User talk:Onel5969/Archive 8

Archive 8: July 2014

Thank you for reviewing my article
Thank you for reviewing my article Narrows Center for the Arts (draft). I'm a fairly new Wikipedian, so I'm going to let the draft sit for a while and help with the cleanup of other articles for now to learn more about acceptable articles before trying again. Am I right that my article will not be deleted but will remain in my subpages as a draft? Thanks again!skatoulaki (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. I asked the question in the forum and got the following responses which I thought I'd pass along:  "The page has already been moved to the draft: space to Draft:Narrows Center for the Arts. It will sit around for about 6 months and then be considered for G13 speedy deletion. I have removed some promotional text, but it is not that much like an essay, so is close to ready for article life." and "In any case, the author has six months and will be warned prior to deletion. The draft can be userfied to keep it in a user sandbox longer than that. I agree with Graeme Bartlett that it can likely be accepted well before that." Thought you might be encouraged by their feedback.  Onel5969 (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you so much! I definitely am encouraged! I'll keep working on it and will consider resubmitting it in a few weeks. Thanks again! skatoulaki (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Celtro Communication Haimbs
Hello Onel5969 Recently i submitted an article that was rejected by you. Nearly after I entered a question which got no reply from you, please see "19:50:18, 23 June 2014 review of submission by Haimbs", would you be kind to address my query Thanks Haimbs (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Haimbs (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. First, I didn't answer your question because it wasn't addressed to me.  In addition, I'm not one of the editors which peruses the help page for the AfD project.  In the future, when you wish to ask someone a question, do exactly what you did today, and ask on their talk page.  Another way, is to "ping" them, like I did you at the beginning of this response, that way, no matter where you place your query, they are alerted that they've been mentioned.  You can click on the edit tab for this message to see the template for pinging... it's quite simple.


 * Now onto your question. Your article reads like an ad for the company, focusing on selling the product, rather than informing the reader in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.  I know that there are other articles out there which read like advertisements, but they should be corrected, not have another one added to them.  The guidelines regarding this can be found at WP:NOTADVERTISING.  The issue with your article is with the second section.  The first section only has a single issue (re: the $40M raise - which again sounds promotional - but if that were the only instance in the article, that wouldn't be an issue).  The second section, however, is purely promotional, using words like "unique" and "innovative".  I've edited the section to show you an example of the difference.  Feel free to edit that work, as it was an example of how not to sound like an advertisement.  Good luck.  Onel5969 (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)



Hello One15969 thank you for your patience guide. I am new around but i am learning.

As for my draft, I agree with you on both points; that the second section includes some promotion words and that we shouldn't make things worse then what they are. about the raising money ~$40 million, I took it from the attached web sites, but it is not so important. To summarize, if i'll re-submit the current version exactly as is will it be accepted? If so will you help me to add the company logo at the top of the page?

Thanks very much Haimbs (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

06:36:08, 3 July 2014 review of submission by ProfessorKouk
I'm a little confused as to why this article was rejected. It was said that YouTube links shouldn't be used, but this is an article about an established YouTube personality. How is someone supposed to reference their work without sourcing a link to YouTube? Also, the blogs that are cited are established entertainment critics who comment on the medium in which the subject operates. G4, The Guardian, Tubefilter, and Slant Magazine are all reputable sites who have reviewed the work of the subject, which is why they were cited.

As for sources "too close" to the subject, how else is someone supposed to write a description of the content without citing the content itself? It is a primary source -- the most valuable in scholarly writing. What better source for how much money the crowdfunding campaign raised for the series than the IndieGoGo site for the series itself? How better to know how many episodes of the series have aired than a link to the series' IMDb page? Why not link to the series own description page when providing a synopsis of what happens in the show?

I realized when reviewing the draft that some of the citations were for the wrong article, they should've been linking to an interview and writeup about the subject and instead were linking to a different page. Please give this article another look over with these details in mind.

ProfessorKouk (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. Somehow when I declined the article, the overall reason for that declining was not given, simply my comments supporting that reason were given.  Your article was declined because it does not meet the notability standards for Wikipedia regarding living persons as per WP:BIO.


 * In answering your specific questions, here goes. First, any reference source which does not have editorial oversight (youtube, imdb, linkedin, twitter, facebook, etc.), is not a reliable source, and cannot be used as a reference source, as per WP:RS.  Youtube, especially must be used very carefully, as per WP:YOUTUBE, due to possible copyright violations.  I understand your frustration when your subject is connected to one of those mediums, but that doesn't change the underlying reasons for not allowing them.  Sources also must be independent of the subject.  Interviews can be used to verify some of the facts in the article, but should be used very infrequently, as they are both non-independent, and not reliable.  For example, there was an article I edited about a very well known musical personality.  There was conflict about her date of birth.  The citation used was an interview she had given to a newspaper.  But she lied about her age.  But it's not even about lying.  When people are being interviewed, sometimes they simply misspeak, or misremember, or simply get a fact wrong.  Primary sources should be used sparingly as per WP:PRIMARY.


 * Second, there's a difference between a valid citation (like your example of the indiegogo citation to support the funds raised), and a citation which proves notability, like a newspaper article from about the subject. A citation which makes a brief reference to the subject, can be used to verify the fact stated, but does not indicate notability (like the G4 citation). Primary sources, for example, should only be used to cite facts, and never go to proving notability. The standard for when blogs can be used may be found HERE. The blogs used are not newsblogs, they are self-published sources, and therefore per the guideline, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."


 * Third, some of the citations don't support the underlying facts, e.g. the link to Keith Uhlich nowhere mentions the quote cited in your article (while it does mention the phrase, nowhere does it say that he is calling the article's subject that). And this is followed in the same sentence by an opinion offered as fact, regarding comparing him to Yankovic.


 * I did look over the article again, and the same issues hold, although I will say the tubefilter article is another good citation. But the only two good citations you have are from very fringe sources. Onel5969 (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Haripad
Thanks for leaving comment on revert. Can you please help me to understand which sites will come under 'reliable' category? The site which I referred is reputed one which is coming under belur math site which is considered most reliable. --Kuzhali.india (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. The site you used as a reference is really what we would term, a blog. It's run by two people, who self-publish, with no editorial oversight, see WP:QUESTIONABLE.  For a source to be used, it should be both independent and reliable.  WP:RS (of which the other link I gave you is a part of) gives a good overview on how to judge whether or not a source is reliable.  Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the information--Kuzhali.india (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi
Could you please add the GOCE tag to the Jade Ewen talk page. Thanks :)--BabbaQ (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * - Done. Onel5969 (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Khanate of Kokand
I see you deleted it...

But this is not incorrect as you claimed...

There is one male member of the former Khante of Kokand

Khan Timur Can born 1978.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Khan-of-Kokand/1528862514001851

Thank you for your comments re: Serenade (Book)
Hi there I would like to thank you for your comments and compliments on the work for the article in creation "Serenade (Book)". I will work on the notability issues you have pointed out and revise, resubmit and see if I can do better. Thanks again! Mari — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maribianca101 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. Keep up the good work, good luck with the article. Onel5969 (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Abraham Neyman
Hello,

You have recently declined the submission of the article about Abraham Neyman. Neyman answers many of the criteria in the guidelines for academics, for example: 1) he has made significant advances to his field, and in recogntion for them the "International Journal of Game Theory" decided to dedicate a special issue in his honor (reference given in the draft). A summary of his academic achivements also appears in the article. 3) Neyman has been elected to the Econometric Society which is a highly selective and prestigious scholaraly society. 6) He is a full proffesor in the departement of mathematics in the Hebrew Univeristy of Jerusalem, Israel (HUJI). Note that HUJI appears in the list of 100 best universities in the world, and the departement of mathematics there is considered one of the leading centers of game theory worldwide, especially since one of its memebers, Robert Aumann won the Nobel prize in economics for his work on game theory.

This article was written by friends of mine who are mathematicians, experts in game theory, but not very familiar with Wikipedia. Considering that I think they did a good job writting the article which they supported by many references. These are exactly the kind of people we would like to attract to wikipedia.

I would therefore like to urge you to reconsinder acceptance of this article. Yours gratefully, ??????? (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. He may very well be notable, but as I said in my comments, the citations included in the article do not demonstrate that notability.  There's not a single citation from an independent, reliable source, and especially in a bio article, the burden is high.  You can look at WP:RS to get an idea of what WP considers to reliable and independent.  Being a full professor isn't notable, he would have had to be the dean. Using your logic regarding his faculty position would mean that every professor at Yale, Harvard, UCLA, Stanford, etc. would qualify as notable.  A list of his academic achievements does not make him notable, as it must be "demonstrated by independent reliable sources".  The Econometric Society does not qualify; there are quite a few societies which are specific to certain fields, that does not make of the same stature of the handful which are recognized as being the top tier (like the Royal Society). Onel5969 (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I am one of the contributors to the article. It clearly states that Abraham Neyman is a fellow of the Econometric Society since 1989 (Which is one of the highest honors an economist can get in his/her lifetime; even in places like Harvard, only a handful of tenured full professors obtain this), President of the Israeli Chapter of the Game Theory Society, and that the International Journal of Game Theory - a well known peer reviewed journal which is central in that field - had announced a special issue in his Honor "in recognition of his important contributions to game theory". I think this is more than enough, as only a handful of academics get these honors. If you need more, I can add that he gave the von-Neumann lecture in the Game Theory Society conference (held only once in 4 years!) at Chicago in 2008: https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/meds/games2008/schedule.html And actually gave it twice (as in 2012, J.F Mertens, who was supposed to give it, passed away, and Neyman was immediately elected to take his place). He was also, as his CV suggest (I know you don't care, but still, the CV of such an eminent scientist should count for something...), the area editor of game theory in Mathematics of Operations Research (perhaps the most important platform for mathematical game theory, and especially for stochastic games) and also an associate editor in Games and Economic Behavior (which is regarded as a top journal in Economic Theory, I can supply evidence if it is needed). If these journal affiliations need any further evidence (which does not appear online, unfortunately), I will be more than happy to contact the relevant editors in those journals (all of which were either students of Neyman, or were strongly influenced by him...) and they will supply it. It will be quite amazing if we should go to such length after mentioning that he is a fellow of the Econometric Society and president of the Israeli Chapter of the Game Theory society (especially given the influence of Israeli game theorists on the field. Here are a few examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Aumann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Schmeidler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergiu_Hart), but I am quite willing to supply this further evidence if it is still required. OEdhan (talk) 09:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

As to the Econometric Society, you can have a look at:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2171743

" The Econometric Society is the most prestigious learned society in the field of economics, with a world-wide membership". OEdhan (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Red Triangle Productions
Just a quick heads up – the article above which you rejected at Articles for Creation not only still has its own page, but has been added to in the last 24 hours, including alterations by user Georgetizzard, which just happens to be the name of one of the producers at the very same company. Looks like blatant self-promotion and a clear violation of WP:COI to me – you might want to keep an eye on it and step in if things don't improve. Richard3120 (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will do. Onel5969 (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Confused about rejection
I'm confused about why my piece about Say When is rejected. They were one of my favorite bands in the late 2000s and I saw them play with so many other of my favorite bands at some really huge festivals and tours. Not to mention I must of seen them on TV 3 or 4 times and they were spun on the radio station in my city. I thought I had all the correct documentation and the only thing I can think of is the fact that they remained unsigned during their entire career even though that's not technically true since they had their own label Say When Music…. I think (not positive about the name of their own label).

Please advise as to what else I should add.

Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elimanchester (talk • contribs) 03:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * . Hi!  First, please always sign your messages, so folks can figure out who to respond to.
 * Second, here's an in-depth review of the issues of your proposed article. Citations 1, 3, 5, are from obscure sources, so they don't really demonstrate notability.  If they were from Rolling Stone, Village Voice, etc., it would be a different story.  Citations 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 are simple mentions of the subject, so they work to cite the underlying fact they are used for, but not for notability.  Citations 10 and 11 have nothing to do with the notability of the subject.  WP:NMUSIC shows the 12 criteria for musical groups.  WP:RS explains the rationale behind citations being independent and reliable.  I hope this helps.  Onel5969 (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * . Sorry about that.  So should I try and find full interviews with the band online?  Because  6 looks like it was an interview but only part of it is now available online… its from Boston Harold which is a pretty big company (News in Massachusetts).  Although its from 6 years ago so many they took it down.  I'm just confused because the other band I really liked in Boston was called Averi (really cool bluesy pop) and they did less touring and didn't play nearly as many festivals and big tours as this band. I'll try to find some full interviews I just figured the fact that they played on big tours/festivals like Bamboozle and Warped Tour and it was mentioned and advertised by big magazines in that scene like AbsolutePunk and Alternative News (AP) Magazine was enough….

Thanks for all the advice and help and I'll do some more research to see if I can dig up some more press on them.

~ EliManchester


 * Hi. Another thing, when you comment on someone's talk page, they are automatically notified, so there is no reason to "ping" them.  I ping you on my talk page to let you know I've answered, but if I was commenting on your talk page, I wouldn't.


 * Interviews are fine, but are not the best sources, since they can be unreliable. A perfect case in point regarding that is there is a famous musician who always says her birth date is about 8 years younger than her real one.  You can find literally dozens of interviews which would back up the younger date, but they are incorrect.  The link I gave you above, WP:RS really explains what Wikipedia is looking for.  Articles about the group (not interviews), in major publications are always the best sources. Advertisements, press releases, etc. are not reliable sources.  Anyway... good luck in your editing.  Onel5969 (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry to bother with questions again. So I found a few reliable sources for Say When that I will be adding. In the meantime I went to add some things to another Boston band I used to obsess over and noticed their wiki page doesn't have any references so I'm confused why their page was approved? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averi If I add something to their page do I still need to add a reference or not even bother since they don't seem to have any other references? Thanks for your help. I'm trying to get a better grasp of using wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elimanchester (talk • contribs) 14:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Geist (Company)
I converted the bare html references in the Draft:Geist (Company) article, did some copy editing, and added an infobox. I was not able to verify either of the awards mentioned near the bottom of the article, and left tags for citations there. Since those awards are evidence of notability, Njmott will need to supply those references. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nicely done. I'm going to delete that section and approve the article, since Njmott hasn't responded.  They can always add it back in later, with citations. Onel5969 (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Khanate of Kokand
Why you always deleted it?

I give you the Facebook Page of the last male member of the kokand royal family.

But you always deleted it.

Articles for creation don't need inline citations
Hi One. I am happy to see you reviewing articles. I noticed that you declined this article, Draft:John Riddy, on July 16 with this comment: "Please see Fiddle Faddle's comment in particular below. Each fact needs to be cited. Also, the citations need to be formatted, examples can be found at WP:CIT."

Inline references are required only for direct quotes and, for living people, in a only few other special cases. Everything does not need a reference. And only the notability references need to be independent of the person. As WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions says:

1. Avoid declining an article because it correctly uses general references to support some or all of the material. The content and sourcing policies require inline citations for only four specific types of material, most commonly direct quotations and contentious material (whether negative, positive, or neutral) about living persons.

Except for direct quotes, in most cases new editors don't need to learn anything about putting in inline citations before their article is accepted. Of course those citations will be needed to improve the quality of the article. I've already mentioned this to TimTrent (Fiddle Faddle). Happy reviewing. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * {ping|StarryGrandma}} Thanks for that heads-up, did not realize it, missed it when I read the guidelines. In that case, I guess I'll remove myself from the AfC project then, as I think that is a completely silly guideline, and really undermines any attempts to make Wikipedia into a valid source tool.  Thanks again for the heads up.  Take care. Onel5969 (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not a source tool, it's an encyclopedia! Try WP:GAN or WP:FAC. Happy editing! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't stop reviewing. Citations are a quality issue, not an accepting an article issue. I learned the difference when trying to write a list of minimum things for acceptance, and was promptly told that inline citations wasn't one of them. I haven't had much luck teaching users how to do tricky things like refs. But many of the articles they start are really useful. So I do a lot of article fixing myself. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hana Financial
Hi,

There are a couple of tags on the Hana Financial article. Are they still supposed to be there? Is it ok if I remove them?Cecibell (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You know, I don't know. An administrator is supposed to take care of that, but I'll simply remove them.  Onel5969 (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Blakumen
Thank you for your bold copyedit, I highly appreciate it. In the meantime, I have made 3 small changes. I hope they are acceptable for you. I will soon make a GAN. Have a nice day! Borsoka (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for the kind words. I am going to change one of your edits.  The word biography is more specific, and should be used to introduce that concept, particularly since the link provided (to hagiography), defines it as a biography.  Your second edit to "work" is fine, as are your other edits.  Onel5969 (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

16:39:52, 23 July 2014 review of submission by Harry Manhattan
Hi. I've been trying to submit an article for a few weeks now, but some of my sources keep getting rejected. Could you please tell me which ones aren't being accepted, so I can work on them?

Harry Manhattan (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC) Harry Manhattan

Harry Manhattan (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. This is part of the comment I left the last time I reviewed it:  "#1 is not independent. 2, 3, and 5 are either lists or brief mentions of the artist. 6 is a wikilink, which isn't a valid reference. 4 & 7 are good sources, but they are from obscure sources, so by themselves do not denote notability."  You've added two sources since then, the baller interview is a good one, but again from an obscure source, while the other again doesn't really promote notability, just backs up his relation to notable performers.  I think this article is on the cusp of being approved, but I've taken myself off the list of editors who do that, so you might want to simply resubmit.  Isn't there an article about this guy in Rolling Stone, or some other higher profile music mag?  That would help enormously.  Good luck, hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft of Senta Yamada Article Review
Hi Onel,

In your review you state the following:

"Many of the references (e.g. 1, 2, 8, 9) only make a brief mention of the article's subject. Others are simply links to a site selling a book, without any reference at all (e.g. 5, 7). Onel5969 (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)"

I would like to note the following:

- Reference 1. is an Aikido Journal Encyclopedia Entry description for Senta Yamada. Therefore it is based mainly on Senta Yamada ( the article subject) and it describes in a very succinct manner the notability of Senta Yamada. Just having an Encyclopedia entry in the Aikido Journal is enough proof of a persons notability, Aikido Journal is the most widely used external resource as reference in Aikido Wikipedia articles.

- Reference 2. I agree with you it briefly mentions Senta Yamada ( two counts ) but it is an external resource describing how Senta Yamada came to the UK to teach Judo and Aikido.

- Reference 8. The article is the obituary of the passing of Senta Yamada. It describes on what conditions he died and also some of his life achievements. For this reason it is referenced at the end of my draft article. How does this one briefly mention the subject ? It is the obituary of the subject.

- Reference 9. Is another post in the Aiki Web (an independent and notable web group on Aikido matters ) informing on the death of Senta Yamada. For this reason it is used at the end of the Draft Article.

- Reference 5 and 7 link to the amazon site where they sell the books described in the article: "During his time in England Senta Yamada authored The Ancient Secrets of Aikido (published in 1961)[5] which is considered the first aikido book published in the UK [6]. Senta Yamada later also co-wrote The principles and practice of Aikido with Alex Macintosh (published in 1966) [7]." If you enter the pages referenced you can see a copy of the book and it is authored by Senta Yamada and its sell value.

I think that the notability of the subject is proved taken into account: 1. He is a high ranking person in the Aikido and Judo 2. Was a direct disciple of Morihei Ueshiba and Jigoro Kano founders of Judo and Aikido 3. Was one of the first pioneers of Tomiki Aikido in the United Kingdom as said by Dr Lee Ah Loi ( who has a Wikipedia article entry also) 4. Has authored several books some of which considered the first printable Aikido Material in the United Kingdom.

Let me know what you think of my comments. I understand that some articles might seem brief but they are used in the correct place ...

Thanks for your time.

2001:720:101C:504:CC94:5CA7:6364:9D37 (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You forgot to sign a comment
This one. Thought you might want to go back and fix it. Or maybe not, just thought I should bring it to your attention.  Sock  (previously Corvoe ) (be heard) 23:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Help with what you mean by "reliable sources"?
Hi, I am really trying to understand that you are looking for for sources and citation. My submission is on a topic happened in the early '80's and there are just not that many references to it in public sources. That is what happens when what we were doing with videotex preceded the web by a decade.

Please help me with what you are looking for as "reliable sources" in the case of Boston CitiNet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mjkboston/sandbox. I would like to get this released from the drafts bin.

Thanks, Myron Mjkboston (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)