User talk:Sulfurboy/Archive 3

00:54:03, 30 July 2015 review of submission by Ochunter12
Hi Sulfurboy, I have made some changes to the article on Alice Creelman. I tried to take out all subjective language. I also reorganized to place more focus on her career as an art dealer, which I think is what makes her notable. However, she is often briefly mentioned in literature on James Creelman, so people may be interested in her because of this connection.

Please let me know if you think I have more work to do on this article. Also, since I'm a new user I wasn't sure whether to approach you here first or just resubmit the article, so I apologize if this isn't the correct way to move forward.

Best,

Olivia Ochunter12 (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Ochunter12 (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Approved. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

05:07:50, 30 July 2015 review of submission by Raghav.khattar
Hi, I am not quite sure why the page is being declined again and again. I have added all possible sources but I am not quite sure where i am going wrong. Could you please help me out with this? I need to know which portion is not right. Thanks for your assistance. Best regards. This is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ashok_Chopra

Raghav.khattar (talk) 05:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * All claims about the subject need to be cited. There are large chunks of text and statements that have no citations. It will continue to be rejected until this is fixed or the unsourced claims are removed. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

06:52:05, 30 July 2015 review of submission by Kenbloom01
Thank you for your review. You mentioned that the subject notability is not adequate. I apologize, but assumed that the recognition and proclamation from Michigan Governor Rick Snyder and the Michigan State Senate proved its notability with the bi-partisan proclamation making Blue Monday the kickoff of National Men’s Health Week, originally proclaimed by President Clinton in 1994. I believed that further evidence of notability was the recognition and promotion of Blue Monday within 5 states. The listed citations include the Senate Proclamation, statistics from the American Cancer Society, and national media coverage including the Huffington Post. I appreciate your time in reviewing the article and seek to make it worthy of approval. Can you provide more specific examples of how I can improve it for submission? Thank you. Kenbloom01 (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Kenbloom01 (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your above reasons don't necessarily make the subject notable. We need to see reliable, secondary coverage as already explained, see WP:42. If there is a huffpost article dealing with it, I'd recommend incorporating that into the article at the very least. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

07:45:33, 30 July 2015 review of submission by Richard Falkner
Hi Sulfurboy,

Good morning. I just managed to re-edit the 'Experteer' draft to make it less promotional and have a flow. I removed around 85 words especially under Company information to make it sound like information rather than promotion. I have added additional links where the author's name was not available.

Please let me know if this draft is fine or if more edits are required.

Richard Falkner (talk) 07:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, the tone looks a whole lot better. But please remove any and all press releases such as this: http://news.careercloud.com/experteer-blog/content/experteer-smartphone-app-now-available-for-android/10989/ . Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Request on 13:49:00, 30 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Jesk.wood
The woman in red (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Request on 13:49:46, 30 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Jesk.wood
The woman in red (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

12:24:08, 30 July 2015 review of submission by C.T. Jasper
Dear Sirs,

I'm writing to you accorging the refuse of the second article on C.T. Jasper. The first account and the article was created and prepared by the intern and it was denied for formal reasons. I wanted to edit the article and send it again, but she forgot the user name and the password it seems also that she did not give the e-mail address, so now I cannot log in to that account. That is why I created a new account and wrote the article from the beginning. I would be very grateful, if you could delete the other account and review the new article which contains more references.

Thank you very much in advance. C.T. Jasper (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone can edit any wikipedia page. You just need to go to the draft page and manually change or edit what you want. Also it should be noted that autobiographys are highly discourage on wikipedia. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Request on 14:35:09, 30 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Stephmcguinn
Hi! I'm not sure what else I need to do to prove Jay is notable. Would you be about to please tell me the specific issue? This is my first article. Thank you- Stephanie :)

Stephmcguinn (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:42. We need to see independent coverage of the subject themself. Not just coverage of the shows he has made.

17:09:26, 30 July 2015 review of submission by Drphanichalla
Drphanichalla (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem would be that they don't exist. Please read the linked articles on the page for information on how to create them. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

18:14:05, 30 July 2015 review of submission by Melissa Marie 2015
Hi Sulfurboy,

Thanks for reviewing the Alan Chebot page I submitted again. Can you please address my following comments replying to your "Any substantial coverage seems to be local. Can't pass it at this time. Would like to see coverage or articles actually profiling this person."

1. Alan was currently on NPR, which started at NPR's local station and went National on the air. 2. The Schlesinger Award was mentioned in the Hollywood Reporter - a national magazine. This award is huge and shared with celebrities like Whoopi Goldberg. 3. "Song for New Orleans" was written up in the Times Picayune in New Orleans AND in the Pittsburgh Gazette which are NOT local to Boston. 4. Alan was written up in the Boston Globe recently and although “local” to Boston, is one of the top 10 most important and influential newspapers in the country. 5. OZY.com is a national and international news site, is read by thought leaders all over the country and has a readership of over 4 million per month. They reviewed the film Alan directed AND talk about him substantially throughout the article.

Thanks for reconsidering. Melissa_Marie

Melissa Marie 2015 (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Flatgradings (July 30)
I added 3 reference in my page. But still it's declined. Can you please help me with this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinuvvk88 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Request on 21:19:53, 30 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Gdow.sd
Hi Sulfurboy, my friend who set up the first Vallecitos page got a note that as a staffer for the district she could not create the page and her draft was being terminated. So I offered to create a version that I thought was more accurate (shorter -- let more people add info if/as they see fit) based on my work as a community volunteer on the San Diego Water Academy https://twitter.com/GabrielaDow/status/609846832340963328

I actually want to create more content on water agencies / issues in the San Diego region (as well as on tech startups, my other area of expertise) but it seems I messed up my first few attempts.

How can I improve the draft that I have created for Vallecitos? Not sure what I can do since your note says you will use the other draft created by the Vallecitos staffer and she told me an agency user is not allowed and thus her profile and draft are being rejected (deleted?)

Thanks so much Gdow.sd (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Gdow.sd (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the original page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vallecitos_Water_District Gdow.sd (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

And this is the one I created that you put on hold: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vallecitos_Water_District_(2)

Thanks so much! Gdow.sd (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You just need to combine the two. But when you submit, submit the first one, not the (2) one. Also, be sure to not write about things too closely associated with you to avoid a conflict of interest. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

17:02:12, 30 July 2015 review of submission by Xanovsky
Could you point me more concretely in which part of the text you think citations are missing? Thanks!

Xanovsky (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nearly the entire biography section. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I tried to fix it, by adding the references I could verify and eliminating facts that are harder to provide references for... Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanovsky (talk • contribs) 21:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Esperanca Draft
Sulfurboy could you please expand in detail what the issue is with the article: Draft:Esperança (non-profit). I find it particularly difficult to correct the article if the statement is broad and simply states, “Have not corrected previously mentioned issue”.

I added nearly 10 additional articles. All of which specifically speak to the organizations work. They are also all independent of the organization. Secondly, it seemed the last reviewed had issues accessing articles. All of the additional articles do not have that issue. Were you able to read the newly added ones? Is the accessibility for the other articles also an issue for you? I would again state, as I did to the past reviewer, that the article fits every facet of a non-commercial organization, according to Wikipedia’s standards. The sources included are from multiple independent journals, newspapers, and websites. I have read through the pages multiple times suggested by past reviews have found that it fits in with the criteria required.

If you could please point out the issue specifically it would help to make adjustments. Rtapscott (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

21:39:56, 30 July 2015 review of submission by Francionyc
Thanks for your review..

I have modified the wording especially in the lead, for a lay person to understand the subject

as you may know, the condition is very common and has no entry in Wikipedia. Infact, the tag systemic senile amyloidosis has been erroneusly linked to the page Transthyretin-related hereditary amyloidosis, which is very misleading and completely wrong

i have expanded all the sections

1 Natural Course of the Disease 2 Signs and Symptoms 3 Diagnosis 4 Treatment

I believe that the article is a great addition and complements the material already published on amyloidosis in general and the specific types.

A search of senile systemic sclerosis yields no correct resylts on wikipedia

if you don't think the article is ready, please help me make it better/publishable

Thank you very much for your attention

Francesco Santoni-Rugiu, MD

Francionyc (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Accepted. Thanks for your hard work. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * , please see WP:MEDRS. Not a single one of your references is ideal for a medical topic--we need recent review articles, not primary research articles and patient guides. Additionally, some of the paragraphs are unreferenced. "No specific drug has been clearly shown to be able to arrest or slow down the process of this condition" is the sort of medical statement that needs an authoritative reference. The topic is worth writing on, and there probably are suitable references available. Find them and add them.  DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

23:30:03, 30 July 2015 review of submission by Cap603
I added a citation for a local newspaper article about the trilogy. How many citations are required?

Thanks

Cap603 (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A single newspaper article (which can't even be viewed) is not even remotely enough. The other source is a wikipedia page, which can't be used. And the last one is a page about the book that can be created by author, thus not reliable. I think if you read over the links provided in the decline, you will see why this is nowhere near enough. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

the last two bios
Please notify me if you see any more written in that style. This is PR work, probably undeclared paid PR work.  DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Can I ask what the big tipoff was for you ? I wanted to decline them, but it felt better since academia seems to be your expertise to just tag you to review them. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Style. I probably could specify it, but I usually spot the pattern as a gestalt, based on experience having seen a few thousand of them at WP and having had decades of experience with the style in the RW before I came here. Anyone in the academic world knows how people pad a CV, and knows the work of academic PR people; it's different from corporate PR, and usually much less competent. I should in fairness say that Princeton (where I spent most of my career as a librarian)  was an exception, having remarkably effective and sophisticated PR. But some specific tricks, academic and general"
 * But I can tell you one trick that applies to both university and corporate PR. Executive bios -- and any bio written by PR staff -- normally say very early on what the previous employer was, but don't go into the earlier history, or add it at the end, & often do not give the years.  When academics write their own CVs, everything is *always* in chronological order, and always gives the years.
 * But the giveaway for Eger was inconsistency. The career was not as extensive as typical of someone receiving a major award, and the award -- one that I was totally unfamiliar with -- sounded very major. So I checked the reference, and found it was one of 30 awarded that year. And then I saw the same author had just written an article on his new journal. Almost always, someone  simultaneously writing an article on a person and his organization is being promotional. It's a good idea to check the editors contribution history.
 * A giveaway for Affolder was that she had just been appointed Associate Dean. Dean of a law school is head of the school & notable. Associate Dean anywhere is a purely administrative position of no particular importance. And then I saw that the same author had just written an article on the Dean -- who is of course notable, but I have to go back and remove the fluff.
 * A giveaway for anyone in any field is where the article prominently mentions a new position, or new book, or new enterprise. That;s usually the motive for writing a promotional PR.  DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that, and it all makes sense. I'll have to keep an eye out for those patterns. And also to remember to use the word 'gestalt'. What a great word. Thanks as always. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Submission declined on 28 July 2015
Hi Sulfurboy, thank you for reviewing my submission. I have removed press releases as you have requested and resubmitted for your approval.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Make_It_Cheaper

Kind Regards

Smustieles

Hi Sulfurboy,

This is regarding the draft : Experteer. I have now re-edited and removed the press releases as per your suggestion and have re-submitted for review. Hope its fine. Thank you.

Richard Falkner (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

References Help
Hi Sulfurboy, I'm an intern at Loeb.nyc and have been working on trying to create a page for Nicole Williams. I'm new to Wikipedia so I still have a lot to learn and have been trying to read through all of the guideline pages, but I'm still struggling with showing her notability. I use Wikipedia all the time and was surprised to see that she did not already have a page since similar career experts do. It seems like Nicole Williams is notable in her field since she has created her own career development company, has written three books on women in the workplace, and has been interviewed in numerous mainstream news outlets as a career expert. I know you're very busy reviewing/helping other people with their pages but if you could take another look at my draft and tell me which (if any) of the references are actually what you're looking for that would help me a lot. My struggle right now is that while there are hundreds of articles and TV show segments featuring her on popular outlets, not many are "independent"/secondary sources. Does this mean that she will never be considered notable? I tried to look through other similar people's pages but many of them have interviews or articles with quotes as references (Should I be using references like that? From what I've read I thought links like those wouldn't work to establish notability, or am I wrong about that?). Thank you so much for working with me on this. I hope I can fix it up for my next submission! Works712 (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for the late response. I must have missed this when you first posted. The problem with the sources is that they aren't entirely secondary. They mostly are associated with her in a primary manner or a company/newspaper she has written for. We need to see independent, secondary coverage of her. Please see WP:BIO and WP:42 Sulfurboy (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

21:06:22, 30 July 2015 review of submission by Rodolfoyiu
Rodolfoyiu (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I've just edited the page and added some more independent news site like Quartz and TheNextWeb, would you please check if it's okay or any improvement should be made? Thanks!!!
 * I would remove the reviews from users completely, that is not what wikipedia is for. I would also make the history section in prose form. Please remember the article should be as formal and neutral as possible. After that, you might give resubmitting it a try. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Request on 01:24:26, 31 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by The trail music
The trail music (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

i am requesting assitance on why my page had been declined as i am not poromoting a business, i am giving reasons and true accounts of its cause, not information of retail
 * Before asking for help you should take the time to read some of the links that have already been provided to you. They should more than fully explain what is wrong with the page. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

14:56:51, 30 July 2015 review of submission by Archnotes
Hello,

Many thanks for editing my article. However, I am confused as to what I can add to have this article approved. I included footnotes and references inline with Wikipedia's guidelines. What details need citations that I did not already include? Archnotes (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Archnotes

Archnotes (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * First paragraph of teaching and research. Honors and awards. Exhibitions (which by the way should be moved just above publications) And also in the early education bits would be helpful too. Keep in mind you can reuse the same sources for inline cites, you don't have to find an individual source for each one of these claims. Page me when you've done this and I'll approve it. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I've gone back in and added to the sections discussed above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archnotes (talk • contribs) 16:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Approved. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

15:01:24, 31 July 2015 review of submission by Bobowikibobo
Thank you for the suggestion on using footnotes. I studied the tutorial about in-line citations and referencing in general, and I think I see how to improve this aspect of the article. It looks like if I can fix the footnotes method I'm using everything should be OK. This is what I did: In Section 1, I deleted the dates that followed the journal titles as this was unnecessary and just cluttered up the text. In Section 1.1 for the citations that had a footnote, I also deleted the date because this was redundant making it appear that I was combing two different referencing methods. I did the same in Section 1.2. Take a look at my corrections and tell me how it looks now. I think the overall appearance is much improved with the extraneous and redundant information deleted. ˜˜˜˜

Bobowikibobo (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I will let another editor review it. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

17:12:19, 31 July 2015 review of submission by Richard Falkner
Hi Sulfurboy,

I have now removed all press releases for : Experteer as advised by you and resubmitted it for re-review. Please let me know if this is fine. Thank You. Richard Falkner (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I will let another editor review it. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Request on 17:34:28, 31 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Ravpat3
I am not sure what your evidence is for tagging my article as reading like an advertisement. BioBuilder is a Foundation that offers services to support educational initiatives in synthetic biology and is affiliated with reputable academic institutions. This work does not sell a product, but details the structure of an experiential learning pedagogical model developed at MIT and implemented internationally. Please provide specific places where advertising is flagrant and I will be happy to adjust my article. Ravpat3 (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Ravpat3 (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit conflict with Michael J. Elliott
Sorry if I overwrote your work. Sometimes when I save edits I get the edit conflict message and it turns out that it's just a technical hiccup. That's what happened here. But just looked at the edit history and saw that you cleaned the article up and added refs. Apologies (and nice to meet you)! Julie JSFarman (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Nominal (Engineering)
I think I agree with you. There is too little there to justify a separate page for Nominal (engineering). I have added a sentence tot he main "Nominal" page instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgoldnyxnet (talk • contribs) 18:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Madam Satan (comics)
I see that you move Madam Satan (comics) from AfC. Note that most of the sources were from wikis, blogs or primary sourced and there for not allowed. Nor did it meet notability at it had not have main stream media coverage. The article should have not been move to article space. I have tagged it for notability and lack of sources. Spshu (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

ToolsGroup, Inc.
Hello,

I appreciate your reviewing my article on ToolsGroup, Inc. Would it be possible for you to give me a specific example or two of some things that should be changed? Just something specific that would help me in reworking the article.

Thank you.

Braedon Farr (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Medford_knife_And_tool
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Medford_knife_And_tool

Hello sir, There seems to be a problem with the reliability of the sources, In the field of collectible knives There are not many reliable sources beyond professional reviews and forums but not much beyond. And trust me - I looked.

Also, I use sources by subject only in cases where it is necessary to the technical description of the elements - such as work space.

What exactly makes it look like an ad? Perhaps you could direct me better.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eytankey (talk • contribs) 16:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is neither neutral nor formal. Also the amount of pictures needs to be cut down dramatically to what is completely relevant. There also is probably an issue of notability. If there is not reliable coverage beyond routine reviews than the subject is likely not notable. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

"If there is not reliable coverage beyond routine reviews than the subject is likely not notable" - on that matter I disagree, If you have pages on other companies, there is no reason not to be a page about this company. Most people in the field are not exactly "computer people" this is a way to expose them to another medium.

on the other issues - I will fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eytankey (talk • contribs) 16:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. It is wikipedia policy please see WP:42. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

If a person claims his own words he was a patriot and promote these values and preaches patriotism, it is enough to show the person as such. This means that the source of valid and reliable. That is what I am saying and displays. Quote sources.

And that's part of it. So that it meets the requirements.

Also, the wording refers to how the "he sees himself" and I do not place it as a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eytankey (talk • contribs) 16:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources.
 * If you state that someone sees themselves as X then we must have citations to prove that thing. This is not susceptible to argument, it is simply something that we insist upon and which is enforced.
 * You are at liberty to seek to change policy. I commend WP:VPP to you for that. Fiddle   Faddle  16:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. so you are saying that if IS leadr - Al baghday, post a video, in which in own words he claim that he will kill all unbelivesr, I will have to wait for the BBC to publish it for it will be OK for Wikipedia?
 * If you state that someone sees themselves as X then we must have citations to prove that thing And I posted those proves. This is not susceptible to argument, it is simply something that we insist upon and which is enforced.
 * You are at liberty to seek to change policy. I commend WP:VPP to you for that. Fiddle   Faddle  16:59, 29 July 2015

I think this is irrelevant, this is an article about knife maker, there is a WikiProject on Blades, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Blades) so maybe some people do want articles about the subject, you are insist on something that is not important, this is not the issue.

1.I don't understand. over 3000 vids on the subject 'you tube' how can you ignore that?! 2.according to WP:SELFPUB his vids are valid.
 * I have taken a look at this one and cleaned up the flowery prose, eliminated the primary sources and added more reliable sources. As coordinator of WP:BLADES this fits the needs od our project, let me know if you need more help or input from me. Sorry for the mess with the syntax, by the way. Kind regards--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ, I would recommend posting this to the draft talk page or the AfC comments of the page. As I stated on the page, I won't be reviewing the page again, since I reviewed it the last three times and there seemed to be a bit of tension developing. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Note for Sulfur Boy Concerning Relativistic Global Non-Inertial Reference Frames.
Dear Sulfurboy,

I submitted an article entitled

Relativistic Global Non-Inertial Reference Frames. It was rejected on June 5 due to too much overlap (a couple of pages) with http://archive.org/stream/arxiv-0912.2935/0912.2935_djvu.txt. Those pages were basically an elaborate mathematical definition. I later sent a rewrite of those pages. Apparently you thought that rewrite was still too close to the pages in the arxiv article. I had to follow fairly closely the content of those pages since otherwise the definition would be distorted. However, I cannot be certain from your 7/7 review whether you're referring to those paragraphs or to some other section of the archive paper. Please let me know in detail what pages you feel are too close to the archive paper. Thank you Horace Crater PS below is your response to my revised paper and the earlier one by Joseph2302 to the original

Paraphrasing still too close, but not so close that it needs to be speedy deleted. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Symbol_opinion_vote.svg Comment: Looks to be a close paraphrasing of [1], which is not acceptable. Please write in your own words. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC) Hcrater (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI
Hi Sulfurboy: ^ just in case you're interested. We run weekly collaborations on different articles. Regardless, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Thanks, -- Bananasoldier  (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

21:53:38, 31 July 2015 review of submission by PeterPBGD
I have made changes to comply with all but one of your criticisms, and I believe those changes have improved the piece overall by tightening it up.

The one requested change I cannot accommodate is that for adding inline citations. As I understand Wikipedia style, inline citations would be appropriate had I needed to cite lines in a play or passages in a classic work of literature, but this article deals with neither. All quotes and assertions that require sourcing have been cited via standard endnotes. PeterPBGD (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

06:36:28, 1 August 2015 review of submission by Colmanning
Colmanning (talk) 06:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC) Thank you so much for reviewing my page Can you please give me more info on what to correct as this is my first and only page What specifically would need to be cited Regards Colin

17:05:59, 1 August 2015 review of submission by 86.190.153.249
Dear Sulfurboy Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cloudy001/sandbox/Daniele_Conversi You have declined my article saying that I need to cite sources using footnotes which I believe I have done.Please could you be more precise about the problem with inline citations? Many thanks Anne Elliott-Day

86.190.153.249 (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Karen Smith creation
Hi there - you rejected my article based on the fact that it the references don't show how notable Karen smith, TV exec, is. I'm new to all this - but list of citations was extensive, and from various respected publications. Not all press releases as you suggest? Please elaborate what else was needed to publish? Thanks! Paul9006 (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Abdulaziz Al-Bashir - modifications
Hi Sulfurboy,

Thank you very much for you advice and assistance. I've made the modifications you asked for; converted sources into footnotes and deleted others that have already been mentioned in the footnotes. Do you think I can submit again. Thanks again.

Radbleu (talk) 07:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

pptArt article creation
Thanks for your comments on the creation of the pptart page. You mentioned that I should add more sources. I think I have included enough secondary, reliable and verifiable sources. Is the problem related to the fact that some sources are in Italian so they are not immediately verifiable? Thanks Artlatinlover (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Don't know what these heart "types" mean. Not in FAQ? Hope this works as a belated thank you for comments re my rejected article FF Nicholls. Good of you to welcome a newcomer. Thanks.

Clive729 (talk) 12:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC) 

Marcia Wright page
Hey man, hopefully my new edits will suffice with the added references. Thanks for your input and time. Boxingwalker (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Inline citations rule
Please note that the inline citations rule is only applicable to BLPs. I see you have declined several submissions for lacking ILCs that are not biographies of living people. See WP:MINREF Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So we're no longer worried about "Any statement that you believe is likely to be challenged."? I thought that was part of the guidelines on the AfC page...Sulfurboy (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Operation: Overkill
Re: this acceptance, MobyGames is a user-contributed site and not reliable (WP:VG/RS is useful for tracking what video game sites are reliable). Probably shouldn't have been accepted. – czar   03:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've also nominated Heart's Medicine and Stunt Rally (video game) for deletion. They rely almost exclusively on primary and unreliable sources. – czar   06:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I've added that link to my list of things to look at from now on, I assumed those pages would stand at least a 50/50 chance of passing AfD, as they were very borderline passes for me. I'll keep the sourcing for video games in mind next time. Cheers. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Charles Schroeter (Medal of Honor)
Hello,

Would you be so kind to look once again at the article on Charles Schroeter (Medal of Honor)? My primary goal is a B Class article.

I think it is far better than the last time you looked at it. Writing is not my forte and American syntax and grammar sometimes is confusing for me. Any help appreciated.

Thank you! Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey . You need to speak with the people who work with the specific projects listed on the talk page. You can find the links to their pages via your pages talk page. Once there, you should post something just like you posted here on the project talk page or wherever they say is appropriate. I'm not apart of any of those projects, so it wouldn't be appropriate for me to grade it. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the suggestion. Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

16:51:35, 3 August 2015 review of submission by 2602:252:D0C:A570:F4ED:EEDF:2FE7:FA85
I was wondering for what reason the page was declined to be published. It seems to have all of the requirements. Please let me know. 2602:252:D0C:A570:F4ED:EEDF:2FE7:FA85 (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is full of puffery and is neither neutral, nor formal. Please refer to the links in the decline message on the page. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Made Sections for Noah Cowan page
Hi! Thank you for accepting my draft of Noah Cowan's page. Just wanted to let you know that I divided the page into sections - I was hoping the notice at the top about dividing it could now be removed. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmfan39 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

06:21:57, 4 August 2015 review of submission by 68.101.102.40
These are two feature articles in the Orange County Register, the second largest newspaper in Southern California. The articles reflect Tice's accomplishments and are notable, reliable, and independent. The feature articles were written as Disney recognized Tice for her significant contributions to the Happiest Place on Earth for over ten years. Tice is the only Disney cast member to ever be singled out for this.

68.101.102.40 (talk) 06:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * They aren't properly sourced, see WP:MOS, further coverage from just one newspaper only proves local coverage which isn't enough to show notability in this case. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

09:39:22, 4 August 2015 review of submission by Prashant.chitkara
Prashant.chitkara (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Hi,

I have resubmitted the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Immunization_Technical_Support_Unit_(ITSU) with change in language. Can you please approve the same. In case you still find some issue, please let me know the line/paragraph so that i can revise again.

Thanks and best regards, Prashant Chitkara

Jillian Haslam
Hi Sulfurboy,

Thank you for reviewing my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jillian_Haslam Could you explain how the article did not meet inline citation requirements? Nmwalsh (talk) 10:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The first two paragraphs nor, the claim about her being married have inline citations. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Nmwalsh (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

17:49:40, 4 August 2015 review of submission by 10squared
Hello - Thank you for taking the time to review my article. Per your recommendation, I edited the article copy so that it no longer closely paraphrases the IMDB biography. I also removed any excess information that did not have verifiable references (according to wiki). Thank you again for your time! Please let me know if you see anything else that needs to be changed. 10squared (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

re: French Gov. references before 1947
Hello Sulfurboy, (art. on Alfred G Gerteiny)I need assistance. According to http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/Bases-de-donnees/Rechercher (the official French government data base on awarded honorary diplomas),records began to be published on the web beginning only in 1947; there are no records before that date. I need to document in my article the award, on 20 February 1938, of Officier d'Académie to my subject's father. I have contacted my subject who has a photocopy of the diploma; may I reference a photocopy in the article, and if so how? Gratefully!4 August 2915.chasehillaryChasehillary (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

16:33:37, 4 August 2015 review of submission by Gorgenkor
Thanks for reviewing my article. I had a few questions about the comments -- one was on the request for a range of reliable, independent sources. I'd added quite a few footnotes in response to an earlier request, including articles in The Atlantic Magazine, the Washington Post, and other newspapers. None of those publications are tied to the Two Row or to me. Can you give me more specifics on is lacking in terms of these sources?

I had also removed peacock terms in an earlier rewrite of the article - I deleted phrases like "epic journey," for example. I would appreciate it if you could point out any such terms that I have missed.

Also, I've attempted to describe the journey, its participants and goals in a neutral way -- listing their accomplishments, but not promoting them. If you could point out a phrase or two that seems to favor or promote the topic, I'd appreciate your help with that too.

Many thanks! Gorgenkor (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with the sources, you would have to ask the other editors, but I think it is fine. The decline message is a boilerplate of sorts. Which is why it said that. The issue is that it needs to be written in a neutral, formal tone. As stated in that link, there needs to be sections. This will help with the main problem is that the article sounds more like it is telling a story instead of giving information about the event, if that makes sense. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing
Thanks for reviewing Draft:Global Travel International. I think you're right about the one-event notability, so I will go ahead and fold it into Buyers club. Brianhe (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thanks for your work though! Sulfurboy (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Should I blank the draft now, or just leave it? I don't usually go through AfC, so am unsure of the procedure. Brianhe (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll take care of it. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 22:08:07, 4 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Snorky9
Hello, thanks for reviewing my submission. You mentioned we were rejected because our references did not convey notability. We have dozens of sources that I could cite. Should I include all our sources, would that help?

Snorky9 (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Our sources? Are you writing this on behalf of the press company? Sulfurboy (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

23:49:13, 4 August 2015 review of submission by Craxd1
A. C. de la Rive is as important as Leo Taxil, in the US, concerning the anti-Masonic movement, since he was regularly involved with, and publishing friends with, Leo Taxil. When one quotes one of their works, one almost has to quote the other, since both used each others writing as a source in the Taxil Hoax. This article will be linked with Leo Taxil, the Taxil Hoax, and Luciferian Doctrine articles on Wikipedia.

Craxd1 (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're talking about, as long as you can present secondary independent coverage, the article will pass notability. Your opinion or ambition has nothing to do with whether something is notable. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I added the references to show him being notable in the US, did you even read them, or the sources? I added more, and a part about him being 'notable' in the US. This article has more sources, and notable US sources, than the Leo Taxil article, which was published.

External Links in Body
You recently commented on an Article for Creation that it had external links in the article body. We agree that is against Wikipedia policy. However, there are a few editors who think that there should be external links in the article body, because they claim that external links are more stable than internal links. (I don't know whether external links are changed more frequently than internal links or vice versa. What we do know is that internal links are changed by Wikipedia editors who should make consistent changes, and that Wikipedia has no control over external links, so that they either could rot without warning or be changed so that the content confuses the reader.)  I had one case at the dispute resolution noticeboard where one editor was adding external links because he claimed that the instability of internal links had caused a considerable amount of article work to be lost forever. I am sure that you know that nothing is ever truly lost forever, even if it is hard to find, unless it becomes hidden due to redaction, and that is for things that never should have been in Wikipedia, such as insults. In any case, he insisted that the article should rely heavily on external links. I had to advise him that he could either post an RFC to get a special exception from the external link policy or an RFC to modify the external link policy to encourage them, and that he probably wouldn't succeed at either. Thank you for complaining about external links in the body. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Jobayer Hossain (talk) 04:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)== 04:05:06, 5 August 2015 review of submission by Jobayer Hossain ==

Hi, thanks for your review. According to your suggestion I have supported my article using proper references. I have also developed it further to make it complete. I wish it will be included in article space now. This is my first article in Wikipedia. So, please suggest me to improve it further.

Jobayer Hossain (talk) 04:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Review my submission
Hi Sulfurboy,

I have went through your guidelines. I have modified content & added reliable sources in my draft. I request you to please review & give your feedback. You can see it by visiting below link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:N_Z_Seasonal_Wear_Pvt._Ltd.

Rajcurator (talk) 06:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 13:46:20, 5 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Nadarqtip
Nadarqtip (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello

As far as I know the footnotes are operational and sound. I have tested them and they seem to properly link to the references at the bottom of the page. Can you please elaborate or point me in the right direction?

Many thanks

--Nadarqtip (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

15:35:11, 5 August 2015 review of submission by 10squared
Hi Sulfurboy - I sent you a message yesterday, but I realized I didn't include the link to my article draft. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jacob_York_(2)) Thank you again for taking the time to review it. Per your recommendations, I removed all information that does not have supported wiki-approved references. I also re-drafted the article so that it no longer resembles the IMBD profile and I added additional inline citations throughout. Please let me know if there is anything else! Is this enough verifiable information for a stub? Thanks again!

10squared (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Review of submission by smon881
Hello - I saw that you declined my draft for Perr&Knight. I added a few verifiable sources and removed some information that I couldn’t cite. I am uncertain what other edits to make, is there any way you could provide more details about which area of the article does not reach the notability requirement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smon881 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I've sent you this message:

"Hi Sulfurboy, Thank you very much for you advice and assistance. I've made the modifications you asked for; converted sources into footnotes and deleted others that have already been mentioned in the footnotes. Do you think I can submit again. Thanks again. Radbleu (talk) 07:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)",

but unfortunately I didn't receive any reply, could you please review. Thanks. Radbleu (talk) 10:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)