User talk:Onel5969/Archive 31

Archive 31: June 2016

17:35:17, 1 June 2016 review of submission by A7600404
Hi there, requesting a re-review because I believe I've improved the language that was previously not considered to be neutral. Please let me know if there are any more changes/improvements I can make.

Thank you!
 * I'd reviewed and declined this because it was still promotional and because it contained copyright violations. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Request on 17:40:47, 1 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Etaft
Hi, thanks for the feedback. I added several references and replaced one or two others. Is this enough, or are more citations needed?

Etaft (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
 * Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

03:08:07, 4 June 2016 review of submission by Lquessenberry
Bear with me as this is my first time submitting and I can't quite get my head around notability. I have been putting a lot of research in on the subject of my entry and I am wondering if it was a technical hurdle that I did not overcome, or is it simply not enough reference material citing the subject?

Chris Fuller Draft Article
Hey there, we spoke a month or so back about the Chris Fuller article in the draft space (the "Loren Cass" filmmaker). I did what you requested and have really built the article up with some great information and major sources). It meets all of the guidelines for the notability of creative professionals, but, after a lengthy wait, some other Mod just rejected it for the number of works the subject has had. My understanding is that the number of works has no bearing on notability. It seems like an endless pursuit and some of the Mods don't seem to understand the guidelines themselves. I'm not sure how things work on your end and I know you're semi-retired, but if you have a moment to re-review the article it would be much appreciated. Thanks! Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Chris_Fuller — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.190.83.144 (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

02:25:48, 11 June 2016 review of submission by 67.9.151.198
Hi Onel5969,

I'm requesting a re-review of an article you declined about a month ago. It has been built up since then by several authors independent of the subject over a long period of time. It meets the Golden Rule guidelines and the Guidelines for the Notability of Creative Professionals (filmmakers, etc.)

The Golden Rule: The subject indeed has significant coverage (multi-page editorials, not Q&A interviews) in reliable sources (NY Times, LA Times, LA Weekly, Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Filmmaker Magazine, IndieWire, the Museum of Modern Art, etc.) that are independent of the topic (of course, the periodicals previously mentioned aren't related to the subject of the article in any way).

Guidelines for the Notability of Creative Professionals:

1) The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

The subject has been covered as one of the top 100 new filmmakers in a book published by Phaidon Press that was curated by major film festival programmers from around the world. The subject has also been nominated for an IFP Gotham Award. Also, included in the sources are interviews with other filmmakers who cite the work of the subject as an influence and something wholly original.

2) The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.

See the above respond to #1. The filmmaker is known for the originality of his work.

3) The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

The subject created a work that was deemed significant by the NY Times, the Museum of Modern Art and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. The work, "Loren Cass", has also been the one of the subjects of a book ("Take 100" published by Phaidon Press) and of multiple independent periodical articles and reviews.

4) The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

The subject's feature film, "Loren Cass", is known for its originality (a), was featured in an exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art in NYC (b), has been named a NY Times Critic's Pick and received strong reviews in numerous mainstream publications (c), was nominated for an IFP Gotham Award (c), and is represented at the Museum of Modern Art along with the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (d), linked below for verification.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences: http://catalog.oscars.org/vwebv/search?searchType=7&searchId=224&maxResultsPerPage=50&recCount=50&recPointer=0&resultPointer=0

10:08:55, 12 June 2016 review of submission by Naitikavyas
Hello, We strongly believe that Mr. Pankaj Naram has done remarkable work in the field of Siddhaveda and Marma Techniques which can help people live their life with vibrant health, peace of mind and unlimited energy. I have personally experienced it. I would like to take your help to guide us what should we write which can be considered as accepted criteria. I understand that article should not look like PR exercise or self publicity and we do not want to do that as well. We only want it to be here in Wikipedia as it will help millions of people. I was searching for another article in wikipedia w.r.t Ayurvedic Doctor and found this one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partap_Chauhan I am amazed that if this article can be accepted then why not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pankaj_Naram ? Do guide us to rewrite the way it can be accepted.

Thanking you in advance.

Naitikavyas (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)naitikavyas

Thank you so much for your quick feedback. Really Appreciate!

Do find below my response. 1. Wikipedia account is Single user only. When I am using a term "we" I mean all the people who have been benefited by Pankaj Naram somewhere or other w.r.t Health Issues. I am using term "we" on their behalf. We want Pankaj Naram's basic profile to come on Wikipedia.

2. I do understand that earlier low quality content approval doesn't mean to approve other of similar nature. But at the same time I believe that Wikipedia should also look into those people who can change someone's life forever and benefits the masses.

3. I request your help to guide "we the people" who have benefited by Pankaj Naram to submit the article which can meet the criteria of Wikipedia Article section. We are all here to abide the rules and regulations and I want to personally volunteer Wikipedia forever.

Naitikavyas (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)naitikavyas

11:36:07, 13 June 2016 review of submission by Yellowmug7
Hello! I'm attempting to make The Cavendish article appropriate for Wikipedia and was wondering whether you had any advice for any specific changes I can make to make the submission more suitable? Thank you! Yellowmug7 (talk) 11:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello there! I'm working on a project trying to bring most of the coding on Wikipedia up to the most current standards (HTML5), and I noticed that your signature is using  tags which were deprecated in HTML 4.0 Transitional, marked as invalid in 4.0 Strict, and are not part of HTML5 at all. I'd love to help you update your signature to use newer code, and if you're interested,&#32;I suggest replacing:

with:

which will result in a 170 character long signature with an appearance of:  Onel 5969  TT me compared to your existing 156 character long signature of:  Onel 5969  TT me

— Either way. Happy editing! (t) Josve05a  (c) 18:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi - No worries, done.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Request on 09:51:29, 22 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by TomCunnane
I have tried to submit this page 3 times for a colleague. Rejected due to refs. Now updated. TomCunnane (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi - I removed the draft you inappropriately posted to my talk page. I can only see where you've submitted it once, and it was declined by . Not sure why you are posting on my talk page, but I agree with st170e's assessment. Your article suffers from large formatting issues, both in the structure/style of the article, and particularly in its citations. I'll post some links on the draft which might help you. Also, you shouldn't remove the AfC decline statement.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

A favor
Hi Onel5969! I gather you've mostly retired from AfC (totally understandable, BTW – there's a reason why I've never really tried to take up reviewing over there!...). In any case, I trust your judgment from your AfC experience, and I was wondering if you could take a quick look at Draft:Tori Anderson for me, and tell me if you'd "publish" it if it were an AfC submission. And, if you can't take a look at it, no worries! TIA in either case! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi - I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. She's had several roles in episodic television, she has a recurring role (which is miscategorized as a main role in her article) in The Other Kingdom, which is a relatively new cable show. Her role on Open Heart is a main role, but it is a relatively insignificant show, having lasted only 12 episodes. I think once No Tomorrow begins to be broadcast it might work. But this is just my opinion. You might want to submit it through the AfC process, and another editor might see it differently. Take care.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree. But I also know that someone (likely a "drive-by editor") is likely to create a one-line (unsourced) stub in the next three months at Tori Anderson. So I'm wrestling with doing this the "right" way and waiting until more sourcing becomes available, or just moving the article to mainspace now so at least there's something with proper sourcing at that location (to prevent something worse from getting created there in the meantime...).
 * One question I've had for a while – do articles in Draftspace have "precedence" over articles created in mainspace at a later date? – In other words, do articles created earlier in Draftspace get to automatically "replace" (bad) articles created later in mainspace? If the system worked like that, it would be a great incentive to doing article creation the "right" way... But I've always gotten the impression that mainspace is like the Wild West, and basically whoever gets there first "wins". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * - Responding to your last question first. No, no preference is given to articles in draft space. It's part of the concept of Wikipedia (at least I've been given this impression, never actually seen it written anywhere) that this isn't a contest, it's a project, and everybody should be working on it together. Of course, that is belied in the fact that so much emphasis seems to be put on article creation, and I'd be a hypocrite if I said I didn't get enjoyment out of being an article's creator. By all means move it to mainspace. But be prepared for it to have an AfD challenge. And keep on top of it, adding extra sourcing when it comes available. 12:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)