a delete discussion for one: Articles_for_deletion/International_Fritz_Kreisler_Competition. This challenges other editors to prove that the article meets general notability and to "vote" their opinion as whether it should be kept. The votes have to be based on existing policies. Such a discussion often grabs the attention of someone who is able to find enough good sources to save the article. We'll see how it goes. LaMona (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Request on 18:25:17, 1 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Ryanholeywell
Can you provide more guidance? I would have thought that widespread news media coverage would have provided ample coverage of the Institute being notable. (Generally, news media only cover things considered notable).

Ryanholeywell (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ryanholeywell - the media coverage alone doesn't give the reader the information that is in that media. You have lots of good information in those sources that you don't bring into the article. For example:

“And then the third and really most ambitious program area is urban disparity and opportunity,” Fulton says. “The disparity program, we’re going to take a serious crack at documenting the disparity and inequality in the Houston region.”
 * from Houston Public Media: "The metropolitan governance program will explore ways to consolidate some services provided by the city, county and other governmental agencies in Greater Houston.
 * From Houston Chronicle: Perhaps most striking are the shifting attitudes on gay rights, with general acceptance coming in less than a generation. When Klineberg first asked the question in 1993, just 31 percent of Harris County residents said they supported same-sex couples having the right to marry. That number has risen steadily ever since and hit a record high in the new poll - 51 percent of those surveyed. And more people in Harris County than ever, 51 percent, believe same-sex couples should be able to adopt children. That's up from 17 percent in 1991, according to the Kinder Institute.
 * "Perhaps most striking are the shifting attitudes on gay rights, with general acceptance coming in less than a generation.


 * You have one paragraph on what the institute does, but much more on its funding, relation to Rice, etc. What is does is what is important. Show what the institute does first, then put funding at the bottom, because that's the least interest to most readers. Assume that the readers of the WP article will not also read the newspaper articles (and mostly they won't) - it's up to you to show them what the Institute has done because they will not discover it on their own. So a WP article is CONTENT that is verified with SOURCES, but sources alone won't do it. LaMona (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Request on 19:01:00, 1 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Ojonaso
Hello

In regards to the "Start Making Sense" page I'm trying to post, and your recent feedback:

The Wikipedia page "Help: referencing for beginners" says the purpose of referencing is "to verify content and inform the reader of its source." That's exactly what we have done here.

Other Wikipedia entries on podcasts do not cite articles about the podcast and its impact, written by neutral third parties-- for example, "The Majority Report" has won the "best political podcast" award several years in a row https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podcast_Awards#Categories_and_winners and their Wikipedia entry has almost no citations of any kind, much less reviews written by neutral third parties: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Majority_Report

Is there some aspect to interpreting what it means to verify content and inform the reader of its source that I'm missing, or might vary from reviewer to reviewer?

Thank you for your assistance.

Ojonaso (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Ojonaso (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Regardless of what other articles exist in WP (because anyone can create articles here), the basic rules for articles require sources written by third parties. That is not orthogonal to "to verify content and inform the reader of its source." but contiguous with it. Linking to the listing of the podcasts online is like linking to a name in the phone book - it doesn't prove anything except that it exists. You have to show that the podcast is considered notable enough that others have written about it. Also, if you insist on a list of shows, you should make it a list with embedded links - those links should not be used as references. References are reserved for sources ABOUT the subject of the article. LaMona (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

07:26:55, 28 February 2016 review of submission by DmitryPopovRU
Hello LaMona. For this draft I will keep on improving it. I have since added a new source from the Huffington Post. See. Thanks! I will resubmit if more sources come about later on. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 07:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, DmitryPopovRU. The problem is not just adding more sources. First, you have a lot of sources that all say the same thing. For any one statement of fact you should have only one source. You should select the best source and delete the others. Piling on sources is called wp:REFSPAM. But it's not clear that you can do anything to the article that will make a difference -- it's the reality, not the article, that is lacking. This person is known for one thing, and that is that he found his birth parents. Other adoptees also sometimes find their birth parents. The difference is that he seems quite adept at person promotion and has turned this into a career of sorts. That doesn't however make his story notable. Getting attention is not inherently notable. It's still just a simple story. Now, if in the future his non-profit develops into something important, then he might be notable, and this story will just be a footnote. LaMona (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok thank you. I will keep improving it however. Things may change! --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC) UPDATE. Hello LaMonda. I have fixed this and updated. I have left you a note. Thanks! --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Request on 23:04:54, 1 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by WoodyMutt
LaMona,

Thanks for reviewing my article. Part of why I would like to add this page is because it is a significant example of the architect's work, but also because it has 15 other pages which reference the same building. And while it would be possible to add to this article by referencing those pages, I can't help but think it would make more sense to instead create this page and edit those pages, linking them to it.

I understand that this isn't the largest or most comprehensive article on Wikipedia, but it is more substantial and has more outside references than several other buildings by the same architect. And I genuinely believe that others will help it grow if only somebody takes the time to create the initial article.

WoodyMutt (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, WoodyMutt. The problem is that none of your references speaks to the architecture of the building. You have directory entries (Emporis, SkyScraper, and ChicArch) that do nothing more than give the name of the hotel and its address. Then you have their own blog and factsheet, which aren't reliable sources because it's the company talking about itself. Then you have: fire issues, parking fees, and a piece of art. Nothing here about the architectural significance. If you can find sources that speak to that, then the article would make sense. As it is, it's just a hotel with nothing special about it. LaMona (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: "Who What Who What" submission
I figured that it would be notable since it was included in a feature-length film. Hard part about writing about this band being in Canada is that, you know for a fact that works like these are notable, it's just difficult to *prove*, haha I'm pretty sure the single did in fact chart, just gotta find a source for that. General809 (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Right, notability is all about sources - third-party sources, reliable, and substantially about the topic. Finding the chart would help, but you'll still also need reviews or other articles about it. LaMona (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

RE: Draft, SkySync
Hello LaMona

Thank you for reviewing the draft of the SkySync and providing feedback on the sources. I am a little confused however as to why I seem to be having so much trouble providing sources that prove notability when there are pages that have passed the Wiki approval process with far fewer reliable sources (i.e. Tervela[]).

I'm curious as to how the conclusion was reached that Concentrate Ann Arbor is not an independent source. Here is an excerpt from parent company IMG's business partnership underwriting policy: "IMG honors truthfulness and strives to avoid conflicts of interest in our reporting. This includes real conflicts and acts that may appear to be a conflict. To this end, we opt to disclose any relationships with underwriters that could be perceived as complicating our journalistic mission."

Additionally, you say that Baseline Mag is "minimal at best." Are you referring to the coverage provided? While the name 'SkySync' may not be used frequently within the article, it is apparent that the company profiled, Shawmut, was able to achieve the success they were profiled about due to the product. An excerpt: ''After installing SkySync in April 2014, project management moved into the digital age. The system makes it possible to push out changes to employees and subcontractors in the field, who may be using a mobile device, such as smartphone or tablet.''

''Lombardi reports that the three project managers are now able to devote their time and energy to more strategic tasks. "They essentially went from spending about 40 hours a week keeping everything running to only a couple of minutes per week," he says.''

Any insight you can give as to why there is such a discrepancy between requirements for this article vs. some approved articles for similar products in the software space would be helpful. As you can see from my many submissions, I have been trying very hard to get this in-line with Wikipedia's requirements. I truly appreciate your time in reviewing articles for creation on wikipedia.

Krystalelliott (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. First, don't compare what you are doing to articles already in WP - many articles do not go through the review process, many are older before guidelines were set (Tervela is from 2011), and hundreds are deleted daily for not meeting criteria. Note also that since WP has become a major aspect of SEO for companies, we now have every company wanting an article so they will be on the first page of Google. However, being an SEO boost is not what WP is about. There is some indication that you care about that because you compare your article to another company that might be a rival. If your interest were encyclopedic information, you wouldn't care about that. Now for details. The problem with Concentrate Ann Arbor is that is reports only on local business. To be notable a business must have broader attention, preferably national, but at least regional. Most of the references are for the cloud "niche" and the sources are far from being major tech sources. As for the others, like InfoWeek, articles must be "substantially about the subject" and there must be multiple sources to show notability. BTW, I have now marked the Tervela article and it may move on the path toward deletion. LaMona (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response LaMona, I do appreciate the feedback. I have just been examining similar articles in the software space to model the SkySync page after and was confused on some of the differences I have seen so it's good to have that cleared up. I will incorporate your feedback, and continue researching for more substantial, national resources on the subject before resubmitting. Thank you again for your time and for doing your part to keep Wiki clean, reliable and informative.

Krystalelliott (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Arnon Mantver draft
Hi LaMona, I updated the article of Arnon Mantver following all your suggestions. I removed all unrefferenced data, and removed all pictures and just left a picture I took myself. Please advice me if you think there are more issues that need to be updated. Best regards. EyalEyal123456 (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, is there any aditional change I need to do? Or it is ok now? Eyal80.246.139.151 (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Request on 08:12:49, 3 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by InstanT001
Hi Mona! Can you please help me with referencing? You elaborate comments will help me in knowing what's wrong with the reference or the style of writing.

InstanT001 (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your references are formatted correctly, they just do not meet corporate notability. You can ask for help at the TeaHouse or chat, but the bottom line is that if the references do not exist, there isn't much you can do because the company isn't notable. Also, you have ignored the request to respond about conflict of interest, and you must deal with that. LaMona (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Ricardo Karam
I'm about to move Draft:Ricardo Karam to main:space as IMO this article is good enough for Wikipedia. The guy is notable and although the current author/draft may have some errors it is on balance fine. If it had been typed directly into main space then it would not have had significant problems. I see that there are some points that could be improved, but what stops it from being moved to main space? Why are we not encouraging this author to do more? Thanks for your work. Victuallers (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, it looks like the editor did as advised -- previously, all links went to the subject's web site, even though they were for third-party sources. That fixed, it now looks much better. LaMona (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Zillya!
Hello.

I got the message: "I think it may be time for you to take a break. There are no sources here that would show notability - being in partnerships and participating in testing (where the product did well, but was in the third tier of "well") is not enough for notability. And that's all that there is. Maybe in the future there will be more." Despite the fact that Zillya! is a young company, and not so famous on the international market, but famous in Ukraine. Could you please tell me a few examples what exactly sources will confirm our notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwinZillyaOEM (talk • contribs) 14:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I can't do that because I do not know what sources exist in the Ukraine. But generally notable sources are articles about the company - look at some other companies' articles and you will see. (e.g. Avast_Software) Also, if it is famous in the Ukraine but not in a way that it is famous internationally, it may be more suitable to another Wikipedia, not @en Wikipedia. Other Wikipedia's may have different criteria for notability, and the company may meet those. We do not guarantee that every company will find a place here. LaMona (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

15:08:59, 3 March 2016 review of submission by Proposal Planning
Hi there

Would it be possible to highlight to us what sounds like advertising on our page? Thank you
 * Pretty much the whole thing. Such as: "Founder and CEO Daisy Amodio has always been a very romantic person with attention to the finest detail. So it was no surprise when her brother asked for help popping the question to his girlfriend in 2011." "They then proceeded to help him light all the candles and offered to take pictures of the moment from behind a tree. So they did, he proposed, they have pictures that will last forever," WP is an encyclopedia of established facts. Facts. Not heart-warming stories that would make one use a company's services. Please read (many) WP articles to get a sense of the content and tone that is the style here. LaMona (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

01:28:19, 4 March 2016 review of submission by Ballantinesrose
Hi LaMona, thank you for your prompt review and response. Before I proceed, I would love your guidance about -re editing this draft so I can give it the right voice and make it neutral and informative.

First, I am not clear about what it means to clean up the extraneous citations? Are those the references at the bottom? I see that there is a list of citations and a list of references but I am unsure if that is what you mean.

So if I understand correctly, the sources the are preferable out of the ones I've used are Huffington Post, NY Daily News, Dallas Voice and the Guardian? Rather than out.com or Blue Osa or Yogi Times?

I understand Wikipedia itself (namely the naked yoga page where Aaron Star is mentioned) wouldn't count as a particularly reliable source?

What I was thinking of doing is removing some of the information coming from more niche yoga/ entertainment websites and focusing more on the reliable sources I mentioned above.

Do you think that would work?

Thanks so much!

Ballantinesrose (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. There is no such thing as "citations vs references" -- all sources must be cited in the article, and those are then gathered by the WP display program at the bottom of the article as references. You should not have "references" that are not linked to the text of the article. The way that a WP article should be written is that first you find reliable sources that talk about the subject. You gather the information in those sources and use that to create an article. It's a research project, much like writing a paper for a class. If you start with only the reliable sources (yes, known newspapers; HuffPost depends on the kind of article and the author) then your article topic is likely to be considered notable, and you are less likely to write a promotional article. So you might try that technique and see where it gets you. If you haven't done so already, read Your_first_article. It has a lot of helpful advice. LaMona (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Request on 02:06:55, 3 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Js112456
Clarification on references for the Acorn TV article

Thank you very much for taking the time to review the article. I was hoping for clarification on your remark regarding sources for individual shows. All of the linked articles were offered as supporting documentation for the fact that these programs were offered by Acorn TV in the US. Each article mentioned the service in the context of the show. I'm happy to remove them, just wasn't sure if pulling them and leaving the Premieres section would result in the article being flagged. Thank you again! Js112456 (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Js112456 (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for bringing that up because I took a quick look (we've got over 500 articles in the queue!) and missed that. It still seems overly list-y to me, and not at all interesting reading. One solution would be to select a few, turn them into a paragraph, and include the links. For services (think iTunes or NetFlix) we don't want a full list of their offerings - because WP is not a directory, but also because it will change frequently. If you want, include in the external links a link to the browse page on the site. As it is, it would be nice if the article "explained" more. It seems like a choppy list of statements, and that adds to the sense that it's mainly an ad. What's encyclopedic about this? What makes it more than just a product? LaMona (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this valuable feedback! I have updated with your suggested fixes, added some additional explanation/history, and tried to make the whole article flow better. Js112456 (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've done some editing, but there's much that seems under explained. I added an explanation of the Agatha Christie Limited - there would be no reason for your readers to know that was the licensing agency for AC. I have no idea what this means: "Acorn TV launched as an extension of the Acorn brand’s direct-to-consumer catalog and e-commerce site in 2011". What was that extension? Also, is there an actual definition of a "niche provider" in this market? Can anyone call themselves niche, or does it have specific meaning? Try to find a friend who knows nothing of your business and have them read the article for clarity - it is written kind of like from one insider for another, but your readers may know nothing of this business. (Like me). LaMona (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

00:08:23, 5 March 2016 review of submission by Buddroyce
Hi! First, thanks for reviewing the draft in the first place. I really do appreciate it. I'm asking for a re-review of the entry as I've fixed the entry so it better reflects the notability of the company. As someone who's in the entertainment business dealing with artist contracts and other legal mumbo-jumbo, the deadmau5 vs Play Records lawsuit that began in Oct 2015 is actually something of interest as it involves something we as business owners all dread, which is getting sued. What makes this case and Play Records notable as a company is that it's an example of Moral Rights being exercised in Canadian copyright law which is something that very rarely ever happens and there are very few recorded cases. This is honestly the first ever case I've seen/heard of involving a company getting sued over remixing music that they own the rights to. Buddroyce (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Buddroyce. The main thing about the article is that you have very few third-party, reliable sources. Let me go through them with/for you: The first four are directly related to the subject of the article - its own site, or sites of partner companies. Those cannot be used to confer notability. #5 is not a source with a "reputation for fact-checking" or "clear editorial policy." So it doesn't contribute much to notability. #6 is the listing of the award, but it does not say anything about Play Records, not even a name check there. So in terms of information, it's very skimpy. #7 is an okay source. #8 is the best source you've got. Both #7 and #8 are about the lawsuit, which is related to the company but is not its main business, so although it is interesting, it doesn't necessarily make the company notable. (There are lengthy policies about how lawsuits count in WP - I believe you can find some at wp:corp.) #9, the Canadian law, isn't about the company at all, and probably doesn't belong in the article. #10 again is the company's own site. So you have two good references, but about a side issue relating to the company. It may be an important issue, but it doesn't make the company notable. Some lawsuits are notable on their own (cf Roe v Wade in the US), but in general being involved in a lawsuit is not an act of notability. I don't see anything about the resolution of the case, but it's recent so it hasn't become a legal precedent. (That you help with notability of the case, but not the company) You need some strong articles about the company, and preferably in the national press. LaMona (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Hi LaMona. Someone has removed references below the automatically generated Reflist! Could you please correct any other mistakes for me?

Jenny Patranella (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC) 


 * I may have removed them, but those were the only big formatting errors I saw. In general, an article will not be held back for formatting problems -- the reason that citations matter is that we need those to understand if the subject is notable. I added my voice against the deletion for copyright reasons. I'll see if I can go back and removed that "threat." (I've never done that before - there's always something new to learn here.) LaMona (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Mike "Greeny" Green
I would suggest asking at the miscellany for deletion talk page what the proper procedure is for a second MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. will do. LaMona (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Opening a second MfD
Hi. I saw your attempt to reopen a MfD. That's not the right way to do it. The instructions for doing so are at Miscellany for deletion. If you open up the instructions box, you'll see it mentions how to make a second or subsequent nomination. Please do ask me if you need help with this. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I looked it up and worked it out. I think it's ok now. Something to learn every day. Appreciate that you respond. LaMona (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Almost - I fixed it for you. These things can be confusing. The correct code was . Cordless Larry (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've also fixed the discussion page and completed the third step of the instructions for you. If you use the code I posted above correctly, the resulting template includes the code you need to use in steps two and three - you can then just copy and paste that. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! Forgot third step. (Note to self: read the instructions!) LaMona (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Advice
Hi LaMona, I was wondering if you could give me some advice on creating an article. I am a student and I wanted to make a wikipedia page for the brand I am studying, Allumer Jewellery. I have submitted twice and been declined both times with the feedback being not enough sources which I understand. Could you please let me know which types of sources I would need to use to make my article more credible. The company is not a huge brand so there are limited sources from Google. Would references from Vogue and Professional Jeweller (online publications) be considered as good sources to use, and do you have any advice as this is my first time trying to create a wikipedia page and it is proving to be quite difficult. Thank you Elvislondon (talk) 18:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, Elvislondon. Have you edited Wikipedia articles before? If not, starting out trying to create a new article is the absolutely hardest thing you can do here. There are a lot of rules (actually, guidelines, but they often function as rules) and a very deep culture here at Wikipedia. It takes some time to get into the swing of things, and the best way to learn is to edit existing articles, not start a new one. If the company you have in mind is "not a huge brand" it is quite possible that it does not meet the criteria for notability, and therefore there is nothing you can do that will fix that. Many companies do not meet the criteria we use. The other problem is that companies have found that having a Wikipedia article increases their visibility on the web, so there are many people wanting to use Wikipedia to promote their company or product. We do not allow that - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the yellow pages. Therefore we try to be very strict when dealing with articles about commercial entities, making creating those even harder. I advise you to find a different project, one where there are existing articles and that are not commercial in nature. There are a lot of articles on science, history, etc., that need improving. You can find articles that need work by clicking on the Community portal link on the left-hand side of the page. LaMona (talk) 18:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, LaMona. thank you for getting back to me. I appreciate your advice and I will definitely take in mind to edit existing articles so I can get the hang of things. I was wondering however, there is a competitor of the brand I am studying that has a wikipedia page that I was looking at for inspiration. The brand is Monica Vinader Ltd, the page has 'multiple issues' but it is still available to look at. The page is not too far from what I had created for Allumer in terms of content and references so I was just curious as to find out what the differences were that meant my page was deleted. Thank you for your help Elvislondon (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Advice please
Dear La Mona

You were very helpful with my article on Joseph Swensen (conductor and violinist). It's still in the queue for acceptance. My question just now relates to another article which I've just begun editing. Eddie McGuire is a prolific and hugely important Scottish composer but his page is sadly lacking in any kind of verification etc. I've begun working on the opening but I intend doing more with it.

What I would like to know is what to do about the list of compositions on his page. This is clearly a copy and paste from http://www.worldlibrary.org/articles/edward_mcguire_(composer). Should I leave this as it is or should I select from http://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n80-143739/ ( a secret you let me in on!)?

Many thanks. Your advice will be much appreciated. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Balquhidder2013. glad you like the WorldCat info. In general, we try to avoid full lists of things - they aren't very interesting reading and a mere list of titles doesn't really tell the reader much. It is better to pick a few that have something written about them and then include a link (in External links) to the full list. Note that the lists in WorldCat tend to be in order with the most frequently held first, so that gives you a clue for picking out which might be considered the most important. If you are stuck getting better references, I suggest going to (or checking online) a local library, since there might be info in music reference books that you cannot find online. LaMona (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

La Mona. Many thanks indeed. I'll see what I can do. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Request on 16:22:02, 7 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by JaneB0318
LaMona, You recently reviewed the entry for Marie Force. We are baffled by your comments about the New York Times list and wonder if you are aware of what it actually takes to make the list—usually in the range of 15,000 sales in one week. The fact that the author currently has a different book on sale for free has absolutely no bearing on the singular accomplishment of making the list not just once but 21 separate times. We’d recommend you look into the competitive nature of the New York Times list before you discount an author’s achievement the way that you have in these comments. JaneB0318 (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Cheryl

JaneB0318 (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The bestseller lists are known for being hackable, so although we don't ignore them here, we don't take them as an absolute truth. See this, this, and there is more. With hard copy books it is more difficult to have an affect on the list, but with ebooks it is easier. All downloads at Amazon count as "sales" even when the price is zero, and one obviously should not compare a product "sold" at $0 to one sold for $14.95. This is just good sense, and I don't mind pointing it out. Also note that you must provide verifiable citations for all statements like "21 times". More verifiability = more notability here on Wikipedia. LaMona (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

LaMona: That is absolutely FALSE. You cannot make the NYT list with a free book.I think you need to research this before you make inaccurate and potentially damaging statements.

Regarding the bestsellers lists, if I provide the links to the NYT and USA Today lists to each and every bestseller, would that make it more verifiable? I thought in an earlier review you advised against lists. I have them and would be happy to send or post them.JaneB0318 (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Cheryl


 * The way WP works, you should have a reliable source that verifies the statement about bestsellers. If you do not, then the statement may be removed from the article as unsourced. Note also that WP notability is not based on popularity. A person or product can be very popular but not meet WP's notability criteria. For authors, notability is generally based on reviews in sources known in the area of criticism (as in literary criticism). So it matters more to have a book review in the NYT than to be on the bestseller list. WP is looking for culturally important creatives. The criteria are here: Notability_(people). Note that it says nothing about sales figures (which is what a bestseller list is), but it does say "(c) has won significant critical attention,". That's what you should be aiming at in the article. LaMona (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

22:59:19, 7 March 2016 review of submission by Holowiki
Hello!

Thank you for reviewing the page! I took out the photos and have an article about him being Boy of the Year, however, it is a paid subscription as a source. Will I be able to use that as a source? Also, for his early life biography, do I have to source everything? I have sources for his Boy of the Year and him graduating from San Francisco State from interviews he has done in the past. Please let me know if that works, I will fix ASAP. With the exception of the early bio and taking out the additional photos, does everything else look ok since it is sourced?


 * Hi, User:Holowiki. First, here on talk pages you have to sign your posts by putting four tilde's in a row at the end. There's a reminder just below the edit box. The system then substitutes your "signature" there. It's ok to use sources that are behind paywalls. However, again, you should only include information that is key to his notability, and a youthful "Boy of the Year" probably doesn't make a difference. Yes, you have to source everything in the biography - it all has to have come from a published source. Anything that doesn't come from a published source (that you kind of know by magic, as it were) has to be removed. We aren't allowed to say anything here that cannot be verified.


 * As for the rest, you do have to be careful of your wording. WP articles must be written factually and with a formal tone. A statement like "As a result of this epiphany" cannot stay in the article. The article also cannot be seen as promotional. If it is, it may be deleted as violating WP's rules. LaMona (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

16:42:58, 8 March 2016 review of submission by Genauein
Hi LaMona, Thank you for your time and review of this submission. I have gone back into the file, and added additional citations for all requested material. Please let me know if any additional edits are needed.

Thanks!


 * Hi User:Genauein. Here in talk space you have to sign your messages using four tilde's in a row. That puts your username at the end of the message. There's a reminder at the bottom of the edit box. OK, to the article. You unfortunately cannot use her own web site as a reference for the awards. References must be independent of the subject of the article, and you have used her web site a number of times. It's ok to use it for things like date of birth or maybe what school she went to, but for the awards we need an official and reliable source. So for those it's better to leave off the reference, and perhaps you will find one in the future. This doesn't guarantee that the article will be accepted, however. You have the disadvantage that most of these awards are at the student level (from what I can see with a quick look), which means that she is just starting her career. While she may be "up and coming", WP articles are limited to those who have already "up and come." This is one of the big differences between an encyclopedia and, say, a newspaper. WP takes a longer view. You can resubmit, and you can also come back to the article later. Articles are kept for at least 6 months after the last edit, and you will get a notice at that time if the automated system is marking it for deletion. You just need to make a small edit to keep it around. LaMona (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

17:21:19, 8 March 2016 review of submission by Genauein
Hi LaMona,

Thank you for your message. I have made several edits based on your recommendation. Many of her awards listed are prestigious young artist awards, and the Chicago Tribune link with the feature article is linked in the beginning. I found additional sources, and included the links to the artists official website, which provides additional verifiable details. Please let me know what other edits may be needed. Thank you. Genauein (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, great, you signed your message! Thanks. (Quick learner, obviously) I think you should resubmit the article at this point, and let's see what kind of response you get. LaMona (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Opera Bohemia
La Mona. I can't believe it's been accepted first time. Many thanks indeed. I still have heard nothing further about my Joseph Swensen article. It's been quite a while so I hope it's OK. You said it was, so here's hoping. It hasn't been lost, has it? I'm working on the Eddie McGuire (composer) article which I asked you about yesterday. I'll do some more tomorrow but I haven't yet deleted the long list of compositions - I'm rather nervous about that and I haven't yet replaced them with another list. I won't be able to search libraries for reviews for a while. Our local one is closed for renovation but I hope to visit the Edinburgh Music Library at some point. I'm truly grateful for all your help. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've starred the Opera bohemia article to see if anyone objects to it in main space. It goes through a "new article" queue there, and sometimes issues come up. If you want to keep an eye on it, make sure that the star on the article is blue. ( I didn't realize it was your article, so I approved it "anonymously". Also, it sounds like a wonderful group; wish I weren't half a world away. [California]). LaMona (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

La Mona. Now you've lost me! I can't see a blue star anywhere! All this is so new to me. As for Opera Bohemia they are super. I've been to three of their operas and look forward to seeing more. The productions are so much more intimate than those in huge theatres with full-blown 'everything'. But yes, I enjoy those too - most recently a Handel opera, Ariodante, by Scottish Opera (whose wiki entry by the way is pretty poor!) California surely has some good productions? Perhaps you would guide me to the 'star'. Thanks again Balquhidder2013 (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * At the top of the article in the middle there are tabs: Read, View Source, View History... and to the right of that there's a star. If it isn't blue, click on it and it turns blue. Then, you need to click on "Watchlist" from time to time, and if there are any changes to the article you'll see it in your watchlist. A way to test this is to put your own page on your watchlist (by turning star blue), make a change, then click on Watchlist and you should see it listed there. LaMona (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

La Mona. Thank you. Yes, I must be a bit of a 'numptie'.Balquhidder2013 (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Review of Simon Letch
Thanks for your review. However, I am not clear on your reasons for rejection. Mr. Letch has been named as one of the year's best illustrators 4 times by the National Museum of Australia. The Hawkesbury City Council has also listed Mr. Letch as one of Australia's 14 most acclaimed illustrators. The .M Contemporary also awarded Mr. Letch the People's Choice Award. These certainly make him notable.

In addition, there are a number of articles about other illustrators which have 0 citations. I'm not clear on why these articles are okay, but the proposed article about Mr. Letch is not okay. These illustrators steve adams, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Adams_(illustrator), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Akerbladh, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lai_Ann and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Arnold_(author_%26_artist) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Eekman all have 0 citations indicating any notability.

Please let me know.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialresearch (talk • contribs) 04:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * First, on talk pages you have to sign your posts by putting four tilde's in a row at the end. There's a reminder just below the edit box. Now, as for the article. My initial reaction was that there was very little text in the article, which is too bad. The point of a wikipedia article is not to prove that someone can have an article but to provide information. It should be possible to say some interesting things about the artist. The question of references, though, is not just having some number of them but having the right ones. References must be third-party - that means that what you must use as a reference is not his own work but what people have said about his work. References 4-11 are links to his work, not articles about him and his work. So those are not appropriate references. You can, if you wish, link to some of those in a section called "External links". Being listed in "the year's best cartoons" is good, but those references say only a few words about him ("Simon Letch has worked at Fairfax for more than 10 years."). Even the Sydney morning Herald has only a few sentences about him. So he's clearly well thought of, but you need to provide articles that are ABOUT him, such as biographical essays or significant reviews of his work. As for the other illustrators, remember that anyone can create a WP article, and anyone can add to the article, but also anyone can suggest that an article does not meet necessary criteria and should be deleted. Hundreds of articles are deleted daily. I will now mark those articles as not meeting the referencing criteria. and they may go on the path to deletion if no one comes along and adds the necessary references. Having looked at a few, some date from the early days of Wikipedia before these requirements were put into place. There is constant cleanup going one. In fact, if you would be so kind as to do some research to add to those articles, that would be very much in the spirit of the encyclopedia. LaMona (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse invitation and Draft:Vienna Institute of Demography
Hi LaMona, is this the right way to respond? (or should I reply at my own talk page, to your message?) I have been around WP quite long in fact but mostly I'm just editing and correcting minor quirks. I posted my request for assistance at the Teahouse which I didn't know of (thanks, interesting place!). And I also hunted up a load of sources, though many of them are from "the community", see my comments at the Teahouse query. Still, I hope it's better now. Anyway, thanks for the nice way of declining --WernR (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, WernR. I can see that you have been adding sources. You need to pay attention to the rules at wp:rs - only some sources are considered suitable. Things like links and directory listings are not among those. Also note that it's not only getting a certain number of sources but being sure that all information in the article can be verified in at least one source. So you can't say anything in the article that doesn't come from an outside source. If you are writing the article from your own knowledge, then that's a problem - articles should be written from published sources. Kind of like writing a school paper. LaMona (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, I put in a number of new sources to the article now, what do you think? --WernR (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is better. I did some formatting and wording changes (mostly minor). Remember that WP articles will last indefinitely, so there is no "currently". Personally, I would like to see more about the work of the institute than about the history. But you should send it back for review and see if anyone else has suggestions. LaMona (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the hints, I see what you mean about time-referencedness. As for VID's work, this would be covered much more extensively by "independent sources" (like newspaper articles), but wouldn't it be out of scope for a general article about an institution to cite individual research contributions? Although there are some that are quite well-received among academic peers, and others even in more popular media (because the results are on the spectacular side). I wouldn't really know where to reference something like that though—with the specific research fields maybe?
 * As for "sending it back for review", I thought I already did so by rewriting and amending the draft, or do I have to push a particular button to actually submit the article anew? And: yes, there will be a logo shortly --WernR (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is back for review, so you did that right. As for covering the work, if the institute itself isn't credited with the work then it is going to be hard to have references about it. Let's just see how it goes with the review. LaMona (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I won't change anything for the time being (except for an incorrect italics command), but of course one could stick one or more citations of articles in major journals and/or conference calls naming one or more researchers, and their affiliation would be VID, so does this help? --WernR (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You can continue to edit it, especially if you find more references, since those are key. LaMona (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Joseph Swensen
La Mona. I'm sorry to bother you again. I'm concerned about my article Joseph Swensen. You were happy with the final version and I resubmitted it. That's now over two weeks ago - days before my Opera Bohemia submission. Is there something the matter do you know? Could it have been lost? Balquhidder2013 (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No, it just hasn't gotten noticed in the queue. I don't know why. I'll look for it. The queue is not taken in order but articles are thrown at as "randomly" and perhaps the algorithm is flawed. LaMona (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

La Mona. How do I thank you? Strawberries or kittens? Seriously I'm most grateful. I'm still working on Eddie McGuire's (composer) site. It's not easy but I'll get there. He's a very important but unassuming composer. I don't know him personally, by the way - just know of him and his music and what others think of him. I've only one grievance in relation to Wiki (and I really do find it upsetting) and that is in connection with my first article on Feargus Hetherington. If you would look at it and what has been placed on 'Talk' selection relating to my struggle before I submitted it you will see what I mean. I did receive a lot of help as the whole thing was so baffling at the beginning. I regret and resent this insertion - it's like a carbuncle - very much as it reflects badly on the subject - and not on my inadequacies. I also feel it's most unfair to have pre-submission dialogue posted here. There was no warning that that might be the case. I've tried to have it removed and only got my 'head bitten off' so to speak. Sorry to bother you but I don't know what else I can do. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Balquhidder2013. I looked quickly at the Hetherington article. First, you can't really remove the talk on the talk page, so I'm afraid you'll have to live with it. I don't know why the article got so much attention - those things tend to snowball. This area that you are working in is difficult because you are trying to bring some not very widely known musicians to Wikipedia. The problem is that Wikipedia mainly deals with the "already well-known." The references you have are not terribly strong -- even though the person is greatly appreciated, it's mostly "local attention." (There are many times when I wish that WP were divided by country rather than by language, because it is harder for a smaller English-speaking country to get its due in WP @en than it is for, say, US topics. And the cultural differences between, say, the US, UK, India, and Nigeria are pretty dang intense!) One thing I would caution is quoting "raves" from reviews - this is considered to be promotional, and will prejudice folks against the article. It falls under "NPOV" - not using a neutral point of view. The reason is that someone wanting to show that a person deserves an article will rarely cite a poor review, and yet, being neutral, if you cite any you need to cite all points of view. If you have access to a library with a good reference section, there may be music reference books that will help fix this person's place in the world. I'll see if I can find anything, but it's better to be closer to the scene, which you seem to be. LaMona (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

La Mona. I'm very grateful to you but of course I'm disappointed. It was a tricky one and my inexperience didn't help. Reviews are difficult to come by and for example, reviews don't mention the orchestral leader. I had a number of good refs thrown out for that reason. Anyway, I'll try to absorb what you've said. And yes, by country rather than language would work better. Small is good! (I'm Irish so I've got to say that!) It's good of you to 'listen' to my gripe and to offer some help if possible! I hope you have a peaceful weekend.Balquhidder2013 (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

23:35:20, 10 March 2016 review of submission by 31tkkbq
Just checking to see if it is ok now with the new references? (31tkkbq (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC))


 * It looks ok, although if there are writings by her you should create a bibliography and put them there. I must admit that I'm a bit confused about the chronology - some articles say she's a school principal, others that she's a doctoral study, others that she's a researcher. It would be good to put her accomplishments in some order. If she hasn't published a lot and does not hold a faculty position, it may be too soon for her to have the credentials needed on which to base an article. At the moment it's hard for me to tell. LaMona (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

02:43:00, 11 March 2016 review of submission by Vikingo999
Thanks for the feedback, I've gone ahead and added more citations that hopefully broaden the article. Unfortunately this topic is an emerging area and so there are not a tremendously large source of citations available.


 * Hi, vikingo999 - if the topic is just emerging there may not be enough backing yet to support an article. If that is the case (and we'll hear from other reviewers when you re-submit), then it will have to wait until it evolves a bit more. Note that drafts stay around for at least 6 months after their last edit, and authors are warned before they might be deleted (and, hint, hint, even a minor edit sets the clock back to the beginning), so you can hang on to this if it's too early and come back to it when there's more supporting documentation. LaMona (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Request on 09:48:26, 11 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Deadwaster
Hi LaMona, First of all, many thanks for taking the time to review the article I created. I have resubmitted the article with an extra link to an article which has more emphasis on the studio itself and puts it in the context of the studio complex at Nalepastrasse. I understand your point and very much hope that this extra link fulfils the need for more specific reference to the studio itself. I would just like to point out, that a comparison with other wikipedia pages of recording studios, for example AIR studios, shows that their references are even less specific. AIR studios has just two references: one which is its own facebook page and one reference to a BBC article about some children that recorded there. Is there a reason for the discrepancy in requirements here? May I add that, in my opinion, what makes this studio interesting and therefore worthy for an article is that it was a unique focal point and catalyst for international indie music in Berlin during its five year existence, as evidenced by the plethora of notable albums which came out of it - three of which are considered so culturally important that they have their own wikipedia articles. The physical attributes of the studio itself are less important from a cultural perspective than the music scene which built up around and was engendered by the studio. The media seem to prefer to write about the bands and their albums than about the studios where they recorded. I think that it is perhaps for this reason that I can not find any articles dedicated solely to the recording studio itself, but I hope you might be able to see my point that the absence of such articles does not diminish the importance of the studio from a cultural perspective. This studio was the hub for international indie bands in Berlin, something which cannot be attributed to any other studio in Berlin at that time, and as such it took on an importance greater than its status as a mere recording studio; in the same way, but to a lesser extent, as Studio 54 which was unexceptional as a night club but took on a broader cultural importance due to the scene it engendered. Regards Deadwaster (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Deadwaster (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Deadwaster. Unfortunately, the absence of articles is exactly what counts in Wikipedia. We can't judge importance in a rational way without them. Notability is defined as "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." So we don't decide what is notable, we let the world of media and research decide, and we just report. That's the only way to have a rational criterion. It is true that many roles get less attention than others (it's very hard to have a WP article for second violin, no matter how excellent, for example), yet those are our criteria. As for the other articles, there are many article in WP that do not meet the standards. You will often see boxes with messages at the top of these saying things like: this article needs more references; this article doesn't meet notability criteria; etc. Bit by bit those articles go through a process where they are either improved or deleted. WP is always a work in progress. You should not give up looking for sources - try books, try reference books, etc. LaMona (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

00:59:11, 12 March 2016 review of submission by Luly Yang
Hello, I've tried multiple times to not make the article sound like an autobiography. What is the question in particular that you have about the conflict of interest? Thank you.


 * It is the fact that your user name is Luly Yang, and the article is about Luly Yang. If you are not Luly Yang then you should choose a new and different username. The username is supposed to be you, not the article you are editing. You don't have to use your real name, just any name you'd like. Here's how to do that: Changing username. After that, in editing the article you need to have a neutral point of view. Wikipedia articles are not to be in praise of someone, but to be neutral information about the person. On the other hand, if you ARE Luly Yang, then you need to stop editing the article and, if you are notable, assume that someone else will come along and create the article. Is that clear? LaMona (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

00:21:01, 12 March 2016 review of submission by Sjukmidlands
Hello again, I've been working with Pamela Marshall on this page since you last looked. I wonder if you could take a look again to see if what I'm creating is moving in the right direction. It's by no means finished yet but would appreciate some input. Thank you. Sjukmidlands (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. Your references are still not inline with the text. References should be in the text, the way they would be in an academic article. See wp:REFBEGIN for how to do that. Then you need to remove the flowery language that you are using (e.g. " purest, most challenging way"). WP articles are factual without any embellishments. LaMona (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Heads Up
LaMona, I figured that you'd appreciate a heads up... A recent AfC draft by that you declined under the auspices of WP:NOTNEWS (and rightly so!), along with several other issues, was uploaded to the mainspace, bypassing Articles for Creation. The user similarly uploaded a self-promotional article about themselves, which has since been deleted; the user was blocked indefinitely for socking in order to keep the content. The draft is here, and the duplicated content on the mainspace (with the same issues) is here.

Aside from the general notice, I didn't know if you had any ideas as to what to do with it, whether it be redirecting/merging it elsewhere (I'm honestly not sure where), proposing it for deletion, move it back to draft space, et cetera. I looked for a place to merge it and rewrite, but to no avail. So I figured one of the latter two (or both) might be the best bet. Let me know what you think. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 06:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. I think the only sensible thing is to propose deletion. I would expect it to be an uncontroversial delete. Also, it looks like the editor is now blocked for socking. I also notice that they've been removing AfC info from their talk page. A very problematic user. LaMona (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

03:12:34, 14 March 2016 review of submission by Wave26
Hello there LaMona!!! A Pleasant Good day to you. By the way thanks for dropping by to my draft of reviewing of it. Hope that you can help & assist me on this particular matter very sincerely. I've already received your message regarding to my draft that you've reviewed on it a while ago and you declined of it due to your basis that my draft(article) is "not supported" in terms of reliable sources. Here's my conclusion to your assessments: First, as you can see, that my draft has a LEGAL basis and all of its sources is very "ACCURATE" & very "RELIABLE" and I've already checked and reviewed on it many times, by sentence to sentence, it's spelling & grammar and also the statements is already fixed at all and for me there's nothing now to be fixed since it has a LEGAL basis. Second, in terms of notability and legality of this draft(article), here's my conclusion to your that I can prove of it to you: Notability of the article I Wave26, created the page Draft:Kenneth Earl Medrano is hereby confirmed that my article has a "Notability" according to the rules and regulations of Wikipedia and the page I made is very informational and encyclopedic for a variety of reasons:

If you could help me with the page I created and define what I need to change, I will do so accordingly.
 * Kenneth Earl Medrano is known by many people ever since he is the "KING OF DUBSMASH" in the Philippines due to his "Twerk It Like Miley" Dubsmash viral video he made like the QUEEN OF DUBSMASH, Maine Mendoza.
 * Kenneth Earl Medrano is known already by many people because of the viral video that earned him popularity on social media, he joined the contest on Eat Bulaga's That's My Bae: Twerk It Dance Contest on GMA Network and winning the title as the "Ultimate Bae Grand Winner" on the said contest.
 * Kenneth Earl Medrano is known already after winning the contest, he entered showbiz by having some TV appearances on GMA Network & GMA News TV like the characters BENJAMIN on Ismol Family, GEORGE on Wagas (GMA News TV) and the same time, he is one of the cast of Buena Familia as PACOY ALVERO, & the upcoming TV series The Millionaire's Wife as JOAQUIN, one way that the subject is an actor at the same time he is one of the members of "That's My Bae" as a dancer on Eat Bulaga!.
 * Kenneth Earl Medrano is known already since he made a "CAMEO ROLE" on the blockbuster movie, "My Bebe Love" which is starred by Vic Sotto, Ai-Ai de las Alas together with Alden Richards & Maine Mendoza
 * Kenneth Earl Medrano already won awards like "Most New Handsome Face" & "Best New Male TV Personality" awarded by Social Media TV Poll (SMTVP).
 * I also believe that the info given is neutral, informative, and non biased.
 * There is no conflict of interest as its purpose is for knowledge and no more.
 * There is neutrality towards my subject as I am of no relation to the subject matter.
 * There is also no conflict of interest as I am of no relation may it be professional or familiar. the only point of the creation of this page is for the general's public knowledge of good design.

Thank you and please do approve of my page Wave26 (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Wave26. I'm not sure what you mean by a "legal basis". What matters in Wikipedia is that there are third-party, reliable sources for all information in the article. How popular someone is does not matter here. Read about notability as it is defined in Wikipedia, which has its own peculiarities. You cannot use videos of him performing (the saveviz site). You cannot use social media sites (facecebu, twitter). All of those have to be removed. As I said before the GMA network is his employer, so that can be used for some facts but it does not support notability. Sources must be independent of him, like regular newspaper articles. Fan sites cannot be used. The only possible reliable source (by Wikipedia's standards) is the SunStar, but that unfortunately is an interview, and interviews are not third-party sources, they are the person speaking about themselves. So again, it can be used for some facts, if needed, but it does not support notability. You must look at your article from the point of view of Wikipedia's definition of "notable". LaMona (talk) 06:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

12:12:19, 14 March 2016 review of submission by SRoberts1988
Hello LaMona. Thank you for your comments. Based on your suggestions I have rewritten the article. Is it ok to use published press releases to show that a brokerage exists in a certain city? Or is it best not to attribute? Thank you.


 * Hi, User:SRoberts1988. Before going on to your question, here on talk pages you have to sign your messages by putting four tilde's at the end (usually space+four tilde's). There's a clickable reminder at the bottom of the edit box. Now, about press releases. Using a press release from the company is essentially proof that no one else has bothered to say anything about the company, and that's a heavy negative. What counts in Wikipedia is what others have said about the company. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory of companies. A company needs to have some characteristic that is "encyclopedic" to qualify for an article. The opening at wp:corp states: "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." So a company like Microsoft has had an effect on society. But merely being a company, even a successful company, is not notable. So you have to show what this company has done that has made the world a different place. LaMona (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

16:42:17, 14 March 2016 review of submission by Sjukmidlands
Please can you take a look at the revisions and work I've done on this page and let me know if what I've so far done is correct and along the right lines. Sjukmidlands (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I did one inline reference so you can see how it is done. Basically, int he place in the text where the reference belongs, you put it between tags. Then the display program numbers them and displays them at the bottom of the article. I also added the infobox, which you will now see there. LaMona (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Request on 16:53:37, 14 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Sivan dror
Hello, thank you for your feedback on our BATEMAN SETTLER value we can add information about the settler but there is already information about it in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixer-settler how do you suggest we proceed? i dont have sources but we have a patent for the BATEMAN SETTLER i also wanted to upload a picture explaining all the parts of the settler but the system didnt let me, i think because i already have another draft in your system.... this is a very confusing platform :-) i appreciate your help and hope we will be able to create the new value have a good day Sivan

Sivan dror (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. I went ahead and made some changes based on the article for Mixer-settler so now it has some context. You will need references - those are essentially the driving force in Wikipedia. Every statement of fact must be verifiable in a third-party, reliable source (newspaper, magazine, or a reliable web site). So start looking for those. You can add the patent information, but it doesn't make the topic notable. You should also consider that this could be a section of the article on Mixer-settlers, not an article on its down. It may make more sense to put it there as that's where readers are most likely to go for information. If it does become a standalone article you will need to make connections between the two articles - connecting related information creates the fabric of Wikipedia. LaMona (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

21:38:59, 14 March 2016 review of submission by Sslatt
Hi LaMona - Thank you for your detailed comment and suggestions. You have been very helpful! I will be making edits to the Bio like you mentioned, further highlighting his writing/books, as well as pairing down some of the other content to ensure that we have adequate references to support the content.

Should I completely remove the sources such as his page on Entrepreneur.com and Huffington Post? I know that they are from the subject himself, but I wasn't sure if they helped prove that he actually does write for these online publications. Secondly, (I will research more on this as well) what types of sources would be best for this type of individual as well as how many? I thought for sure that his televised appearances on CCTV and Fox News covering SuperBowl Ads/Marketing would help the cause, as well as the properly sourced proof of the Awards he has won.

I will keep working at this as I know that Jim is a great figure in the Marketing industry and deserves to be on Wikipedia! :) If there is any other insight you can provide I would really appreciate it! Thank you for your time!


 * Hi, User:Sslatt. First, on talk pages (but not on article pages) you have to sign your message with four tilde's at the end. There's a reminder at the bottom of the edit box. Trying to show that a person writes for a journal is awkward, and personally I've never found a good explanation on how to do that within the rules. So leave those for now, but know that they do not support notabiity, so they are minor as references. The main problem is that you don't have any really strong references, and adding up a lot of weak references doesn't really help. You should remove information that you cannot source (like his personal life, which doesn't make him notable, or the fact that he loved to ski), and stick to information that comes from strong sources. You have things like an article about the toothbrush that you say he invented, but the article doesn't say that he invented it. You have to reference that to an article with that information. That's the kind of thing that needs clearing up. LaMona (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

LaMona - Thanks so much for that reminder! I am new to this :) I appreciate it! And thank you for the feedback. Super helpful and I will definitely take another stab at this and clean things up based on your suggestions! Thank you thank you! Sslatt (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

02:55:34, 15 March 2016 review of submission by Wave26
Hello there again LaMona!!! First of all, I want to say very sincerely to you a very thank you so much for your great help of assisting me regarding to my draft(article) entitled Draft:Kenneth Earl Medrano. I really appreciated all of your comments and suggestions to my work it's because for me it's very accurate and a very big help for me to improve this draft. Based on your suggestions, I want to say that I've already checked and rewritten the draft(article) by following your comments to remove some references of Mr. Medrano that you've reviewed a while ago like (the saveviz site), (facecebu, and also twitter). I've been looked again to my draft if there's any sources that came from a fansite but I think it's already fixed and OK with it since I've seen no fansites of it. Also, I already revised it's contents like removing some of the shows that Mr. Medrano guested on GMA as what you've been suggested to me that it should be removed. Because of this, I sincerely make a favor again to you if do so, if you can take a look again to my draft to check on it if it's ready to be publish as an article or not. And if there's any lacking or more, please let me know of it by helping and assisting me on this particular matter and give me some more comments and suggestions if ever what I need to change. Thanks, and I hope this time my draft(article) will pass and approve. Wave26 (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Wave26, this is much improved. My guess is that reviewers will want the language toned down to be less "enthusiastic" and more neutral, but you should resubmit and see what advice you get. There is the issue of notability, and you should look at WP:CREATIVE for the notability criteria that are used for what we call "creative professionals." The subject of your article is popular, but popularity is not the same as notability. Self-published works (most "viral videos") don't have a lot of weight, and having a few acting credits doesn't add up to notable. The question may come down to whether the Twerk It contest is notable. It may not be considered to be notable by Wikipedia standards, because it is kind of a one-off, rather than a contest with a history. In any case, you have learned to Wiki! Good for you! LaMona (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

15:24:22, 15 March 2016 review of submission by Ssinyakov
I have provided the references where the information can be verified. The family data was obtained from Ansestry.com and Anna's story from the Local Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Austin TX. Besides that I am not sure we can get references on an "ordinary" person of the early 20th century. What is your suggestion?


 * If there are no third-party references then there cannot be a Wikipedia article for the person. Basically, Wikipedia reflects what has been deemed notable by cultural and social sources, such as newspapers, magazines, books. Most "ordinary people" won't get a Wikipedia article, only the extraordinary. You might try checking local media and history books to see if you can find something there. Otherwise, an article just isn't in the cards, sorry. LaMona (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

17:01:28, 15 March 2016 review of submission by Ntu2cmu
I am requesting a re-review under the feedback that "There's nothing here that meets WP:CORP" – after reviewing multiple times, everything in this page meets WP: CORP guidelines: 1. I disagree that "All of the references refer to "business as usual": routine product announcements, getting funding, opening branches" – yes, there are mentions of funding announcements, but there are reputable, independent sources talking about the product and how it has changed the game for social recruiting – that's not news, that's not a product announcement – that's a reputable 3rd party source stating the impact it has on a society/behavior of a society (which is something that is required for noteriaty). 2. I am confused as to why "The only substantial article that I see is the TechCrunch one" – all of the sources referenced in the page are reputable – including Business Insider. Business Insider works independently of Jobvite and other companies – please read their publication "about" section – independent media/news company. As for the other references sited, they all fall under the same category: they have no affiliation with Jobvite. Sources are reliable, and independent of the subject and have a neutral point of view. According to wikipedia's definition of a "source" – these are all articles written by reputable journalists, which are sources. None of the sources fall under the following: press releases, press kits, or similar works; self-published materials; any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it; advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization; corporate websites or other websites written, published, or controlled by the organization; patents, whether pending or granted;[5] any material written or published by the organization, directly or indirectly; other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.

Also, there is a depth to the sources – there is not just 1-4 sources being cited here.

Very confused as to how this is not a "reputable" company based on the fact the sources (and it's content) meet all of the guidelines. Please let me know ASAP. Thank you.


 * The question isn't "reputable" it is "notable" which is a different concept. Please read wp:rs about what are reliable sources. Note that very short articles (Buisness Insider) do not have the same weight as ones that are in-depth. The point of a Wikipedia article is not to prove the reputation or even to prove the notability of a company, but to provide encyclopedic information. You say in your message that "it has changed the game for social recruiting" but that is nowhere to be found in the article. If there is information in the soruces that is needed to assert notability, that information must be in the article. You cannot assume that readers will go off and read all of the sources -- they expect to find the important information in the article itself. This is essentially what I said in the review. You must say more if you want people to understand what is important about the company. LaMona (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

03:41:48, 16 March 2016 review of submission by Wave26
Hello there again LaMona!!! Thank you so much for your feedback, highly appreciated of it. I didn't first resubmit my draft(article) it's because I want to make sure of it that my work is OK and fixed. In regards to the "notability" issue of the subject, I've already read the WP:CREATIVE for notability criteria. And my assessment of it that the subject is definitely passed and qualified and is consider to be notable for the following reasons: Through these assessments and proofs I have, I hope that my draft(article) this time will be approved since I already resubmitted it for re-review. Thank you so much for your great help and please help me and assist me on this particular matter, you can look my draft again and please give me some more comments and suggestions if ever what I need to change. Wave26 (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * First, I decided to merge the "Twerk it Like Miley Dubsmash" and "Thats My Bae: Twerk It Dance Contest" sub-contents under the Career section into one and I leave his "Acting Career" as its sub-content its because as you said earlier that these sub-contents is not considerable as notable since the contest that Mr. Medrano joined is only a part of the 'segments' in Eat Bulaga that aired on GMA Network and it has no history of previous winners like reality shows, national, or international contests etc. But Mr. Medrano is known already and he has done "remarkable" works in terms of his talent like acting and dancing and became a part in a local variety show in GMA Network in Cebu before his dubsmash hit became viral.
 * Second, it's true that as you said that 'self-published works' especially his viral videos don't have a lot of weight. But the point of it is that Mr. Medrano is the one who started and originated to "trend" the song Twerk It Like Miley by Brandon Beal in the Philippines through his dubsmash perfomance that the people catches their attention. That is why his videos became viral that earned 2.6 million views overnight and the rest was history, and that's the reason why he earned the title "THE KING OF DUBSMASH" in the Philippines like what Maine Mendoza was first discovered and known by people to her before their accidentally paired with Alden Richards also declaring her as the "THE QUEEN OF DUBSMASH" in the Philippines. In short, Mr. Medrano is already popular and known to people.
 * Third, Mr. Medrano is already a "public figure" by people when he joined "That's My Bae: Twerk It Dance Contest" in Eat Bulaga!. So in short, Mr. Medrano is consider a notable.
 * Fourth, Mr. Medrano plays on different acting skills on GMA and one of his major break on his career when he do his major role in Buena Familia as Pacoy Alvero on GMA Network, that caught the people's viewers attention. It's because of their pairing with Kylie Padilla as Celine Buena. His exposure catches the viewers attention, forming their love team as "Kenlie", aside of it's rival against Harry, character portrayed by Martin del Rosario. In spite of being a first timer appearance in an actual teleserye, the big impact of the team-up make the people's viewers appreciated, and because of this, Mr. Medrano makes a contribution and has a remarkable image on television that the people always remember of him through his character role.
 * And lastly, as I mentioned before on my first message to you in the "Notability of the Article", that there is also no conflict of interest as I am of no relation may it be professional or familiar. the only point of the creation of this page is for the general's public knowledge of good design.

Photo of Sean Young, Phd
I see that the photo of Sean Young (psychologist) has been removed. In my last correspondence, I contested why the file had been flagged for removal, given that I am the rights holder, I assigned the proper commons rights, and took the photograph. See below for my note. Would you please let me know how the photograph may be added to the entry again -- should I simply add it to Wikimedia Commons again and reinsert the image? Moreover, is there something that must be done prevent this from happening again? Thank you.

"A few points: Yes, I am a professional photographer (http://www.lynwoodlord.com/). There's no deception involved with the Sean Young, PhD, photo, so again, I request that it not be deleted. The initial photo was removed simply to remove any indication of impropriety (even though that is also my own work; I was simply not familiar with the submission process)." Metalhorn1 (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't delete it. You need to look in the history of the article because that is where it says who deleted it. You responded to the delete request of mine, and I don't know why the person decided to delete it but you'll have to contact them. It is possible that the rights information was not complete or not clear. I do know that there is a process by which a resource (like a photo) is certified by a rights holder, but I assume that requires some clear identification of the person doing the certifying. All of that information is on commons, not wikipedia. There is also a process for undeletion: here. I don't know what they need as proof of rights or identity of asker -- you can ask about that on commons at their help page. LaMona (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Metalhorn1 - Here's a link that goes into more detail on the kind of declaration that must be made to clear rights in a photograph (or text): Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries.This is done as an email, perhaps because it requires the person's actual name. LaMona (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

11:55:25, 17 March 2016 review of submission by Kamalaindia
Could you please recheck the content of the submitted article ? If still there are any points to improve please let me know. Thanks

(Kamalaindia (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC))


 * Hi, Kamalaindia. I didn't look at every reference, but most of what I saw were just the organization's name in a list or directory. The one source that had some information about the organization was supplied by the organization itself (Youth for Europe). You need third-party sources that have written about the organization - newspapers or magazines. Directory listings don't support notability. LaMona (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jonathan Rosand has been accepted
 Jonathan Rosand, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! LaMona (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Jonathan_Rosand help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Request on 17:18:27, 17 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Nhv2001
Hi LaMona,

Thank you for reviewing my draft of Jonathan Rosand's biography. Criterion 5 of the notability requirements for academics -- at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) -- states that academics are notable if they hold named chairs at a major institution of higher education and research. I indicated in the second sentence that my subject holds a named chair, so I believe notability is established. I was not attempting to establish notability through my subject's parents.

The link I added was my attempt to provide a secondary source corroborating notability (it's a Mass. General news bulletin on Rosand's promotion to the named chair).

Further, regarding the use of secondary vs. primary sources, the Wikipedia materials I found -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources -- state that secondary sources must be used to establish notability (which I attempted to do) but that primary sources can be used to "make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source." I believe my uses of primary source material fall under the category of references to "straightforward, descriptive facts," such as where my subject attended school, that he founded the International Stroke Genetics Consortium, etc. I therefore feel my use of primary sources was consistent with Wikipedia's policies.

For the above reasons, I request that you kindly reconsider your decision to reject my article. I would also welcome more detailed feedback on any remaining objections you have. I consulted Wikipedia's live help chat, and it was suggested that I communicate with you directly about my concerns.

Thank you!

Nhv2001 (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, [User:Nhv2001|Nhv2001]]. AfC is iterative, so you can always re-submit. LaMona (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi LaMona, I would like to avoid another rejection. I assume another reviewer is likely to see the two previous rejections and follow suit. How do I explain that I've established notability by indicating my subject is a named chair at MGH/Harvard before the reviewer takes a look at the article? Or do you have any other suggestions for avoiding another rejection? And please also tell me if you think my arguments above are just a bunch of hot air. Thank you! Nhv2001 (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and put it through. It passes notability; that's all that matters for AfC. You can continue to work on. 22:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

AfC
With respect to Scientists are notable for the science they do, not their personal life. All that is necessary for notability is a source to show they meet one of the requirements of WP:PROF. I accepted the article . DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * please note that the science listed there was not authored by him, so there is still no proof that he did any science. Many don't mention him. Some SYNTH maybe possible, but none of the articles I looked at made a direct, verifiable connection. LaMona (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, LaMona! I should have time this weekend or Monday to improve the referencing and provide proof of his scientific work. Nhv2001 (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

14:04:37, 20 March 2016 review of submission by Rob.Bale84
Hi LaMona. Following the indication of not enough references, I've added the references I know from Reuters, BusinessWire, and LifeHacker - all established web sites in the fields of digital businesses and services, keeping the original text and referencing the capabilities. More references can be added but may create a reference to word ratio that seems unnatural. Please guide and thanks in advance.


 * Hi. First, on talk pages (for reasons that ... well, just go with it) you have to sign your messages with four tilde's, which are then replaced with your user ID by the system.There's a reminder at the bottom of the edit box. (Possibly off-screen unless you scroll down.) As to the references, it's not so much "not enough" but "not good enough quality." Unfortunately, two of the three you just added, BusWire and Reuters, are reprints of a company press release. Press releases are definitely not allowed because they are by the company itself and intentionally promotional. More advice: Maqtoob is a "submit it yourself" site that is mostly a blog. Mobility Lounge is run by a single person - making it not a published or reliable site. El Androide Libre: "Blog de referencia Android en español." Generally, blogs are too informal to meet our criteria for reliable sources. http://www.racunalniske-novice.com/ gives only two sentences. Xaluan is the same - two sentences. What we're looking for are published sources with actual editorial policies and paid staff that that are not helping promote the software and that write a substantial article about the topic. LaMona (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Jack Vees article
Hi LaMona,

Thank you for looking over my article so thoroughly. I will address these issues and resubmit!

As for the COI inquiry, I was considering making a wikipedia username and such for awhile now and finally found an opportunity with creating a page on Jack Vees (hence the username - Chez (or "about" Vees). I plan on creating more pages as I see the need for them, and picked the username as the place to start. What steps would you recommend to clarify my COI to others who will be looking at publishing submissions? Should I change my name?

Many thanks, ChezVees (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, ChezVees. Well, in fact "Chez" means "at the home of" which sounds closer than "about". (definition) When you are no longer editing the Vees article, no one will notice. However, it is unfortunate to use the name of an article for your username, since your username should represent you, not a particular article. It might be better if you simply adopt a new username, and on the user page simply mention that you made a few edits as ChezVees but realized it wasn't a good username and abandoned that one. It's hard to get actual usernames deleted, and so it's best just to quit using it and create another. LaMona (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

06:30:46, 20 March 2016 review of submission by Cjj.cell
Question for LaMona: Thank you for the feedback. I will find links for all of the festivals that the band has listed on the Wiki. Is it best to create a Wiki page for each one, or shall I link to the url as a reference? Some of the festivals are from the 1990's so it may be difficult to find a digital reference. Any suggestions on how to handle this? There is another band that is not nearly as notable as this band. They are "Larry and his flask". I am surprised that they have a wiki, and we could not get ours approved. If I am able to verify all of their festival appearances, will this suffice? Thanks CJ Cjj.cell (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Cjj.cell. It's not really a matter of finding the links to all of the festivals, and it wouldn't be appropriate to create articles for the festivals if they themselves do not meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is built on third-party sources - that means that articles are based on what some independent but reliable source has said about the subject. This is necessary for verifiability -- we cannot have information in Wikipedia that cannot be verified in a reliable source. Reliable sources are things like published newspapers or journals, and sometimes web sites that have an editorial policy. In addition, Wikipedia is not a place for lists of performances. Such lists may be appropriate for the band's web site, but by aren't encyclopedic. Instead of a list you should have a sentence saying: they have played festivals such as (name two or three, preferably with a third-party reference like a review of their performance in a newspaper). As for Larry, I just marked that page as not meeting various requirements. Every day hundreds of pages are deleted from WP for these reasons. LaMona (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

21:03:42, 21 March 2016 review of submission by Km13oj
Hi there!

Can you help me understand how I can improve my sources? I tried to include reliable news organizations, like Global and CNBC, as well as tech sites. Is it an issue with the citation style?

Thanks.

Hi, User:Km13oj. First, unlike content pages, here on talk pages you have to sign your message by putting four tildes in a row at the end. The system then substitutes your username. There's a reminder at the bottom of the edit box when you scroll down. Next, sources: it would sure help us reviewers if your references were "complete" - that is, title of the article, author of the article, newspaper or journal, and date. Otherwise we have no idea what kind of link it is until we click on it. Here's what your CNBC cite could look like:



The code for that is:

But the easiest way to do it is to fill in the template from the pull-down that opens when you click on "Cite" at the top of the edit box. Fill in whatever information you have, but the title of the article and the name of the source are key.

That said, you need to look at wp:rs which is the page about reliable sources, and also wp:corp which is the page about notability for corporations. Basically, you need to find articles that are substantially about your subject. Back to the CNBC article, it has two short paragraphs about Crowdbabble (that don't say a whole lot about the company) and two quotes from the CEO. As you'll see in the policy pages, quotes from officers of a company have very low value in terms of notability, so although that is CNBC, it isn't a strong source about the company. The GlobalNews article is similar -- the article is about the issue of mining user data, and Crowdbabble is mentioned, but the article is not substantially about the company. The Crunchbase entry is not in support of notability because Crunchbase has entries for every company, and therefore isn't a show of notability. (Forbes and Bloomberg profiles are the same.) You have have articles that are entirely or at least substantially about the company. If none exist, then you cannot prove notability, at least not today. You can let the article rest - they don't get deleted for at least 6 months after the last edit, and you will get notified beforehand so that you can make a small change that will keep it around. LaMona (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

16:25:24, 11 March 2016 review of submission by Duncan R2
Hello LaMona - just to let you know that I've just resubmitted the above referenced draft which you correctly rejected a week ago. As you surmised, I had submitted it too early because previous submissions I'd made have taken 3 to 4 weeks to review but you got to this one within a week. Anyway since you rejected it, the album has now charted in the artist's homeland (Germany) so I think it now fulfills Wikipedia's notability requirements. Also, regarding your comment about the reviews being exclusively positive, I have now included the only negative review I can find (published this week) and slightly toned down my covering notes on the positive reviews. So I think it's good to go but would be grateful if you could take a look and let me know what you think. Regards Duncan R2


 * It does look better. I personally would drop the concert reviews, since this is about the album, and in general reviews should be references, not part of the article. But let's see what other reviewers thing. LaMona (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, LaMona - just to let you know that the revised version of the article was accepted a few days ago with the reviews remaining in the body of the article. Thank you for helping me with this and I wish you all the best in your tireless work for Wikipedia. Regards Duncan R2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncan R2 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

10:13:50, 22 March 2016 review of submission by Wikicatzndogz
Hi, I have been trying to create an artist page for Catz 'n Dogz. My last review apparently had "too many third party sources", while the time before that it apparently had too little. Can you please advise on what type of sources would be adequate? Resident Advisor IS a reliable source in electronic dance music, as an online magazine, source for news, releases and events.

Could you also please advise more specifically on how to improve the article ?

Many thanks.


 * First, unlike content pages, here on talk pages you have to sign your message by putting four tildes in a row at the end. The system then substitutes your username. There's a reminder at the bottom of the edit box when you scroll down.


 * Next, I left a message on your talk page about both about conflict of interest but also your username. If you are associated with the group, then you have a conflict of interest. You can continue to edit the draft, but you must declare your COI opening (the instructions are linked from the message on your talk page), and you will not be allowed to edit the article in mainspace. Next, WP does not allow user names that are the same as a company, a band, or any other group entity. I left you instructions on changing your username. You need to cease editing with this current one, or you may find yourself blocked.


 * As for sources, there is no such thing as "too many third-party sources". What you had were a large number of "primary" sources -- that is, not third-party at all. A video or sound file of the group performing is a primary source, and primary sources, while they can be used sparingly, do not support notability. Notability in WP depends entirely on what others have written about you in reliable sources. (Please read wp:rs about reliable sources.) As for RA, I checked on our list of known reliable sources and it isn't there. I note that some of what you link to are the output of polls that readers have voted on -- those are not considered reliable -- they are basically crowd-sourced popularity, and popular is not the same as notable. (Also note that Discogs is on the WP list of non-reliable sources, so it cannot be used). Anything that is crowd-sourced is considered not reliable. Something that is just the announcement of a concert or show does not confer notability (e.g. this). The line-up at the Parklife Festival also does not confer notability. You need articles written about the group (preferably reviews of the music) in newspapers or magazines that have a reputation for fact-checking. Fan sites do not count. I will ask on the reliable sources noticeboard about Resident Advisor and see if they have any opinions on that matter. LaMona (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

19:35:14, 22 March 2016 review of submission by Ballantinesrose
Hello LaMona, I have have worked on the draft for the Yogi Aaron page and taken into account your advice. I have given it a more objective tone, revised my sources and cleaned up my references section.

As far as the sources go, I have The Huffington post, New York Daily News, The Dallas Voice, The Guardian, and Costa Rica News.

Let me know what you think!

Thanks


 * The problem with the first three of those is that they just have short quotes from him and they are not about him, they are about hot naked yoga. So those do add to notability for him. The Costa Rica one is about him, but that is not considered a major paper. The Dallas Voice is a short article, and the book you list mentions him once. None of these are the substantial sources that we require for notability. He may become notable in the future, and an article then would make sense. LaMona (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Ballantinesrose (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

19:54:06, 22 March 2016 review of submission by Writer1977
Hello LaMona,

Thank you for your feedback on the draft of the page for Jeffrey Marsh. I have removed the citations to his personal Vines, tweets and YouTube video, as well as the citation to his IMDB page, and re-submitted the Wiki page for re-consideration. I'd love it if you could share any additional feedback.

Writer1977 (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. You still have a problem with sources. The HuffPost is an interview, so that's not a third-party source (does not support notability). Digg is not a reliable source. We discourage linking to sales sites (iTunes, which I removed), and the upcoming book is upcoming -- when it is published and has reviews, you would link to the reviews. Linking to the publisher site is considered promotional (the publisher promotes the book, and is not a neutral source of information). Mashable is not considered a reliable source. Buzzfeed is borderline - sometimes reliable when stories are written by staff writers - however that is one 6-second video in a list of 49, so it's not going to support notability on its own. Vine videos (like youtube and other "upload it yourself" sites) are considered to be self-published works, and self-publishing and self-publishing is kind of like singing on the street corner - many people may pass by and enjoy your sound, but you're still an amateur. So perhaps if, when the book comes out, it's a bit hit, then he might be considered notable. LaMona (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Advice for Tenex Software Solutions Page
Hi LaMona,

Last week you posted in the deletion page for Tenex Software Solutions and I appreciate you voting to keep the page up. I was wondering if you had any advice you could share with me that would improve the content on the page thus keeping it from being deleted. I'm sure you are very busy but any advice or comments you have would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time!

Stevenjohnson14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenjohnson14 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Steven - Unfortunately it is not going to be easy because there aren't many good sources about the company. I did searches, as did other people, and the company's story does not seem to have been picked up by normal business sources. But that's what would be needed. I'm with you on documenting the impact of (early?) attempts to use automated voting, but unless you can find more sources about the company (and not just about that one incident) it will be deleted. At that point, it would make sense to add at least a few sentences to the electronic voting page, with hopes, perhaps, that eventually someone will make that section its own page. That's the outcome that makes the most sense to me. LaMona (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Ball State University Greek Life
Given the the 36 entries in Category:Lists of chapters of United States student societies by college, it may be reasonable to have this page one day, but for now, I think most can be folded into Ball State University, do you agree?Naraht (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That makes sense to me. It is definitely less of a writing and sourcing burden for you. You will still be linked out to other wiki pages, and you may find articles that should link to that section of the Ball State article. That's probably plenty of work, and you can always expand it later. LaMona (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't write the draft, I just went looking through the drafts containing Fraternity or Sorority in the text. Note sure when I'm going to get to it, but I've reached out to the original author. Also, some of the entries in Category:Lists of chapters of United States student societies by college are 4 or more pages long (List of fraternities and sororities at the University of Minnesota), so there will definitely be room to expand. :)

Redirect Deleted ZMR Page to ZMR section on En Masse Entertainment Page
As the Draft:ZMR page submission has been declined, can ZMR references be redirected to the ZMR subsection on the En Masse Entertainment page? This was done for the Fruit Attacks and Pocket Platoons sections. Thank you. Baraqorn (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Baraqorn. I'm not exactly sure what you are asking, so I'll guess. If you wish to add the references you have (and additional information) to the En Masse page, that would be fine. Eventually, if you find enough sources, then you can make the ZMR section there short, with a direct to a more ample page like has been done with TERA. This is always the best way to start when adding a page for something that is already a section in another page. LaMona (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * LaMona. Thank you. I will add some of the information on the draft page to the En Masse page. What I was hoping for, however, is to have a redirect for when people search for ZMR or Zombies Monsters Robots that leads to the ZMR section on the En Masse page. This was done for Pocket Platoons and Fruit Attacks when their pages were declined. Now, when I search for ZMR, or click on the link in the info box on the En Masse Entertainment page, I get message that the page does not exist. However, if I search for Fruit Attacks, I still get the "page does not exist" message but the first result is the En Masse Entertainment page with a "redirect from Fruit Attacks" message. Can this be done for ZMR as well? Thank you. 50.46.239.236 (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes - now I see. Yes, you can create a redirect from ZMR to the appropriate section in the En Masse article. I can do this now if you are sure that's what you want. (They're easier to create than to delete.) LaMona (talk) 02:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Please create the redirect. I am unsure how to do that. Thank you. Baraqorn (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * LaMona: I have edited the ZMR page to be a redirect to the ZMR section of the En Masse Entertainment page and have re-submitted the page. Please let me know if there is more I need to do to complete the redirect. Thank you. Baraqorn (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Another request
Dear La Mona. You've been so helpful to date that I dare approach you again (remember Joseph Swensen, Opera Bohemia etc?). You also took a look at Feargus Hetherington for me and Eddie McGuire (composer). I have not yet managed to visit the Music Library in Edinburgh but still hope to soon. In the meantime I've made considerable minor changes. First, Feargus Hetherington. I reverted somewhat to my original intention of proving notability on the basis of a wide-ranging career. I know this is not covered in the Guidelines but guidelines are simply guidelines? Nevertheless, even in relation to those I feel strongly that there are some strong reviews included - they are 'strong and detailed' in so far as classical reviews here ever are. Surely 12, 14, 16, 17 and 18 more than meet the 'reviews' guideline - and that is solely for duo work. By the way, had he not been 'notable' he would not have been approached for an interview concerning his instrument for the Strad Magazine. The other person interviewed alongside him was Raphael Wallfisch, a world-famous cellist. By the way, I had listed about 6 prizes with dates but as you'll see they were deleted as 'puffery' yesterday. Some of these same prizes (for other years) are listed by others with no verification. See Ani Batikian. As only one prize still stands I'll possibly delete it. As for Eddie McGuire I will try to find some reviews as you suggested but am I on the right track in relation to the style of listing etc?

I feel very strongly that the 'notability' paste should be removed. Any help you can give would be much appreciated.Balquhidder2013 (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You can't include specific information like prizes unless you can provide references. Did you make that up out of thin air? Probably not. So where did you learn that, and was it a reliable source? It also looks like you are engaged in a rather unpleasant competition with Theroadislong. You might want to just let that article sit for a bit until it's less heated. Looking at it today I would not expect it to be deleted if that is proposed, but there's no guarantee. Note that to be deleted, the article is listed at "Articles for Deletion" for at least a week, letting others weigh in on whether or not it meets criteria. Someone would have to nominate it for deletion - the "not notable" tag is just a hint to other editors and does not have any effect on the status of the article. There are some references that are weak, unfortunately, and I do understand that for classical musicians, who are often working only in ensemble, it isn't easy to be a "star". However, adding more weak references won't help your cause. Also, you have some common "errors" such as speaking about "currently" (an encyclopedia article endures, times should be given as "beginning in 2015..."), and using terms like "widely" ("toured widely"), which is imprecise and promotional. Toning down some of this might make your co-editor less reactive. LaMona (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

La Mona. Thanks for your reply. The point about prizes was simply an assumption going on many other articles. Thanks for the warning on 'common errors' - I'll go back over it. As for deletion I hope that won't happen. I've put a huge amount of work into it and I feel strongly that it should be retained. I will try to watch out for future reviews. Sorry to have bothered you.Balquhidder2013 (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

21:51:21, 23 March 2016 review of submission by Ballantinesrose
Thank you LaMona, I get your point. Hot Nude Yoga may seem to be the primary focus of most of the articles. But when you read under the Naked Yoga section on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_yoga), Aaron Star was listed as the creator of hot nude yoga, and as such had a predominant role in shaping the hot nude yoga movement. While reading the Naked Yoga wikipedia page I wanted to know more about this person hence why I created the page. I believe the subject would be of interest for others too. Given that hot nude yoga had a notable exposure, it would be useful to provide information on who created it on Wikipedia. Just in the same way as the Bikram Yoga https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikram_Yoga wikipedia page links to its creator BikramChoudhury, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikram_Choudhury,

There is solid evidence to back the works of Yogi Aaron, and I have more sources that are dedicated entirely to Yogi Aaron/Aaron Star. (links below) Some, like Out.com, NewNowNext, and OutSpirit are national gay community magazines, while other sources pertain more to yoga, such as Yoga Journal and LA yoga. While these sources may attend to certain domains, they are seen as some of the most prominent within those realms and pertinent to certain communities (i.e. yoga, gay, mindfulness).

http://www.yogajournal.com/uncategorized/naked-yoga-the-end-for-kim-and-kris/ http://layogamagazine.com/content/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=212:loving-your-own-skin&catid=103:special-section http://www.newnownext.com/why-would-out-magazine-send-a-straight-male-reporter-to-hot-nude-yoga/01/2008/ http://myoutspirit.com/index.php?pag=article&id=42 http://www.out.com/entertainment/2008/01/13/yogi-bares

The above sources, in addition to the credible ones I've already added should allow for the creation of a brief, three section Wikipedia page to benefit readers. While I understand that Aaron Star is listed in paragraphs or sentences in these sources as opposed to whole sections or articles, he is still being discussed in prominent sources which should be reflected in the Wikipedia notability requirement. (sources as mentioned are : Huff Post, NYDdaily news, The Guardian, Dallas Voice and the book "Yoga in the Modern World: Contemporary Perspectives"). In addition, the Costa Rica Star is a website that deals with current events in Costa Rica and shapes English news media for the Costa Rican expat community.

Lastly, I was reading the Tara Styles and Katryn Budig wikipedia page and I noticed that for each of them,among some more "official" sources, references include * own website, * Yogaworks bio, *Elephant Journal, *Women's Health magazine, *YouTube, *Internet Movie Database, *Twitter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tara_Stiles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Budig

Waiting to hear your thoughts.

Thank you


 * I'm not sure that you do get the point, unfortunately. If he is notable, there will be published sources that are substantially about him in reliable news sources. It's as simple as that. As I said before, a single sentence or a short quote does not meet WP's criteria for notability. As for those other articles, first, why do you care if someone else has an article in Wikipedia? It's an encyclopedia, not a business directory or a site for advertising, so there is no competition for attention here. Second, it's like when you said to your mother "All the other kids are doing it" - that's not a good reason. Wikipedia is always in progress, articles come and go. And in terms of going, I just marked those two articles as not meeting the criteria and for being overly promotional. They need to be changed. However, Tara Styles has a very long NY Times article about her, which does establish notability. LaMona (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Ballantinesrose (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

04:35:59, 24 March 2016 review of submission by Timothydunn
Requesting a re-review bc more content about the subject has been published since my last edit!

Also, a question- the name of the listing I'm editing is "Got Ur #" (aka "Got Ur Number"), but the main draft is still titled just "Got Ur," presumably because the system assumed the "#" was an error. Will this correct itself once the listing is approved?

Thank you! Timothydunn (talk) 04:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's the answer to your question about the title: "There are technical restrictions on the use of certain characters in page titles. The following characters cannot be used at all: # < > [ ] | { } _" From Article_titles. So you will need to use the word Number in the title, although you can use the hash mark in the text. LaMona (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Hi LaMona,

Thank you so much for the review! I have added some more external links to the article which are redio and TV interviews about the author (Enock Maregesi). The reason LaMona I am creating this article (Draft: Enock Maregesi) is that, the award Enock Maregesi won is the first major international Kiswahili award ever bestowed by anyone or organization; and is pan-African which means, it touches many Kiswahili-speaking people wherever they are in the world. The Kiswahili language is now one of the official languages of the AU (African Union) and is spoken by more than 400 million people in more than five countries in Africa; in Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda being the official language. Please consider notability of Mr Maregesi; because I think it's a good thing to honor people like him, who use much of their energy to fight for their cultures, who have been recognized by the media.

Thanks again,

Jenny Patranella (talk) 11:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC) 


 * Hi, Jenny. Regardless of the good intentions regarding Maregesi, to have an article the person must meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. That's what matters here. You will need to find more sources. You should also consider Wiki's other than English Wikipedia, which has more stringent requirements than some in other languages. The Kiswahili Wiki would be a logical venue. LaMona (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Declined Draft:Demand Control
Hi LaMona,

I've added additional references to my entry on Demand Control. When can I expect for it to be reviewed again?

Thanks.

BillSkowronnek (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Bill - all requests go into the queue, so there's no set time for when it might be picked up by a reviewer. Reviews are fed randomly, and we're now at over 400 articles that need reviewing. I'm afraid you'll have to be patient. LaMona (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Sistina article
Thanks for flagging this up for attention. I've been working to improve the Zapf articles since he died but had put this on the back burner.

Now I look at it, I feel that while it's certainly notable, there's not much meat for an article - it's basically a medium-weight set of titling capitals made to go with Palatino, one of the most famous fonts ever made, and while many sources mention it few rate it as worth commenting on - I mean, there's not much to say, it's a set of Roman-inspired inscriptional capitals. So I'm right now thinking it might be good to just merge the article into Palatino, where so many more people would see it. How would you feel about that? Blythwood (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Blythwood. I am no expert on fonts, and was about to check out some books from the library so as to provide references. All I know is that they are studied and written about so we should be able to provide references. Any adjustments that you choose to make are fine with me. I have noticed that many of the font articles (some of which date from the very early days of WP) do not have references, and I think this can be fixed. I definitely would not like to see the articles deleted for lack of references. I am willing to do some basic bibliographic research if that helps. Just let me know. LaMona (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, LaMona!
Dear LaMona, Thank you for reviewing my page on Laurin McCracken. Can you please give me some further guidance? The awards the artist has won are published either on the awarding society's website or in their annual catalogs. Do I need to cite these websites/catalogs? Sincerely, writing4wiki


 * Hi. Yes, you should cite whatever is the society's official way of announcing awards. Also, you seem to have quite a bit more material about the artist that you have left as document references in the "further reading" section. Further reading does not contribute to notability, so you should try to make use of those resources to add information to the article, using the documents as references. An article like "Kramer, Sarah (2012, November 4). McCracken wins best in show. Delta Democrat Times, A3, A9" would be a fine reference for an award or a show listing. Unfortunately, you will need to remove the section you just added, the artist's statement. The content of a WP article must come from neutral third parties and never from the subject of the article. That's why using some of your further reading documents you may be able to say more about the artist. Quite honestly, lists of shows or works aren't very interesting reading, so it would be best if you could have more prose. LaMona (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

23:09:28, 28 March 2016 review of submission by Carnymike
Good Morning, Evening LaMona;

Thank you for your thoughtful, helpful criticisms.

I am re-submitting for your investigation and analysis three additions (Plot, Production, Music) with reliable references (including quotes) and additional notability information.

I would like to bring to your attention (from the new Production entry) the bizarre and unique journey of (the film) Runaway Nightmare from unauthorized VHS (with additional material added) - to un-promoted underground favorite - to slow cult status - to rebirth into a preservation effort with new prints, Blu-ray 4K ‘director’s’ cut’ revision (even a new VHS retro) and national art house cinema tour (32 years after its first release).

Briefly included is Runaway Nightmare’s actual breakneck filming that could have only existed in the historically important 1970s - early ’80s indy filmmaking era.

Also noteworthy is the adventure of one distributor (after the contract had expired with the producer and without his knowledge) having unloaded (or selling or something) Runaway Nightmare to another distributor, who filmed and spliced nude video scenes into the movie.

Released in the early 1980s, Runaway Nightmare was perhaps noteworthy as being one of the very first ‘straight-to-video’ movies distributed.

I submit another possible noteworthiness of Runaway Nightmare may be its several crew members who went on to the top of their professions in the film industry. Included are a household named movie director; a popular, respected Director of Photography/president of the ASC; and one of the important Senior Executives at 20th Century Fox studios.

Cinema Releasing Corporation and All Seasons Entertainment distribution companies are FTB Suspended and cannot be contacted for information regarding their intrigues and stagecraft. I have, however included third-party corporation information for both in the references.

You are far more aware than I regarding reliable references, but I was fairly careful to include many sources used often in Wikipedia including;

Psychovision.net Mondo-Digital.com Rue Morgue (magazine has a page of its own) dvddrive-in.com Soiledsinema docterror.com Diabolicmagazine.com Rock!shock!pop!.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnymike (talk • contribs) 23:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Lunchmeat VHS (has its own page) Chas Balun (with the his book containing the RN critique) has his own page. BlogTo.com (is a subset of Rue Morgue.com) flavorwire.com critcononline.com The author Jason Coffman, who wrote the Runaway Nightmare critique in dailygrindhouse is used as a reference in nine separate Wikipedia pages. dailygrindhouse itself is used in nine pages.

Resources for selected city theater exhibition examples include; VillageVoice.com for New York cinema. LAweekly.com for proof of Los Angeles cinema showtime. Drafthouse.com for Austin, Texas cinema information.

For verification of the success and fame of Runaway Nightmare crew members I use Linkedin

For film term definitions, I use filmconnection.com

For music soundtracks proof I use ‘movements.com, ‘ringostack.com’ and Catalog of Copyright Entries’ from Google books. I use ‘78discography.com’ for proof of the Imperial music publishing of one song with the copyrighted author.

For verification of one movie (Biter Heritage), one person (the Runaway Nightmare director) and one distribution company (Vinegar Syndrome) I use IMDb and BFI.org. For information on two former distribution companies (Cinema Releasing Corporation and All Seasons Entertainment) I use Californiacorporates.com

For what it’s worth, I found that the Yale University Center: Film Study has included Runaway Nightmare in its collection.

Regarding the photo, I am the copyright holder and have sent the 'Declaration of Consent for All Enquiries' template to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.

If you evaluate that Runaway Nightmare’s distinct circumstance/history are not yet ready for inclusion, then I will only bother you again when the movie has earned enough evidence of importance.

Thank you for your serious and laborious efforts. Carnymike (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Carnymike. Here at Wikipedia, references are everything. It doesn't matter who or what, it has to be covered in third-party references that are considered reliable sources. You need to read about reliable sources at wp:rs, because you still have many references that do not meet the criteria, and your article can't go into Wikipedia with those sources. In particular, LinkedIN, IMDB, and Mikespopculture cannot be used - we do not allow sources that do not have editorial oversight and fact-checking - crowd-sourced sites like IMDB (and Wikipedia, even) are not allowed. Personal blogs or sites are not allowed. That includes two-person sites, like soiledsinema. So you need to concentrate on finding published sources to support the article. If you are unsure of a source, you can ask here, or at the Reliable_sources/Noticeboard which is all about which sources are and are not reliable by Wikipedia's definition. LaMona (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, hey Carnymike, I just discovered WikiProject_Film/Resources which lists "good" sources for films, including a list for horror films. That might help you out. And they give advice about articles on films, as well. LaMona (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Request on 06:08:48, 28 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Chints247
Hi, thanks for the review. As mentioned in the review. The first phase has already been implemented in Lucknow. It is the other cities which are yet to be finished. I will add them as well once they are operational

I believe this is a great green initiative taken in India and needs to be a part of Wiki. Chints247 (talk) 06:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Chints247 (talk) 06:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. Chints247. If there is something to be said about the completed project, then please add that to the article. However, one would normally expect a project to have been in existence for a while before its impact can be measured. That impact would be of greatest interest. You should look for sources that address that - not potential future impact, but measured past/present impact. Wikipedia bases notability entirely on the existence of what has been written about a topic, not on the presumed importance. The references you have are themselves good, but they all speak only to the future project. LaMona (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for the response. There is just 1 line in the article which says "A 35-km-stretch costing Rs 31 Crore has already been constructed in the city". Will this not suffice that the work has partially begun. I will keep on adding as I get any other updates on the work being done. Since its just a few months old project I am sure it will take some more time to get extra details. Chints247 (talk) 05:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It isn't just that it must be completed - it's that the effect of its completion needs to have to written about. So that's what you need to look for. The article needs to wait until that has happened. A draft article is not deleted until at least 6 months have passed in which there are no edits. If you make occasional edits, you can keep the draft indefinitely, until the time that the project has proven itself notable. LaMona (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

17:19:31, 24 March 2016 review of submission by Keithdevereux
Dear La Mona, This is the first time I have tried using this 'User talk' facility, so if it goes pear-shaped, my apologies.

Thank you for reviewing my entry for Scar For Life, I found your suggestions (more citations) to be very helpful. I have gone through the entry and added as many references as I can to back up what was originally written. In a few moments time I will resubmit the article and I hope I will have more luck this time.

Again, thank you for your input, this was very valluable.

Best regards,

Keith Devereux.


 * Hi,, and thanks for the kind words. Your message did not go pear-shaped, so that's a success. One small thing, however: on talk pages, you have to sign your messages with four tildes at the end. Then the system substitutes your user signature for the tildes. It may not seem logical, but so it goes. At the bottom of the edit box there is a reminder and a link to click on, although I find that it often scrolls off my screen. LaMona (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I jsut took a look at your article and 2 things: 1) something has gone wrong in the formatting and the discography is falling off the page. I suggest using very simple styles to avoid this kind of thing 2) you have a lot of non-reliable sources (see wp:rs for the definition of "reliable"). You must not use blogs, social sites, or reviews by non-professional reviewers. It's best to remove these ASAP because they will be a red flag for AfC reviewers. LaMona (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

10:21:34, 21 March 2016 review of submission by Infoiarm

 * Hi, . Did you mean to leave a message? LaMona (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi LaMona,

Yes I thought I had left a message but now think I must have done something wrong because I cannot find it any more. The essence of it was the following:

Thank you for your feedback relating to the draft of Agile Financial Management for which I am made a number of changes including converting the web links citing other non-book materials - these now appear in the References list. This was an editing oversight that was not intended to skew/bias the article content. Also I noted that a Google search for agile financial management is likely to turn up many off topic items since the term "agile" is often used as an adjective in finance and does not refer to an overarching method or approach per se. This article is specifically focused on financial practices as they relate to agile projects (e.g., software development).

For purposes of full disclosure I am an SME participant in this field but am not interested in promoting specific publications, services, companies or even agile methodologies (though a few are mentioned in the article as examples). The intent of this article is to act as a rallying point for a topic that is not yet in Wikipedia.

Infoiarm (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. I have no idea what SME is, so please enlighten me. If you are not promoting specific publications, companies, etc., then it may be difficult to explain why your username uses the name of a particular company in this area Institute of Agile Risk Management IARM, and that so far the articles created have the same titles as the sections on that web site. Those latter could be coincidence, but the user name clearly is not -- info+IARM is a pretty obvious statement of interest. Please explain. LaMona (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi LaMona,

Sorry for any misunderstanding, SME refers to "Subject Matter Expert" and as you correctly deduce the infoiarm is related to the IARM - this is an attempt to be clear concerning the source since the use of another name might not be as transparent. The subject material of the article is a pertinent topic for the agile community though one that has received insufficient direct attention despite being mentioned frequently - hence the article e.g., there is only one book though there are a number of web articles/blogs. It is my wish to be as NPOV as possible whilst also giving a voice to the topic. If you feel that this has not been achieved to a sufficient degree or that infoiarm involvement constitutes too much of a conflict then please advise as I am happy to oblige as appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.105.203.51 (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi LaMona,

Addendum to the above in light of the message you sent: please note that there is no attempt to promote IARM in any way in the current article. This is in order to avoid any sense of a COI - having read the COI details I hope that this was achieved. Please advise if you think I need to take further action here.

Infoiarm (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Infoiarm - You either are or you are not in some way related to IARM, but since you have taken that name the answer seems to be that you are: "as you correctly deduce the infoiarm is related to the IARM". IARM, from what I can see, is a single-person outfit: Alan Moran. It features his books, and only his books. His name is on all of the papers. And his is the only name on the site. There is no board of directors, no other authors, etc. So it's pretty obvious that a relation to IARM is a relation to Moran, not to some professional agile management group. It's not a group, it's a person. And the only person mentioned in the text of the articles you have created is Alan Moran. So this is looking very much like it is personal. Although the articles have been written with an NPOV, the use of his name in the text is a give-away. LaMona (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi LaMona,

There is no attempt here to introduce a COI, merely a desire to raise awareness of topics of interest to the agile community. In respect of this principle I would only feel happy retaining this article if you are entirely satisfied in relation to its integrity. Should this not be so, then I will of course remove it immediately without any objection. Kind regards,

Infoiarm (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi LaMona,

One question more to clarify our discussion: do you feel there is a COI involved here because an opinion is being expressed on a topic in which IARM is involved? You do understand that this is neither an article about IARM nor about Moran (or do you feel strongly that this is the case? By the way Moran is not the only cited person e.g., see Barry Boehm in the other article). Mention of Moran is unavoidable in this article owing to the fact that the only book on this topic is written by Moran. Please clarify where you see the COI and/or any measures or amendments you might recommend. It is important for me to retain balance and neutrality so I rely on reviewers like yourself to help me achieve this. Many thanks for your assistance in cleaning up the article - this is much appreciated.

Infoiarm (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * To a large degree it is the name. Why did you choose to use the name of an "institute" that is a one-person operation? IARM is Moran -- there is no one else involved but him. And I disagree that you must mention (not cite, but name in the article) Moran because he has a book by that name. We don't create articles based on book titles. You have to show that this is a widely used term of art as well as a significant development in the field. In effect, you have to show that it is not just Moran but an entire community of thinkers that are furthering these concepts. You also have to show that these differ substantially from the concept of risk management in general (which is an established area of discourse in a number of fields). See WP:NEOLOGISM for how we treat new terms of art. If Moran is the only one who calls it "agile risk management" or "agile financial management" then it does not meet our criteria. From my research, Moran is not heavily cited (cf Google scholar) nor are his books heavily collected (cf. search for them in Worldcat - a couple of hundred library holdings is not a large number in that context). The term "agile risk management" appears in books published before his so he is not an inventor of this term. (I find instances as early as 2004, and other "institutes" with that name.) Your emphasis on Moran is not supported by the literature on the topic. LaMona (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that you posted a response - Thanks. I note some of your comments relate to how encyclopedic you consider the topic to be and of course you are right that it is not very widespread (published material has only started to appear in the last few years e.g., I found another German language book on that topic just recently). It is interesting that you discovered other institutes and references as far back as 2004 - I was not aware of these. As an aside I am not sure it is actually neologism but see why you might claim this and there is of course no claim to "invention" (the topic of risk management in agile has been discussed obliquely for a long time). Anyhow, as indicated on the COI board I would only feel comfortable if the articles completely satisfy all of the necessary requirements and so have volunteered the removal of both articles (by inserting a "db" tag into the top of the article). Thanks for your feedback, patience and clarifications. Infoiarm (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

14:43:55, 30 March 2016 review of submission by 92.225.34.124
Hi, I just looked at other artist pages for referencing, and for example the page on The Martinez Brothers uses Discogs as a source for remixes and albums released by the artists. Can you please let me know then, why in your review you mentioned Discogs as an unreliable source?

Thank you very much. Much appreciated.


 * Hi. The decision about Discogs was made by the wp:Reliable sources/Noticeboard in this posting: [Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_201#Discogs]. As it is user-generated content, it is not reliable. This means that any statements in an article where it is used could be contested and potentially deleted. (That it has been used doesn't mean that it should be used - you weaken your article by using it, and leave yourself open to deletions of content.) Many of your sources do not support notability, such as announcements of upcoming performances. Those can support that fact that a group was scheduled to perform, but that's not notable. For musicians, you need something more than fan material -- in particular, you need reviews written by professional reviewers in newspapers and magazines that have a reputation for editorial control. If the source is one that rarely if ever posts a negative review, then it can't be taken seriously. There has to be thinking going on, not just enthusiasm for the music. That's what we are looking for. You can evaluate your sources against Reliable_sources_checklist. And be sure that you have read (and possibly re-read) the specific criteria for musicians: Notability_(music). Those are the criteria that are used. LaMona (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's more about your sources: BBC and the Guardian are de facto reliable sources, but the Guardian only has a "name check" on the band, and the BBC entries are just their music in a playlist. Interviews are not considered reliable sources because it is the person talking about themself, not a third party, so although you can cite them, they do not support notability (Pulseradio, Clubber). Announcements of performances and other "name checks" do not support notability (various sources). Fan polls do not support notability (Munoludy). Their own writing is not a third-party source, does not support notability (Bigshot). You should try to remove as many of those as possible and see what is left. Then you need to find better sources to take their place. LaMona (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Request on 11:15:51, 30 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Keithdevereux
Hi LaMona

Thank you for reviewing my entry for Scar For Life, it seems this time I have gone too far with the citations! I'm in the process of reviewing your comments and where I can replacing the citations with other sources, but I have one question:

You mention that 'Blogs obviously cannot be used', which I assume refers to the use of the 'blogspot' references? The snag here is that in Portugal (at least) sometimes popular music and other sites use 'blogspot' or an equivalent as their provider. For example Songs For The Deaf is a popular music internet radio station that uses Blogger as it's internet host, while Radio Comercial - one of the most popular independent Portuguese radio stations - uses 'iol.pt' as its host, which is like Blogger. Similarly SIC, one of the four terrestrial TV stations, uses 'sapo.pt/' (also like Blogger) while TVI uses 'iol.pt' (the other two terrestrial stations are RTP and RTP2, the state broadcaster - like the BBC). So here even big companies use the 'standard' blogging platforms. I did try to back up each fact quoted with a reliable citation, it was just that some of the sources do not host their own sites.

I hope this makes sense and your opinion would be appreciated.

Best wishes,

Keith

Keithdevereux (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Keithdevereux (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keith, yes, I was referring to the blogspot sites. The question then becomes: are these sites with paid reporters an editorial policy and fact-checking? If the sites are informal publications, then again they are not considered reliable. If they take submissions from non-employees, then they are not reliable. If they say nothing at all about their staff or their policies (e.g. Blabbermouth) then we may need to ask at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard to see how others assess the sources. You need to review wp:rs about reliable sources. Note that although some sources are able to be used to verify facts, they do not support notability. One example is interviews - interviews are the person talking about themself, so that's not a third-party source. Announcements of performances that do not include substantial reviews of the music and musicians do not support notability. For musicians, you need something more than fan material -- in particular, you need reviews written by professional reviewers in newspapers and magazines that have a reputation for editorial control. If the source is one that rarely if ever posts a negative review, then it can't be taken seriously. LaMona (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Request on 20:27:05, 30 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Todkiry
Dear LaMona,

Thank you so much for reviewing the latest updates to the entry for Insurify. I have provided some more details about the notability of the website and company. There are no other websites which provide auto insurance comparison of 80 real time carriers' quotes in the United States. The site is publicly available and accessible through https://www.insurify.com

Part of the TechCrunch article is referring to another product, EVIA which is in limited public beta. But the rest of the service is publicly available.

I appreciate your time and attention to my contributions to the Insurify page. Please let me know if there are any other items you would like me to address.

Best regards,

Todkiry (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Todkiry - As you've probably surmised, what counts on WP is sources - third-party sources that write substantially about the company, not just as a company but as something that has had a lasting impact. That's what encyclopedias are about. Wikipedia's goal is not to become a directory of companies - those already exist, and they have a different goal. One of the hurdles you have is that the company is a startup, so it may not have been around long enough to become what is needed to be notable by Wikipedia standards. Getting investment money is not notable - no business gets started without it. Announcements of new businesses or new products are generally not considered notable. (You can see this in wp:corp - such announcements are considered routine.) So the company needs multiple sources saying: this makes a difference, and here's why it makes a difference. That may be in the company's future, but it seems hard to prove today. LaMona (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)