User talk:Wiae/Archive 5

ZS Associates Draft Article
Hi thanks for your review and feedback. We had made all the updates requested by previous editors and took care not to make any missteps in regards to copyright issues. Can you offer any additional guidance on how your specific concerns can be addressed? Thx, SusanChana (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I will list the sentences that were copied, either directly or substantially directly, from the link:
 * "has been a faculty member for more than 30 years";
 * "His... of focus include sales force strategy, sales force size, structure and deployment, compensation and effectiveness";
 * "he has presented at numerous conferences and published more than 30 academic articles";
 * "Sinha was an associate professor of marketing at the Kellogg School of Management until 1987 and he continues to teach and present to executives at Kellogg and the India School of Business"; and
 * "include sales force strategy and effectiveness. He has published more than 30 academic articles. He has co-authored a series of books on sales force management".


 * Please rewrite these in your own words. Thanks, wia (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't expect that level of detail. Thank you so, so very much!  I'm on it! SusanChana (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have some revisions ready to go, but not sure where to make them. The current page says article has been removed and asks that it not be restored.  Any guidance you can provide would be greatly appreciate! Thx again, SusanChana (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes. We sometimes blank drafts when they contain copyright violations. I've gone ahead and restored the content so that you can make the edits. Thanks, wia (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have resubmitted and really appreciate all your help. I have lots to learn, but definitely have a passion to keep going. I'd like to start doing some editing on pages that I don't have a WP:COI. Thx again, SusanChana (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, . I am at a bit of a standstill on this article and was wondering if you might help. First some questions.  Does the review process usually involve multiple editors? I see the benefits for sure. My article was declined again, even after it has been stripped down significantly to address an issues but I can't seem to get the latest reviewer to respond to me.  I waited a few days and then resubmitted.  Any suggestions? Thx again, SusanChana (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Susan. Yes, there are quite a few reviewers and so we all take turns reviewing drafts. That helps ensure impartiality and it gets multiple sets of eyeballs on the draft. I think the problem with the draft ZS Associates is that the "The Company" section is sort of promotional. For example, "ZS Associates offers integrated sales and marketing services ranging from customer insights and strategy to analytics, operations and technology" is a sentence i don't understand. What are "integrated sales services"? "Marketing services"? "Analytics, operations and technology"? Those are all buzzwords; I don't understand what ZS Associates actually does from reading this section. You should try to rewrite this so that a layperson—someone who doesn't know anything about PR or global management consulting—can understand clearly what the company does. It might require removing some content, but that's okay; the goal is to have a good article, not a lengthy article that's not comprehensible.

Another problem with the article is that most of it seems like it's a resume for the company. The section on competitors, publications, and the laundry list of awards and honours the company has won don't strike me as that important. By all means, keep the key ones, but if it were up to me, I'd get rid of the rest.

You might want to read WP:CORP; it explains exactly what you need to include in an article about a corporation for it to be notable. I know it's a lot of information to process, so for now I'd work on improving the promotional tone. After that, you can take a look at WP:CORP and work on references. wia (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic guidance. Thank you for all your time on this and making me a better member of the Wikipedia Community!SusanChana (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not a problem! There is much to read and do on Wikipedia, and I am not an expert in the vast majority of things here. But any help I can offer, I'm glad to do so. wia (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Valeri Larko question
Hello Wikiisawsome, Thank you for getting back to me about the Valeri Larko page. I will re-write the article in a more neutral tone. Is there a deadline for re-writing before it's deleted? I may not be able to get to it immediately.

Thank you, Ann1aptAnn1apt (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As long as the article isn't nominated for speedy deletion (don't worry, it isn't right now), then there's no deadline for anything. Right now you have all the time in the world. And if someone does ever place a speedy deletion tag on an article you've been working on, you can contest the deletion on the talk page, which gives you the chance to have your case heard before administrators take action. wia (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Wikiiawsome. I appreciate the advice. Ann1aptAnn1apt (talk) 01:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 11:01:07, 22 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Toshwets
Am very upset to know that this page is refused to be created. am not upset because its my page or its my interest. the reasons are:

1. I have been honest enough to tell openly that i m a childhood friend and i want to create it in his interest. 2. The words "his interest" over here do not mean his advertisement.still i ve been accused of writing it as if it s an advertisement. It only means providing correct info about him to people coz lots pf info pages have printed wrong info about him including a current page by a fan on wikipedia. 3. The current page already published had worse and totally baseless references than I have given on my page. 4. I had a chat on live help chat when i started the draft on this page. - i was told that I should edit on the current page and then copy and paste into the draft and publish. i was also told that facebook link as reference is acceptable for personal information (which is what i ve given) 5. All other references are published articles in newspapers mostly with only a couple of them being different; which also are articles published about him. 6. Even notable personalities on their pages have given newspaper articles, you tube videos etc as references for eg, Shri Amitabh Bacchan 7. in my second live help chat i was told not to create this article but only edit the existing. i was also told that for small or minor info facebook page links are ok to be given as reference but not for large content (which i havent). I was told also that newspaper articles even epaper are notifiable sources. 8. I being a new user i was confused - how can i edit an article already being considered for deletion..will editing save it from being deleted?? 9.so i end up editing the page, publishing one directly and submitting one too!! so that at least one of them works!!! 10. Maybe i need to improve upon the layout which i m not clear of as of now but am willing to find out and improve. but its hurtful to be said inspite of being very clear and honest about everything; that I m trying to advertise and the references are self created - no they re not! 11. So many unverified articles are floating on wikipedia without any action being taken against them. 12. and I m being honest and giving correct info and am being stopped from creating this article!!! also, while so many articles are pending after submission for last 18-20 days mine is reviewed and rejected in just a day!!! 13. why are u people being unfair to me?! just coz i ve spilled the truth as it is without any artificiality to it?!

Toshwets (talk) 11:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If there's already an article about the subject here, then you should work on editing that article instead of creating an entirely new page for him. Editing it may save it from deletion, so long as you fix the problems in the article, which are listed here. I will warn you to read carefully Wikipedia's policies on conflict-of-interest editing.


 * When you edit the existing article, take care not to add aggrandizements like "for which he earned tremendous fame and love of millions of fans worldwide". That sounds extremely promotional. Also, things like "After conquering the hearts of his listeners in Nagpur" are not written from a neutral point of view. So when you edit the existing article, make sure you keep these things in mind. We're not singling you out as an editor; we're just rejecting a draft that fails Wikipedia's objective neutrality test. Thanks, wia (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Request
Hello Wikiisawesome,

I was wondering if you could please review my revisions to my page. I would really appreciate it! I am still new to Wikipedia so just incase you need the page here it is: Karl Egloff Thank you very much! (TheRondanimal (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC))


 * Sure, no problem. The first thing is that there appears to be a copyright issue. Some content is either copied directly or very closely paraphrased from here. Please go through your draft carefully, excise anything that has been copied or closely paraphrased from the above link, and rewrite it in your own words.


 * The inline citations are looking much better. I'm not sure that the cumbretours reference is the greatest source, however. The subject appears to be the general manager of Cumbre Tours, so that website is not very independent of the subject. I'd try to rely on more reliable, independent (third-party) sources instead. Thanks, wia (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

16:58:01, 22 April 2015 review of submission by Greenito
Hi! This is my first time writing an article for Wikipedia, could you give me some specific feedback on what needed to be edited or changed, that would help a ton, I am feeling a little lost here and want to get it right, thanks!!

Greenito (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Certainly! You'll need to find some reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss Greenito in significant detail. Get rid of the LinkedIn profiles, as they aren't very helpful. Check if any recognized newspapers, websites or books have mentioned Greenito in some detail. Next, take a look at the "Uses" section and clean up some of the language so it is not as promotional. What the company does can be relevant, but it's more important to show that they're notable first. In my opinion, something like "Dispensaries and other retailers and service providers can list products, merchandise and active promotional Smokin Deals™ for their store. Deals can be purchased through Greenito for an access fee smaller than an ATM charge and the promotion may be redeemed at the dispensary" is probably not worth mentioning in the article. Of course, you're always welcome to get a second opinion at the Articles for Creation Help Desk. As long as you ask them a specific, detailed question, they'll be happy to help. Thanks, wia (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! So our site just launched and there isn't much written about us yet. Do you recommend making the other changes you mentioned, adding in more sources about the industry we're in and re-submitting or waiting until we have some press about the company? Thanks!!!


 * You can definitely keep working on the article, in particular the point of view and tone stuff. I wouldn't resubmit until I got some press. Companies are really only notable once they've had some articles, books or other media written about them. wia (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I will also recommend that you read Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest policy carefully. wia (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Review fix: Martin Tillman
Hi! I've followed your advice in citing more references and hoping you'd be willing to re-review the entry for posting. Thanks for your help!! Christinamm (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)christinamm


 * Hi, I've just responded on your talk page. Thanks, wia (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think my previous response came through, so I'm copying it in case :)


 * Hi!


 * Thank you so much for your help and comparison suggestion.


 * I have made adjustments according to your notes and hoping you could re-check my work again.


 * I would like to discuss the Elton John NYTimes article in particular. The previous poster/editor of Martins page provided a dead link (amongst others) to Elton Johns page.  My article link intention is to point out (as instructed in including sources to cite from), Martin is a recognized cellist playing for and being publicly mentioned and recognized as such in a reputable as any source as such.   The other links I have included are reference points to prove i am not making false statements.


 * As far as copying anything, I assure you I have not, I am simply stating the album and who worked on it. If you think changing the names order will appear better, please do let me know, I am of course, happy to move things around.  I also found a different link that may better suit the album, according to your suggestion.


 * My goal is to get this up as soon as possible and I truly appreciate your all of help and encouragement :)


 * Christinamm (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)christinamm


 * Hi, thanks for your response. I think the wires might have gotten crossed because I didn't get your earlier message. But I got this one so it's all good!


 * I'll point out the exact sentences that are copied from this site:
 * "Martin Tillman has composed and/or performed on over 100 feature films, television series, commercials as well as performances live on TV and on international tours";
 * "began his studies in Europe and continued with the internationally celebrated cellist, Lynn Harrell";
 * "received his Masters Degree in Performance from the University of Southern California in 1989";
 * "Previous albums by Martin Tillman: Eastern Twin (Rounders) and Cinematic Volunteer composed and produced by Martin Tillman and Tom Vedvik. The Poet, composed by Michael Hoppe, cello solos performed by Martin Tillman and Afterglow composed and performed by Michael Hoppe, Tim Wheater"; and
 * "For Michael Mann's movie ALI Tillman created a chamber-cello score which also features some original instrumental Songs from his album Eastern Twin. One of the most fruitful collaborations started when he...".


 * Please remove those sentences and rewrite them in your own words.


 * Regarding the NYT article: citing articles that only mention Tillman in passing is fine if you want to provide some extra detail. So the NYT article is fine if you want to say that Tillman has performed with many artists, including Elton John. But it's important to understand the difference between citing a fact and the general notability of the article itself, as set out in WP:N. Here's the difference: to include a fact about Tillman in the article, you only need a source that mentions that fact in passing, like the NYT article. But to have an article about Tillman in the first place, you need sources that discuss the subject in significant detail. It can be a hard distinction to wrap your head around, so if you're not sure what the difference is, let me know and I can link you to some more Wikipedia documents that explain it.


 * So here's what you should do:
 * Change the copyrighted sentences as mentioned above.
 * Make sure that every substantive claim in the draft is supported by an inline citation. This might require some research—for instance, you should have a reference after the sentence where it says "For Michael Mann's movie Ali Tillman created a chamber-cello score which also features some original instrumental songs from his album Eastern Twin". Do that for every substantive claim in the article.
 * Once that's done, try resubmitting.


 * I hope that helps. Thanks, wia (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi! Since the copy written material was taken from Martin's IMDB and placed on the yoga site, i would prefer to leave it, as it is specifically, written first and foremost from martin himself.  I'm really feeling between a rock and a hard place with this one since they are the ones who have taken the material.     http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0863415/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm


 * I'm having a hard time understanding the issue with the NYTimes article problem. This link in particular is only to be a mention as the elton john concert was 1. a big deal for his 60th birthday and 2. because it mentions martin as i am citing him as one who travels as a part of the band in "name"/popular music groups.


 * Thanks very much for taking your time with me on this wiki-journey :)


 * Christinamm (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)christinamm


 * Hi! I understand your feelings about copyright; it can be a tricky issue! The rule is that it doesn't matter whether IMDb or Yoga Downloads wrote it first. It doesn't even matter if Martin Tillman wrote it himself. (Note also that anyone can edit IMDb, so it might not necessarily have been Martin Tillman who wrote that entry.) In short, if someone else has written something and hasn't given us explicit permission to use it on Wikipedia, we can't use it on Wikipedia. You can read about the rule at WP:COPYVIO: "copying material without the permission of the copyright holder from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed (unless it's a brief quotation used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation. Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there is substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or sentence structure". Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and that's one of the rules we have to abide by. So those sentences will have to be rephrased in your own words.


 * In short, there's no problem with using the NYT article. As long as you have some other sources that talk about Martin Tillman in significant detail, the NYT reference is fine! wia (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi!

Thrilled to hear about the NYT article being good to go, I think I am getting it all now. (finally!!)

I have mentioned on another page and I imagine you have not read it but I work for Martin. The Wiki-update was his request, as the previous page was simply not representing him properly. (no offense of course to previous poster.) That said, since I have Martins permission to write what is posted on his IMDB, can I post it on his wiki page? If so, would someone need a personal emai with his approval of said information?

Further, I have read previously saying I must indicate somewhere that his page was written by someone who works for him, which is no secret here.

THANK YOU!!!

Christinamm (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)christinamm


 * Hello again! The process for obtaining copyright permission is set out at WP:COPYREQ. I've never done it before, so you're probably better off asking this question at WP:CQ. The basic idea is that you send the copyright-holder an email asking them to license the text to Wikipedia. Then you confirm to Wikipedia that you have received the copyright-holder's permission to license the text.


 * However, if you read IMDb's conditions of use, their website states that "all content included on this site in or made available through any IMDb Service, such as text, graphics, logos, button icons, images, audio clips, video clips, digital downloads, data compilations, and software, is the property of IMDb or its content suppliers and protected by United States and international copyright laws" (I've italicized the relevant parts). This indicates that IMDb owns the copyright to the text contained on IMDb, not Martin. So I imagine you'd have to get IMDb's permission, not Martin's. Again, I stress that it's probably best to ask this question at WP:CQ.


 * To be honest, rephrasing the sentences would be a lot easier than getting a copyright-holder to license text to Wikipedia, which sounds like a hassle. You're welcome to try the copyright permission route, but I'd suggest changing the sentences yourself. Something to think about. Also, in passing, do make sure you're familiar with the rules on conflicts of interest on Wikipedia. Thanks, wia (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi!


 * For sure this thing is ready for the world! (I think!)


 * Would you kindly have a look-see?


 * Christinamm (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)christinamm


 * Hi, sorry I'm just getting around to replying now; I've been busy the past few hours. I'll take a look within the next hour or so. Thanks, wia (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The article is looking better; seems like all the copyright issues have been removed, so kudos for that! I see that the draft has been resubmitted for review. Usually, in the interest of impartiality, I try not to review the same article twice, so I will let someone else review it this time. It could be up to a week to wait for the review, so in the meantime, perhaps there are some other articles you can edit. You could also work on adding some more detail to your references; some of them don't yet have a description. Let's see what the next reviewer says about the article. Thanks, wia (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for rechecking. Bummed you can't be the reviewer. Have a great one!!

Christinamm (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)christinamm


 * ps is t one week from the last edit, do you know, or one week from original re-submission? also, is there anyone in particular you could recommend to "read me"?  i was hoping to have this up and ready for an event this evening…  happy wednesday!!
 * Christinamm (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)christinamm


 * There are about 600 submissions in the backlog right now, and so the "one week" figure I quoted you is a decent average. It'd be a week from the date of resubmission. Your article seems to be about halfway through the backlog right now, so I'd give it at least a few more days.


 * One thing you could read is WP:REFB. Search for the phrase "Information to include" and read that. Then try to apply those principles to your draft. Currently, you have references but most of them don't include any information like the website, the author, the date accessed, and things like that. That will make your references easier to understand so that readers will know what they're clicking on.


 * I suspect that Martin Tillman is probably notable, based on his accomplishments. But it doesn't hurt to find even more references from reliable, independent sources that discuss him in significant detail. The Blick references are good; perhaps more like those? Thanks, wia (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi long lost friend :)


 * It seems my latest reviewer has said the same comments you did 2 weeks ago, except since then, I have made changes accordingly with your guidance. Since you are not my last reviewer, can you re-review me again??  I really need this page up.


 * BestChristinamm (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)christinamm


 * I'm taking a closer look at the article, and I think the reviewer's decision was justified. To me this is an edge case but ultimately I think there are simply not enough reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss the subject in significant detail. You have the two Blick articles and a very short review of his album Eastern Twin. I'd suggest trying to find more articles that discuss him or his work in significant detail. Also, I find the "Biography" section a little confusing because it's hard to tell whether Tillman has written for these scores or merely contributed cello to them. This is slightly confusing. Perhaps this information should be assembled instead into a table. You can copy the source code from an existing article, because it can be tough to make your own.


 * Hope this clarifies things. In summary, articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. I mentioned this a while back but there still aren't any more substantive sources. So that will need to be added if the article is to have a chance of being accepted. Thanks, wia (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me! I'm super confused how the previous article was up for the lifespan it was considering the dead links& equally in awe considering I have more links that are live, valid and current. I simply cannot wrap my mind around it. Can you see what the previous article was? Christinamm (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)christinamm


 * Unfortunately, I'm not able to see the content of the previous article since its deletion. I think (although I'm not certain) that only administrators can go back and see those things. Sometimes Wikipedia articles slip through the cracks, as it were, and so I wouldn't worry too much about how long the previous incarnation of the article stayed up. Just focus on finding more substantive reviews or discussions of Tillman's work online, in books or magazines or some other reliable source. As it stands, the article's relying almost exclusively on those Blick articles to show notability, and it's advisable to have more. Of course, you're always welcome to a second (or third) opinion at the AfC Help Desk, but I have a feeling they will probably recommend that you find more references too. wia (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you wiki spirit animal, I will swiftly get to the bottom of this. Christinamm (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)christinamm

automatic archiving of talk pages
I wonder if you know about this. I looked at your talk page, saw that yow have archives, but am not sure you have set it up to run automatically. If you would like to know how, have a look at mine. I have the following code at the head:

Probably self explanatory!

I also use:

Forgive me if you are my grandmother and I am attempting to teach to to suck eggs. I find that AFC reviewers' talk pages can get unwieldy;y, which Is why I leave mine running and let it enjoy itself.

I also use auto headings on my archives. I expect you do, too. Fiddle  Faddle  15:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This is super helpful; thank you! I'd been doing it manually, but I should have known there was a way to automate the process. This page has gotten pretty full over the past few weeks. I've just set it up now and am looking forward to seeing it in action. Thanks! wia (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Try replacing your archive page headers with and see if it does good things for you  Fiddle   Faddle  15:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks slick! There lots I have yet to learn about Wikipedia, so I'm very grateful for the help. wia (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * These are all things done by those who went there ahead of us. I Just grab and use what works  Fiddle   Faddle  21:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit on Sappho article "gal pals"-->"sexual partners"-->"friends"
You edited "sexual partners" on the caption of a picture on the sappho blog because you claimed it represented a non neutral point of view. Can you explain in more detail why you thought that caption represents a non-neutral point of view and why "friends" represents a more neutral point of view? I originally changed the caption from "gal pals" which to me is clearly non-neutral in that obstructs the fact that the painting is a depiction of a sex act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.2.197.29 (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If you look at the page history, I in fact didn't revert any edits from your IP address (35.2.197.29). I was reverting the work of someone else who insisted on writing "gal pals", which of course is non-neutral language. I am in agreement with you that "sexual partners" is the optimal wording. wia (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and changed the wording to "sexual partners", as it should be. wia (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Alex Gilbert
Hello,

I am just asking about some advice for the following page - Draft:Alex_Gilbert. I have added several secondary sources to this page. Please let me know what you think!. Thank You! - Dmitry

--DmitryPopovRU (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for inquiring on my talk page. A lot of the references seem to be links to a library's listing of the book. You don't have to do that; you can just cite the book itself in its place by using the Cite book template. And some of the references don't seem to mention Alex Gilbert much at all. The New Zealand Herald and Northern Advocate references are good; those are the sort of ones we require. I'd suggest cleaning up the references as mentioned using Cite book, removing the references that don't really mention Alex Gilbert at all, and looking for some more reliable, independent (third-party) sources. Having more can't hurt, as long as you don't overcite your sentences. Thanks, wia (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for your help wia !
 * Dmitry


 * --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have fixed up the page wia. Is this page still not notable for Wikipedia? Does it still need work? --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for inquiring. After having a look at the article and the sources you've referenced, my opinion is that Draft:Alex Gilbert is probably a WP:BLP1E topic, meaning that he's notable for only one event, he is likely to remain a low-profile individual, and the event itself is not particularly significant. So I probably wouldn't accept the article because of BLP1E. However, I'm not an expert in dealing with BLP1E, and so you're welcome to inquire at the Help Desk, where there are experienced reviewers who know more about the subject than I do.


 * Even if this article doesn't make it into the encyclopedia, working on a draft is a good learning experience! I hope you are enjoying the process of creating a Wikipedia article, doing research, locating reliable sources and using precise language. It's one of the reasons I find Wikipedia so much fun.


 * Let me know if you ever have any questions about Wikipedia and I'll be happy to help however I can. wia (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank You wia! Yes there is the one event section but he has also covered other non-event areas including the release of his book and the reliable source about his book on the NZ Herald website along with several other sources about this too. It is a hard one to work out. It may be written wrong? I am just asking for peoples help. Thank You for your advice! .D

--DmitryPopovRU (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * True, he has done other things in his life, but the book he has written is about the BLP1E event. I don't think your article is written wrong; rather, I think Alex Gilbert is just not sufficiently notable right now to have a Wikipedia article. That seemed to be the consensus the last time the article was deleted as well. Let's see who responds on the Help Desk though. wia (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 16:48:35, 25 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by 86.191.248.206
My recent article has not been accepted and this is really disappointing. The reason given is because the information is similar to what is on mzveegh.com but this is because I am the author of both articles and they were both written yesterday.

What do I need to do to get my wikipedia article accepted please? Thanks

86.191.248.206 (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for inquiring on my talk page. The first thing you should know is that the Articles for Creation process is just that—a process. It is totally fine if the draft is declined a few times; just keep working on it. You can start by removing the copyrighted text, since Wikipedia is very strict about that. Even if you are the author of the other page, you can't just copy and paste the text into Wikipedia. It is possible to obtain permission to do so, using the WP:COPYREQ procedure, but it's easier and quicker to just rewrite the content. Next, you will want to make sure that you're using reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss the subject in significant detail. Websites that don't meet that description are often not worth using as references. Finally, make sure everything you've written uses a neutral tone. Thanks, wia (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Fixed page: Father (rapper)
hey can you add my page now i adde citations and how is my page declined but raury's wiki page is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muniro (talk • contribs) 19:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The article was declined because it didn't have any references, which all Wikipedia articles require so as to demonstrate their notability. You have some sources now, which is good. I'd try to find a few more that discuss Father in significant detail, as two of your three references are interviews with the rapper himself, which are considered primary sources and thus aren't ideal references. Keep working on the article a bit and resubmit when you feel you're done. Someonetheshould be along to review the article after you submit it. Thanks, wia (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

17:05:45, 25 April 2015 review of submission by 174.114.0.222
Hi! I've taken your suggestion in citing more reliable sources, as well as references and hoping you'd be willing to re-review the entry for posting. Thanks for your help!! Any further details as to how I can improve the article for acceptance would be greatly appreciated.

174.114.0.222 (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Bubs174.114.0.222 (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

174.114.0.222 (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, the article is looking better citation-wise. I'd consider adding even more inline citations wherever you make a claim that is likely to be challenged. A good rule of thumb is that any substantive claim you make about the band should be supported by an inline citation.


 * I'd also consider finding more references, since quite a bit of material is still unsourced. For example, I took a quick look through your references but none of them seem to mention anything about the content in the "Hiatus" section. Those are the kinds of things for which you need some more references. I hope this provides a bit of guidance! wia (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

20:53:43, 25 April 2015 review of submission by 216.227.61.202
Hi Wikiiawesome,

I appreciate your time and review. I have read the pages about sources, and am trying to determine what the offending reference is. If it's the forecast section, as I suspect it might be, I can just remove that. Otherwise, I'm at a loss and would appreciate your feedback.

Best regards, Carol

216.227.61.202 (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for inquiring on my talk page. There's no offending reference per se; rather, the issue is that there simply aren't enough reliable sources discussing Energy Services Management or explaining what it is. The new reference is a start, but I felt that it was insufficient as it amounted to an essay and didn't do enough reference-wise. There are still some sections in the draft that a layperson might have trouble understanding and that are unsourced. You're welcome to solicit a second (or third) opinion at the Help Desk, of course, if you'd like. I hope this helps explain my reasoning. If you've got further questions, I'll gladly field them here as best I can! wia (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 21:44:50, 25 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Mjcalderon
Hi,

I am trying to create an entry about Prof. Belita Koiller who is a very well known Physicist in Brazil. The article has not been accepted because it has overlap with http://www.if.ufrj.br/~bk/Bio.htm. Would it be possible to change the article fate if Belita Koiller allows me explicitely to reproduce that content? Is there a procedure for that? Otherwise, I will work on changing the wording but the facts are the facts!

Thanks for your help. (I'm new here...) Best

María

Mjcalderon (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for inquiring on my page about Draft:Belita Koiller. Yes, if you can obtain the copyright-holder's permission to license the text to Wikipedia, then you will be allowed to do so. To do so, you'll have to follow all the instructions at WP:PERMISSION. I usually recommend that editors rewrite the text in their own words rather than going via the licensing copyright route, since it might take a bit of time to get the approval. But it's up to you!


 * We all start somewhere on Wikipedia, so don't be worried about being a newcomer. I hope you like Wikipedia, and feel free to ask here whenever you've got questions. Best, wia (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tomato_Date_Chutney -- C E  (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry for the late reply. I did a bit of editing on the page and will continue to look for sources! wia (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

My second submission
Dear WIA,

I’ve been busy over the past week or so rewriting the article that you had edited for me. My submission was on Stephen Drucker’s quote, “Do What You Do Best and Outsource the Rest.” I tried to take to heart all of the recommendations that you made. I carefully considered your advice and I was forced to agree with everything that you had said. My article did indeed read more like an essay that a wiki article. As you pointed out, it seemed as if it was more about Peter Drucker and the definition of outsourcing than about the quote itself. I have done my best to sound more “encyclopedic” and less bombastic, and to make the article more specifically about the quote itself.

The most important thing that you told me was your “third major suggestion.” (wia  (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)) You advised that I needed some more sources that talked directly about the quote itself rather than its author. You acknowledge that the” Forbes article mentioned it albeit briefly.” Hopefully, I pulled it off! 1)	I referenced 2 additional books that discussed the quote. 2)	I also referenced another magazine for entrepreneurs that spoke of the quote. 3)	I wrote a paragraph or 2 about a report in a recent issue of Inc. Magazine about the Small Business Association (SBA). During the National Small Business Week conference, the SBA set up a panel where they discussed, the quote specifically, the strategy behind it and how it applies to small and medium businesses, especially startups. 4)	I also referenced a report by the Federal Reserve entitled “Do What You Do Best and Outsource the Rest,” It discussed the effects that the strategy advocated by the quote has had on both the US economy and India’s well. 5)	I also found 2 management consulting firms that use the quote in their media and advocate the strategies outlined by it.

The theme of the new article could be “The evolution of ‘Do What You Do Best and Outsource the Rest’ from a slogan / tagline, to an international business strategy.” As I said, I took seriously your suggestions, especially the comments on the fact that I needed more references about the quote itself. I look forward to your critique, and I hope that I’ve made some progress in learning how to write “the wiki way. I’m trying to post the new article now. Thank you for your kind consideration, I remain, Hbazarte Hbazarte (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No problem. I see you've resubmitted the draft here but it's been declined. Timtrent's suggestions are good ones, and though it might be a tough pill to swallow, I think this material is ultimately better destined for inclusion in the existing Peter Drucker and Outsourcing articles than on its own page. At its core, it's an adage about outsourcing, and so what's valuable about the draft wouldn't be out of place in the Outsourcing article.


 * Even so, I hope you're enjoying learning about writing for Wikipedia. It is a lot of fun, and there are always articles to improve and things to do! wia (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

19:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC) review of submission
Draft:Comidor

Dear Wikiiawesome,

I appreciate your time and review. I tried to include more 3rd party references in my draft. I hope that know they are sufficient. I am looking forward to your invaluable feedback.

Yours sincerely, Tony (talk)


 * I would consider turning the "Testimonials & Reviews" section into paragraph form. Don't just copy and paste reviews; work them into a paragraph that neutrally discusses the critical reception to the product. If you look at major music releases, their reviews sections wouldn't be a bad model. For instance, look how the In Rainbows article discusses critical reception without just copying the reviews.


 * Notability refers to something very specific on Wikipedia. It's not the same as "fame" or "notoriety". The general notability criterion is essentially that articles have to be supported by reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss the subject in significant detail. If, for example, the only people talking about a software product are on a forum, that's not notability. If only the creators are discussing it on their own website, it's not notable. On the other hand, media sources that have discussed Comidor would be particularly helpful. Also, you don't need to say "Comidor is notable because"; rather, rely on the significant coverage of your references to show implicitly that it is notable. wia (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your valuable tips. I transformed the aforementioned section into paragraph format. Also, I guess that all these 3rd party reviews and discussions about the product can provide an overview of the products' notability, which I tried to reflect in my article. In any case, I would like to thank you once again for your support.

15:43:28, 27 April 2015 review of submission by PalmerWolf
I added several footnotes that I believe address your concern. Please let me know if that is not the case and where else I should add them. Thanks. PalmerWolf (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The inline citations look good to me, although I obviously can't double-check the references to ensure that they are legitimate. Many of the references seem to be primary sources, however. Are there any independent sources you can dig up that talk about Goldovsky in significant detail? I try not to review the same draft twice, but I don't think it should be too, too long before another, more experienced reviewer can get to it. In the meantime, you're welcome to continue tinkering with the draft or working elsewhere on Wikipedia; there's always lots to do! wia (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Review Draft:Apache_Flink
Hello, and thanks for your feedback. There is a couple of (third-party) articles about Apache Flink. Please give feedback if those would improve the Apache Flink Wikipedia article: * http://siliconangle.com/blog/2015/02/09/will-the-mysterious-apache-flink-find-its-sweet-spot-in-the-enterprise/ * http://www.datanami.com/2015/01/12/apache-flink-takes-route-distributed-data-processing/ * http://bigdataanalyticsnews.com/apache-flink-possible-replacement-hadoop/

One more (unfortunalty, in German; however, heise.de is a very reliable German news source): * http://www.heise.de/developer/meldung/Big-Data-Apache-Flink-wird-Top-Level-Projekt-2516177.html

Related: * http://googlecloudplatform.blogspot.de/2015/03/announcing-Google-Cloud-Dataflow-runner-for-Apache-Flink.html * http://www.cloudhub.uk.com/2754/apache-flink-now-running-google-cloud-dataflow

In German, again: * http://www.heise.de/developer/meldung/Big-Data-Google-Cloud-Dataflow-bekommt-Runner-fuer-Apache-Flink-2583392.html

Would it improve the article, if links would be removed? Comparing other Wikipedia articles about Apache projects, some of them have only very few links. For example: * Apache_Abdera * Apache_Flume — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.20.27.42 (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The Silicon Angle blog looks good, since the website has an editorial board and thus presumably some editorial standards. Not sold on Datanami or Big Data Analytics News, both of which are sites that anyone can write for (look for "Write for us" links in their About sections). On the other hand, I think the heise.de article should be okay, although I don't speak German so I'm relying on Google Translate here.


 * You can definitely use the two related links to supplement your sources and add material. However, note that each Wikipedia article must stand or fall on its own merits, not on a comparison to another article. Just concentrate on getting the Flink article up to snuff in terms of notability by adding those links, and you should be on the right track. wia (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for you feedback. I added the (five) links to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.20.27.42 (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

10:20:43, 28 April 2015 review of submission by AlexHayton
is it any good? is there still any improvement ?

AlexHayton (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The article's tone is much better; good work! I still think there's a primary source or two that you should address; see Timtrent's comments and the tags he placed in the article. Work on that and I'd say the article will have definitely be improved. Thanks, wia (talk) 12:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

12:25:16, 28 April 2015 review of submission by AlexHayton
Yes, I have editted with a new reference. Please do have a look at it :)

AlexHayton (talk) 12:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I would use the Cmtevents link, as it doesn't seem to mention Teck Guan aside from a quote. Maybe I'm missing it somewhere else on the website, but does that link talk about Teck Guan anywhere? Also, I'm not convinced that Scribd documents are a reliable source. I'm no expert but my gut feeling is that since anyone can upload documents to Scribd under any name, we have no way of verifying who the document comes from or whether it is authentic. That's my reaction, although you're welcome to inquire at the Help Desk about Scribd links. wia (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft Confucius page
Dear Wikiiawsome

Thank you for your comments on the Fcia0423/draft article on Confucius Statue page. This is part of a classroom activity and I created this draft page so students who worked on this topic can add material from their sandboxes to one place where they can collaboratively make edits, refine, add headings, links etc. They know that they will need to correct their writing, only write about what's been published, reference everything, etc. Unfortunately, one of them seems to have submitted it for creation (despite our instructions not to). I'm very sorry, Is there any way to turn this back? It seems like we are going to face many obstacles if we want to get university students involved in editing and contributing to Wikipedia because they always come in largish class sizes (this one has around 80 students divided into about 4 classes of 20). Please let me know if you have any advice for us. Frances Di Lauro 04:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcia0423 (talk • contribs)


 * Hi, thanks for letting me know. It's not a problem and you don't have to do anything to fix the issue. The draft was rejected but your students are free to continue working on it as long as they'd like! The Articles for Creation process is just that: a process. So it's okay if a draft is rejected a few times along the way. As long as the students know not to bother resubmitting the draft until it's complete, then everything should be fine! wia (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Wikiawsome! This is good to know. The students will be working on three pages like this one over the next few weeks. Frances Di Lauro 14:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcia0423 (talk • contribs)

Request on 4.28.15 for assistance on Draft:A-Audio Headphones Wikipedia submission by Molly Ritthaler
We are requesting assistance to understand why our submission was declined and what Wikipedia is looking for so we do not get declined again.

Thank you, Molly Ritthaler — Preceding unsigned comment added by MollyRitthaler (talk • contribs) 18:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The draft contains many buzzwords like "privately held luxury audio company", "on the principles of innovation, quality, precision and craftsmanship", and "their commitment to using the finest and most relevant materials". These are from the introduction alone and are very promotional. Please go through the article and remove any promotional tone, having regard to the rules and guidelines set out at WP:NPOV. Thanks, wia (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Rejection of Ralohmann's Sandbox
Thanks for your feedback, (and your copy reading!). This was my first article creation at Wikipedia. As you detected, I had three separate stubs on my Sandbox page and while I had intended to simply create a single article from one of them following the automated procedure apparent got the mash-up you (quite rightly) rejected. I created the article separately by cut and paste and I now have a clearer idea of the procedure. Can I now remove the rejection template? Or do you need to do it? Is the normal procedure in these precincts to create a separate Sandbox page for each new article? Ralohmann (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, which draft are you referring to? Yes, when you create a new article you can do it in a new space in your Sandbox. It's easier to just work on each article in just one space. We don't reject submissions or anything until you submit them, naturally, so your sandbox is (for the most part) your own to play with! wia (talk) 11:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

17:55:57, 28 April 2015 review of submission by 67.108.121.50
Before we submit our new article, can you tell me some specific things to change? I understand that it sounds too much like an advertisement, so if you could just point out the specific instances, I can go through and make the appropriate changes.

Thank you!

67.108.121.50 (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Certainly. Sentences like "carafem is built on the belief that it is time for a new approach to abortion care and is part of a movement to de-stigmatize the process" read like a promotion for the provider since they are not written from a neutral point of view. Other sentences, like "carafem has an experienced team with years of experience in abortion care", fall prey to the same problem. wia (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

20:38:25, 28 April 2015 review of submission by Unholycult
Hey, does this look better now? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Brett_Stevens

Also do you think I should make a page for the editors of Alternative Right, Colin Liddell and Andy Nowicki?

Unholycult (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * A lot of the added sources are links to things that Brett Stevens himself published. Those don't show notability because they're not about him. Similarly, Amazon links aren't helpful, because they only indicate that Stevens exists, not that he is notable. Usually, you'll want to rely on reliable sources for notability purposes, and so blogs aren't always the best references in that case. wia (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 16:00:59, 29 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by 1neilfrancis
I am trying to get the article about Pinion watches right. However, in the meantime Facebook appears to have scraped the page in which wikipedia's rejection of my first draft appears, and created a page from it. I would like to rectify this by withdrawing all current drafts of the article so that they cannot be used in this way. Thanks.

1neilfrancis (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem. Just put Db-author at the top of the draft and an administrator should be along to delete it shortly. wia (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 16:23:49, 29 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by 1neilfrancis
Thank you re Pinion. Have done. Best regards.

1neilfrancis (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Henrytarzi/sandbox question
Hello, The first source provided have all the information presented and the significance of these information in Arabic. Additionally, I added another source that has additional information in English. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrytarzi (talk • contribs) 03:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm not 100% sure that the Arabic site is a reliable source. Not all websites are automatically reliable sources; take a look at WP:RS for some details. The Tharaway magazine link is marginally better, although since it's largely an interview, it leaves a bit to be desired. Just a note: Wikipedia articles aren't considered reliable sources, so there's no need to cite them in your references list. Keep working on sourcing the document and resubmit when you feel confident that you've found sources that discuss the subject in significant enough detail to prove notability. I think the article can get to that point. wia (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the replay. I added an additional sources to support the current information. Additionally, this Arabic site didn't negate any of the criteria listed on the the link that you provided. Additionally it is quite a reliable site for ancestral history on families in Lebanon

Thanks for your consideration. I resubmitted the info with correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrytarzi (talk • contribs) 19:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

09:04:08, 30 April 2015 review of submission by Evelyn Lori
Evelyn Lori (talk) 09:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I am requesting here to know about my article notability issue i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:People_Tech_Group

Kindly give a valuable feedback. I have improvised much recently, but there are certain flaws as per your views. Kindly point out precise observations, so that I can get back and rectify the same at the soonest possible. Anyhow now can you please check it once that updated draft.

Thanks, Evelyn Lori.


 * The best source is the CIOReview magazine, which talks about the company in some detail. The other references either hardly mention People Tech at all (so they don't provide significant coverage) or are from People Tech itself (so they are primary sources). Take another look at WP:CORP and try to find more reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss the subject in significant detail. Thanks, wia (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Wikiisawesome: Thank you for valuable reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evelyn Lori (talk • contribs) 12:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

20:01:00, 30 April 2015 review of submission by Swreynolds
First forgive me for my novice abilities, I have never created a Wikipedia page before.

We have Wikipages Red Condor and St. Bernard Software both of which are out-of-date and inaccurate since we re branded to EdgeWave back in 2011. I have updated the references with credible/verifiable sources, and would like help getting our EdgeWave page up and running. We recently partnered with Huawei Technologies and were encouraged to get an EdgeWave page up ASAP. Would love all the help I can get in moving forward with this creation.

Swreynolds (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not a problem; we all start somewhere!


 * I've taken a look at the references you've added. The issue I see is that most of these references are either not independent or they do not offer much significant coverage. Article subjects need to be notable if they are to be accepted, and notability is made out by having reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss the subject in significant detail.


 * the Open File Manager doesn't say anything substantive about the company, just that it exists;
 * the infosecurity-magazine article is a decent start, but I think more like it would be valuable;
 * the Marketwired links are both press releases, which is okay if you want to supplement an existing article but can't help show notability;
 * the EdgeWave website is a primary source;
 * the Yahoo! Finance link doesn't seem to mention the company;
 * the PRNewswire links are also press releases;
 * the Global Excellence Awards link doesn't say anything about the company, other than the fact that it has won awards; and
 * the cyber defence magazine seems like a decent source to me.


 * So you have two good sources, and the rest are sort of iffy for notability's sake. I'd suggest reading WP:CORP, which talks about what makes corporations notable. And it can't hurt to find some more references that discuss the company in significant detail. (To be clear, you don't have to remove the existing sources, but I think it's worthwhile to find some more.)


 * Another thing I'd work on is the neutrality of the piece. Things like "a unique cyber operations approach adapted from the National Defense environment to the civilian commercial sector. EdgeWave EPIC fuses machine, threat and human intelligence to precisely identify cyber attacks and integrate defenses in real-time to protect organizations from the most sophisticated dangers" sound nice but they are a little subjective. According to whom is their approach "unique"? I would suggest removing some of the adjectives and adverbs and sticking to a plain old "just the facts" approach.


 * You're also welcome to stop by the Help Desk and ask them any questions you might have about the process. Once you're confident with your work, you can resubmit. The AfC process is just that—a process. So don't be discouraged if you don't get an article accepted right away, or even after a few tries. I hope this is helpful! wia (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

15:16:16, 1 May 2015 review of submission by AngeliMarines
Dear reviewer, could you please guide me through to the acceptance of this article? Somen Debnath's press kit is also written by me. I believe Somen Debnath is a person who deserves to have a Wikipedia page, could you please give your help in creating this page? Thank you! Angelica

AngeliMarines (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Did you write this page? If not, then you must remove the copyright violations. If you did write it, then you can license the work to Wikipedia to get around the copyright issue. You will have to follow the instructions at WP:PERMISSIONS to do so. I've never licensed text before but it seems fairly straightforward. If you have any other questions, I'll do my best to help! wia (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear Rich, I wrote that text, however I do not wish to have copyright on it. If I remove this reference, the article may pass? Or I should re-write more of the content as well? It is important for me to add Somen Debnath on Wikipedia, thank you for your help and support! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngeliMarines (talk • contribs) 15:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If you wrote the text of that link, then you may have a conflict of interest because it is written in the first person. Conflict-of-interest editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. If you wish to proceed, you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy on it, which I've linked to above.


 * As for the copyright issue, you have three options: you can license your work in that link to Wikipedia using WP:PERMISSIONS, you can remove the text entirely, or you can rewrite the text in new words so that it no longer a copy. Often, rewriting is the easiest thing to do, since going the PERMISSIONS route typically takes at least a couple of weeks. wia (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

19:47:30, 1 May 2015 review of submission by 95.83.250.46
Though it is true that pecuniloquism is not online that is because I have created it as part of a college experiment. I thought that wiki as a coming together of information and collective knowledge that this would be the perfect place to circulate the idea. I understand that the purpose of the site is lost if the veracity of the posts are in question. However I can tell you that this is both a well thought out and practical idea. I assure you that when I finish my thesis I will cite as much as is possible but I ask you to please consider the potential of allowing this post onto the open site both for the idea in its self an for the broader purpose 95.83.250.46 (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * We can't accept articles on Wikipedia unless they are notable. Usually this means they must be supported by a variety of reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss the subject in significant detail. If you have invented a concept that is not discussed in significant detail in book reviews, magazines, the media or other independent sources, then it is not yet appropriate for Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but those are the rules. if your experiment works out and this concept gets some substantial coverage in the media, that would be a better time to try making an article for it. Thanks, wia (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Your revert
I have reversed your revert pf my question on Perverted act as I think the question is valid. Sorry to disagree with you but WP is not censored.--86.176.8.227 (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

List of Olympic venues question
why are you insistent on including alphabetical? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.8 (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Please do not remove content without justification. if you think content is useless, seek consensus at the talk page with other users. But you should not continually delete it, because that looks like vandalism, especially after someone has reverted your first edit, per WP:BRD. wia (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

justification was given. this has now been added to the talk page.


 * Also, if you want to foster more discussion, you can always ask some of the other editors who've worked on the List of Olympic venues article for their comments. That will ensure that people know the discussion is taking place. You can use the Please see template for this, or another message of your choosing. wia (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Review this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murgh_Musallam -- C E  (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I will as soon as I can! I'm away from the computer, but I'll jump in as soon as get back. wia (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

10:47:14, 28 April 2015 review of submission by Mjcalderon
{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Dear wia,

I have already sent an e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org with the consent from the author of http://www.if.ufrj.br/~bk/Bio.htm. What is next? Thank you very much for your help!!

Best, --Mjcalderon (talk) 10:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Mjcalderon (talk) 10:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * {{reply to|Mjcalderon}} Now that you've emailed for permissions, the next step is just to sit back and wait. I've never had text licensed for use on Wikipedia before but I believe it can take a while—there's an 81-day backlog right now. So my advice is to keep tinkering with the article or find another article to edit on Wikipedia—there's always plenty to do! Just put the Draft:Belita Koiller article on your watchlist so you can see whenever it's edited. wia (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * {{reply to|Wikiisawesome}} I think I now have the permission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Belita_Koiller. I have asked for the article to be reviewed again. Thanks!

--Mjcalderon (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Request on 13:06:16, 5 May 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Saimonofclub
Thank you for your revision! If I find suitable information on the subject's notability I will update the article and resubmit.

Best regards,

Saimon

Saimonofclub (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

09:21:03, 6 May 2015 review of submission by 78.150.117.145
The vast majority of the article was written by The Deco themselves hence why it relates so closely to the page on the website. If they complete this form https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries does that resolve the issue for wikipedia?

Also you seem to have blanked the entire page if this resolves the copyright issue am I ok to restore to my previous version. I have various other sources/references to add as well

http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/22658 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_Cinemas http://www.bbc.co.uk/northamptonshire/content/articles/2005/08/19/cinema_is_born_again_as_a_theatre_feature.shtml http://www.beatlesbible.com/1963/03/27/live-abc-cinema-northampton/ http://www.theatrestrust.org.uk/resources/theatres/show/476-abc-northampton

Thanks

78.150.117.145 (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, yes if the website's content owners follow the steps in that link carefully, then they can license the text to Wikipedia. Once the text has been licensed, then you can go ahead and unblank the page! You'd then be free to add other links and references. wia (talk) 09:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Request on 17:09:39, 6 May 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Wisdom of Ages
In regard to the rejection of the article on Arturo D Hernandez I have several questions: 1. If the copyright owner Quaestor Press agrees to put its page under license using the Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license and the article gives proper attribution to Quaestor Press in the credit sources would the article be acceptable? 2. Where and how would Quaestor Press file or otherwise accept this license? I have the language of the license, but there is no signature line or indication of how to accept it.

Wisdom of Ages

Wisdom of Ages (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for inquiring on my talk page. Yes, if Quaestor Press agrees to license its text, then you would be able to use it on the Wikipedia page. The easiest way to do this is to follow the rules in WP:PERMISSION: email Quaestor and ask them to license the text. There are sample emails you can send them on that page. Then, send proof of their consent to the Wikimedia email address listed (the one for text, not images). It usually takes a bit of time, so you can busy yourself with other Wikipedia work in the meantime. Let me know if you have any other questions! Best, wia (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

14:05, 06 May 2015 (UTC+2) review of submission Comidor
Draft:Comidor Dear Wikiiawesome, after making the proper arrangements in my article according to the valuable tips and info by you and some fellow wikipedia reviewers of yours, I would appreciate it if you could give another look at my draft and let me know about your thoughts. Thank you very much for your time! Yours sincerely, Tony (talk)


 * Hi, no problem! I'm not sold on 100% of the references, as many of the additions seem to be to websites with crowdsourced reviews. It's my understanding that those sorts of websites don't do much in the way of asserting notability, since they are user-generated. I would lean more heavily on independent reviews published on a website with an editorial policy. However, I'm not a total expert in these matters, and so I suggest that you keep working on the article until someone else reviews the article and gives you a more concrete answer. (I'm still relatively new at AfC and so I leave the more complicated cases to the experienced reviewers!) I'm afraid there's a bit of a backlog at the moment, but there's no deadline for your article.


 * I'd also suggest working a bit on the tone. Some sentences strike me as a little wishy-washy. For example, "In general, it seems that this platform exploits its collaboration features for business process automation in task management, cost calculation and requirements fulfillment" is a bit vague. I think you should just state exactly what the platform does. (You say something similar later on: "The general idea is that Comidor".) I'd also consider chopping out familiar phrasings like "Last but not least".


 * I hope this is helpful; as always, feel free to ask here or at the AfC Help Desk if you have further questions! wia (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for your concise and prompt response! Your feedback is always valuable! I will try to work a bit on the tone as suggested. But unfortunately, as you can imagine, it is quite difficult to find other resources than software review websites when it comes to such products. At least I found an academic article talking about the platform on which this product was developed. Cheers! Tony (talk) 9:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC+2)

A cookie for you!


L235 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

--L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 03:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the cookie! I was just starting to get hungry. wia (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Green Mango chutney
Please review.-- C E  (talk) 11:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Someone beat me to the reviewing punch, but I did a little cleanup. (I just started a new job so I am not on Wikipedia as much as I used to be.) I also moved the article to Green mango chutney without the capital "M" in mango to comply Wikipedia's article capitalization policy. Thanks for your contributions! wia (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

16:27:09, 8 May 2015 review of submission by PalmerWolf
Revisions were made to this entry about Onissim Goldovsky on April 21. We have not heard anything. Did the revisions go through? What do we need to do to move to the next step? PalmerWolf (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, just hang tight for a bit longer. There's a rather large backlog at the moment (over 1000 articles waiting to be reviewed), and so we'll get to it as soon as we can. In the meantime, keep working on the article. There's always plenty to do on Wikipedia. Let me know if you're looking for something to do! wia (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

12:18:04, 8 May 2015 review of submission by Vicky.ballance
Good Afternoon Wikiisawesome

I hope you are well.

Sorry I am a little confused why the page has been rejected. Would it please be possible for you to tell me what areas I need to change and why as I cannot work it out?

I'm very new to Wiki and I thought I had followed the referencing guidelines.

Many Thanks

Vicky

Vicky.ballance (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for inquiring here! The issue with the article is that it isn't supported by sufficient inline citations. We need inline citations in articles about living people after every statement that is likely to be challenged or that is contentious. For example, when you say "The writings of the postmodern philosophers; Baudrillard, Lacan, and Laporte have had a major influence on his practice, but of key importance, is the work of Slavoj Zizek. Lloyd’s work generally takes the form of large mixed media paintings, but his work has also manifested in photography, printmaking, drawing, installation art, sculpture and digital imagery", there is no inline citation. A reader who reads this article will have no idea how to verify this claim. What you can do is go through the article very carefully and make sure you have added an inline citation wherever you make a bold statement about Mark David Lloyd that is contentious or likely to be challenged. Let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks, wia (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Meritnation (May 5)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by BenLinus1214 was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Meritnation and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help 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_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Meritnation Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BenLinus1214&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Meritnation reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

BenLinus 1214 talk 16:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think there is some problem with the tool you are using because Wikiisawesome did not create the article. Supdiop (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe the tool automatically notifies the last submitter. I seem to recall resubmitting the Meritnation article for someone, since I haven't worked on it at all. That would explain the notification. wia (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Alright. I read that the tool is experiencing some problems nowadays. I thought this notification was result of malfunctioning tool. :) Supdiop (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * it depends on how you submit it. The AFCH script allows you to choose who is noted as the submitter. Submitting manually does not. If there is a choice, use the script. If no choice go back in and edit the template after it is placed. Fiddle   Faddle  15:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll be sure to choose that option next time I submit an article for another editor! Incidentally, I regret that I haven't been very active at AfC lately. I know there's quite a backlog but I have just moved and started a new job, so "real life" (whatever that is) is taking up far too much of my time. I hope things will settle down in the coming weeks so I can devote more time to Wikipedia. /wia /talk 01:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Request on 22:43:32, 7 May 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Irabarbanel
Dear Wia,

I refer to my article on Flora MacDonnell that you reviewed. The article was deleted due to notability concerns. I was advised to find third party, reliable, and verifiable citations, but I already have references to two reputable and well-reviewed academic books by two different authors and to a website of one of Ireland's leading theatres. Can you please explain why these are not acceptable. I am genuinely curious, and I would be grateful for your reply. Best wishes irabarbanel

Irabarbanel (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for asking! The issue with the online source is that the link doesn't discuss Flora MacDonnell in significant detail. Remember that references for notability's sake should generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic.


 * As for the books, it's a bit tougher to assess those. While it is true that they are reliable sources, it is unclear whether they discuss Flora in significant detail. Perhaps you could add some quotes in the references directly from those sources? wia (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear Wia,

Thank you. I will add the quotes. Best I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irabarbanel (talk • contribs) 09:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

disambiguation page
I have a small doubt about disambiguation pages. An anonymous user asked me a question that "can't we have a product in disambiguation page if it does not have an article?" I answered "No, you can't"(in short). I think I gave a wrong answer because I see many things in dab pages that don't have an article about them. Is it acceptable to have anything in dab page that don't have an article about it? I don't know much about what goes into dab page. Can you please clarify my doubt? — Supdiop  talk  04:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good question! The dab red link policy is at MOS:DABRL. Basically, if no other articles use that red link, if an article about that red link is unlikely to be written, or if the subject is likely not notable, then there shouldn't be a red link. The whole point of disambiguation pages is to help people find other articles with the same or very similar names, so cluttering DAB pages up with red links that don't really help the reader is not usually useful. Use your judgment and the various notability guidelines when assessing whether something is unlikely to be written or likely non-notable. And as the page suggests, the "What links here" tool will help you find out if any articles are using that red link. Cheers! /wia /talk 10:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * okay, we can only have red link if the subject is notable and likely to have an article about it in near future. Thank you — Supdiop  talk  11:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Copy from the Spanish version?
I noticed you reviewed my article, Draft:Panamá Oeste and rejected it. I was actually getting those statistics from the Provinces of Panama page. I found an article about that specific province on the Spanish Wikipedia: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provincia_de_Panamá_Oeste. Is it alright if I translate the article and put it into the draft?

Mr.Bob.298 (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Thanks! Mr.Bob.298Mr.Bob.298 (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello! Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source, so you can't rely on the text of another Wikipedia article to show notability. However, you can certainly translate and use the text from the Spanish-language page, and you can cite the references used there. I don't speak Spanish but I imagine those will be enough to show notability. Let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks, /wia /talk 01:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

18:01:34, 13 May 2015 review of submission by 82.12.237.101
PLEASE MAY YOU LET ME KNOW HOW TO IMPROVE THE ARTICLE SO IT CAN BE ACCEPTED 82.12.237.101 (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Have you taken a look at the comments I left on the draft? First WP:BKCRIT, which sets out the notability requirements for books. Then, try to find some reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss the book in significant detail. Things like newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews will do the trick. Thanks, /wia /talk 20:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

TinyCOBOL Draft article
Hi Wikiisawesome,

Thanks for having taken the time to look at the draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:TinyCOBOL).

I started my edits by making the main description paragraph readable by profane people, as recommended by kikichugirl.

Then I made several modifications, particularly on references, to have more of them and more precise. I think I'm on the right track, but I seek a confirmation.

Also, I don't know where the reference #7 should really go: in "See also" or "External links" ?

Thx in advance,

Bgiroud (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Usually, links to other Wikipedia articles go in the "See also" section and links to other websites of interest go in "External links". So if you want to move reference 7, then I would suggest putting it in "External links". As for the article, I would still look for some more independent sources from media or third-party websites, since I'm not convinced that the cited mailing list discussions demonstrate notability. However, you're free to resubmit the article any time you want in order to get some advice from more experienced AfC reviewers. There's a bit of a backlog at the moment, I'm afraid, but there's no rush to complete the article. Just keep working away and someone from the project will get to it in due time! /wia /talk 00:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)