User talk:LaMona/Archives/2016/01
User:TalkLaMona/Archive Header/header=Archive for %(monthname)s %(year)d
09:00:50, 1 January 2016 review of submission by Arminehjo[edit]
Dear LaMona
Thanks for your review - however I am rather confused that this submission was not accepted. I have provided ample references and the title of books published by Michel Hanna Haj - perhaps a person who knows Arabic should review this page? I have added some more info today. Pls. let me know if you have anyone who knows Arabic and can review this submission, as I think since the author writes mostly in arabic and all the info provided is mostly in Arabic - perhapsthat would be the ideal solution - pls. let me know how else I can improve it.
thanks very much
Armineh Johannes
- User:Arminehjo, my comments to you were not about notability but about the content of the article. Unfortunately the boilerplate that is generated isn't always helpful. First, your references need to be inline, linked to the statements they support, using the formatting given at wp:cite. Next, long lists of URLs aren't very readable, so you should instead give your readers an actual readable citation with the name of the work, where it was published, etc. Interviews do not confer notability, so the interview section could be reduced to a sentence talking about one or two important interviews. My final comment is this: given that this person writes in Arabic, why should there be an article in @en wikipedia? You need to make this person relevant to English-language readers. I would suggest first creating an article in an Arabic language WP, then look for sources in English that could make this subject of interest for this WP. LaMona (talk) 15:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi LaMona,
I am hoping for clarification as to why you denied my article on Alex Wyse due to notability. He has been in two Broadway shows, one of which is currently running, a Broadway national tour, and has had multiple guest and recurring roles on TV. These are all credited and referenced in the article. I have seen several other articles for actors that only have one Broadway credit, and little to no TV experience. Wyse has exceeded these, so I do not understand how he does not meet the requirements. Thank you. Blessedtern2014 (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Blessedtern2014. Thanks for asking. First, we have a saying here that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument that can be used on WP. Because WP can be edited by anyone, that other articles exist does not mean that they meet the criteria. Literally hundreds of articles are added each day, and hundreds are also deleted each day, so what you see here today you may not see here tomorrow. Have you read the general notability guidelines? They say: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The key there is "significant coverage". It doesn't matter how many shows he has been in or how many TV shows -- what matters is the coverage in reliable sources. That is what you lack. What you have mainly are what we call "name checks" -- his name appears in an article about someone or something else, such as the show, and nothing else is said about him. The two articles that appear to be about him say very little about him. Note that interviews, while they can be used to source information in the article, do not support notability because it is the person speaking about himself, and thus is not a neutral, independent source. None of the Playbill articles with his name in the title say much about him, just a few sentences. I am unable to find the November 11 article, which looks promising but does not appear in Playbill. I didn't look at every reference, so if I missed specific reviews of his work, let me know. LaMona (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Happy New Year, LaMona![edit]
LaMona,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America1000 06:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
09:48:07, 2 January 2016 review of submission by 86.178.230.186[edit]
Hello LaMona,
Thank you for your review. Would you mind please to see the article again. I have added reference links from Bloomberg, Finance Magnates and some other news' providers. I took of few directories so it does not look that company just exists. I find a company highly notable, otherwise Bloomberg would not mention it. Capital Index is the company that is already respected brokerage and it is one of the google keywords that people are searching for. It would be good if the people looking for a company information or history were able to see it on wikipedia. What do you think? Thank you. 86.178.230.186 (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi. Oddly, your Bloomberg cites are listed as "Businessweek". But in any case, one is a directory listing (Bloomberg makes listings of all companies, so that isn't notable), and the other is a rehash of a Capital Index press release, also not notable, and we discourage the use of press releases as references. You still have a number of primary sources (CI's own site, the regulatory site), and the rest seems to be normal business announcements. As for "It would be good if the people looking for a company information or history were able to see it on wikipedia" -- if the WP article does not say anything more than they could get from the company's own site and a Google search, then I'd say "no" there is no need for it. But the clue here is your mention of google keywords, because having a WP article is one of the main things that can raise the profile of a company in Google ranking, and so many people wish to create WP articles to gain this boost in ranking. However, that is not WP's purpose; WP is an encyclopedia, not a SEO service. So articles here really must by encyclopedic. LaMona (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello User:LaMona, thank you for reviewing my draft article. I would be grateful if you would expand upon your reasoning for declining it, i.e "Still reads like an advertisement.". My article has been in development for quite some time, and I have taken some helpful guidance from User:Robert McClenon, User:Cullen328 and User:Onel5969 to remedy problems with the article (particularly to ensure neutrality and well-referenced factual content). Is your view that my draft violates neutral point of view, and if so would you kindly explain how so, and what I might do to remedy this? Your guidance would be greatly appreciated. Laurahartley (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- In my conversations with Laurahartley, I encouraged removal of much of the lengthy list of "celebrity sightings" at the club, especially those that involved allegations of misconduct. Meticulously listing every celebrity that a news source says went to the club seems to have a promotional or advertising effect. It's namedropping. People who want to rub shoulders with celebrities eat that stuff up. Instead, I recommended more emphasis on the business itself. Another shortcoming are the repeated statements about how much media attention the club has received. Let the sources speak for themselves.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- I concur with User:Cullen328. Saying that the place has received media attention is WP:PROMO. Using those same articles to enhance the WP article is research. LaMona (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi User:LaMona. I understand your points (and also those made by User:Cullen328 - thanks again Jim). I have now edited the draft accordingly and resubmitted. It was not my intention to promote the subject in any way, but I had found that the celebrity profile of the venue had made it difficult to avoid my writing coming across that way. To summarise, I have removed the exhaustive listing of celebrities and just mentioned 3 of the most notable. Furthermore I have removed the separate section of 'Celebrity Clientele' and simply incorporated a short paragraph at the end of the 'History' section. I have also deleted all statements about how much media attention the venue has received. Thanks for the quick response and I am grateful for your feedback. Laurahartley (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Review and approval of article on the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights[edit]
LaMona - thank you for reviewing and approving (and enhancing!) my article on the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights. As you suggested, I have added/confirmed links in the 14 existing articles that already mention the VPs, so at least there is a start at cross referencing other articles, I will incrementally add references to other member organization articles. I am not as familiar with adding categories - but I will look into that next. I hope now that it is out there others will also contribute to the article. DiligentDavidG (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Peter Shankman[edit]
Appreciate the changes you made to the Peter Shankman page. Was deleted the following day, however. Thanks.Jgreene1333 (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Did you ever get a chance to look at what happened there?
00:33:24, 31 December 2015 review of submission by Sabermiresmailli[edit]
I think SAWBO should have its own wikipedia page. The reference you mention is part of another page (ICT4D). Please reconsider this submission. Thank you!
- We have this concept of "forking" in WP -- making separate or parallel articles to ones that already exist. The ICT4D page gives useful context for SAWBO which readers do not find on a separate page. The question is not whether it "deserves" its own page but what will make sense to a reader. There's also the fact that you don't say much on the SAWBO page, and quite honestly someone arriving there does not get enough information to understand what SAWBO does. There would need to be much more to say about SAWBO for it to have its own page. As it is, all you say is that it exists, and that it creates technology, which isn't really much. The first thing to do would be to provide more information in the ICT4D page, and fit it into that context. Then, if over time there are more sources and more information about SAWBO it could have its own page. But right now you have very little content, and by making a separate page you remove it from the context of the ICT4D page, where it makes more sense. LaMona (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
This is very frustrating because I originally created a much more comprehensive entry for SAWBO but each reviewer told me to cut it down, so now it's been edited down to a very bare bones entry. I think it makes sense for SAWBO to have its own page with the majority of the info there and then a short mention of the program on the ICT4D page. Please advise me on how to craft the entry so that it will be accepted. I have been receiving a lot of conflicting feedback from reviewers. Thank you!
- First, I can't give you a formula that will mean that your article will be accepted, much less that it will be accepted by reviewers other than myself. I looked back at versions of the article, and unfortunately your "comprehensive" entry [1] contained 1) an overly long infobox (those are supposed to be very short and factual) and 2) a lot of not very useful content, like the SAWBO in the news list - lists of news articles like that are uninformative because you don't say what those articles say about the product. If there are articles about the product you should use those to add relevant content to the article. That version of the article said more about the technology than about the impact of the project on the people it reaches, and it's that impact that is notable, not what USB drive is used. I suspect that there is enough content, but you probably need to write a very different article, taking information from that list of news articles. In a sense, you've written the story from an insider perspective, whereas what WP cares about is what outsiders have said about the project. LaMona (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
what should i do for draft: Sumchit Anand[edit]
Hi, First thanks for your advise but please explain what exactly i should do with those articles.
- Hi. First, on talk pages you have to sign your messages using four tilde's in a row. There's a link to click on at the bottom of the edit box. As for what you should do, I looked at the Draft:Sumchit Anand only, but for that one you need to use the articles you have listed as "other news" and add what they say to the WP article. The list of "other news" doesn't add any content to the article and doesn't help readers because they just see a list of names. Those articles are exactly what you should be using to create the content of the article. Then they become references, and your article says more. LaMona (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
17:20:01, 4 January 2016 review of submission by 2.122.89.114[edit]
- 2.122.89.114 (talk · contribs)
Hi, I Want to resubmit my article , as by mistake submitted blank earlier. Please advice . 2.122.89.114 (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- If you look at Draft:Prabhavati_Desai today you will see that is not blank. Is that the article you are talking about? If so, it needs references before it can be considered, and the message at the top links to the document that explains how to do this. If that isn't the article you mean, send me a different link. LaMona (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Snuggies123 (talk · contribs)
Hello,
I have seen Wikipedia pages with less sources that may not be considered reliable as well, but they were approved. If I take out most of the information and keep it very simple with a few sources, will it then be approved? It's been quite a difficult process to get this page up. Appreciate your help.
Thank you. Snuggies123 (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Snuggies123 (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Snuggies123, thanks for stopping by. First, we have a saying here that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument that can be used on WP. Because WP can be edited by anyone, that other articles exist does not mean that they meet the criteria. Literally hundreds of articles are added each day, and hundreds are also deleted each day, so what you see here today you may not see here tomorrow. Then, as I said in my message to you, the problem is not with the quantity of sources, but the quality. So you can start by reading about reliable sources. As I said, you can't use crowd-sourced media or blogs, so that nixes EDM and Earmilk. We require that sources have things like an editorial board, policy, and fact-checking. Interviews can be used to support facts, but because they are the person speaking about themself they don't add up to notability. The Donegal Democrat is a local paper, and local sources alone can't add up to notability. Next you need to read WP:NMUSIC which explains the criteria for musicians. Perhaps with that in mind you can find the sources that support notability. As a caution, you should avoid promotional expressions like "launched him into the mainstream" and "up-and-coming". WP is an encyclopedia and the tone of writing here is formal, maybe even a bit stuffy. LaMona (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
01:24:18, 5 January 2016 review of submission by Sactattedbetty[edit]
I spent a fair amount of time getting my submission tagged properly, with a number of references as well. This is one of my favorite bands who are crazy popular around the west coast. As to the band being notable, they have led the swing dance revival around the San Francisco area for years and are dancer favorites... sentiment is not something that seems proper to put on a wiki page, hence why I tried to stick to a vanilla description. They've won numerous awards, been featured in a national commercial, and tour all over the west coast to packed venues. Is there something I'm missing or not understanding (and I did look over the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music) page)?
I also realize this is subjective, so if you could please let me know your thoughts, I'd very much appreciate
- User:Sactattedbetty - Hi. There are some problems with your sources -- sources that are only local (East Bay Express, Press Democrat) are very low in the notability scale. Ditto the locally-based awards. And being in a commercial, being "band of the day" or in a magazine isn't an award, so those shouldn't be in there. Driveby.net isn't what one would normally call a reliable source for music information. Jango is a list of their songs, which makes it a primary resource, and those do not support notability. So being big in the SF area but not much beyond, and not having had reviews in major music sources ... well, that just doesn't meet Wikipedia's definition of "notable". What is kind of hard to understand is that notability on WP depends entirely on what third-party sources have said about the subject, so it's a step removed from being "popular" -- you have to be both popular and have gotten the attention of pretty major media. If you can find reviews in major papers that would be a big plus. Also, I couldn't figure out what label they have recorded on -- their web site doesn't say. If their CDs are self-published, then that's a strong negative for notability. If not, then you want to get the record label info into the article. Hope that helps. I know it's all pretty complex and the WP has its own culture of what's notable and what isn't. LaMona (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Invitation to a virtual editathon on Women in Music[edit]
| Women in Music | |
|---|---|
 |
|
--Ipigott (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Draft Hongchi Xiao[edit]
Hello LaMona, Happy New Year! Please let me know if you are okay with the changes that I have made on the draft Hongchi Xiao with the award part. I'm still in the process of gathering more reference sources. Thank you for your feedback and any help you can give me! I appreciate it. Jdxzhu (talk) jdxzhu 01:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Jdxzhu. What you've done now is unfortunately what we call "ref-bombing" --- adding too many references to the article. For each fact you only need one reference to verify it, and having more than one does not make the fact any more true. So every place where you have multiple references, choose the best one and remove the others. Do not use references that merely mention his name, as in lists of speakers or attendees. Only use references that say something significant about the subject. Only use reliable sources. For example, you say that his book became a best-seller, but one of the sources (#7) is him talking about his technique AND it doesn't say that the book is a best-seller. Only use references that can verify the facts in the article. You also use his Amazon, profile, which was probably written by him and cannot be used as a reference. So cut down the references to only the right ones. Now, I also have to say that just because you have references that doesn't guarantee that the article will be approved. The subject of the article has to meet notability and in particular Wikipedia:Notability_(people). LaMona (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hello LaMona, I double checked the reference #7. It did indeed say that the book was a best seller. Here is the link: http://www.thehindu.com/features/magazine/slapping-illness-away/article7089106.ece Here is the quote: ″When I was 40, I decided to go back to China to do something. But what? The simplest thing was to write, since you rely only on yourself. My book was about a banker who was educated in China, went to the U.S. for his MBA, worked in Wall Street, then transferred to Hong Kong. It was almost an autobiography, but I also explored Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism. Sex and the Stocks became a best-seller. I then went on to write the script for the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics.″ Shall I not use this as a reference source? Thank you for any help you can give me. I appreciate it. Jdxzhu (talk) jdxzhu 03:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi LaMona,
You recently declined my submission, I have made some changes would like your help to rectify it so that it is acceptable to wiki. Could you please spare few moments and guide me regarding the changes I need to make this published? I appreciate you help and time on this matter. Thanks in advance.
Covecap (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Covecap (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Covecap - You have three sentences total in the article. If there's nothing more to say about the company, then it hardly meets the criteria for an encyclopedia. I hope you are aware that WP does not allow articles to be added for the purposes of promotion and it is not a directory of companies. I must tell you that your username violates the wp:Username policy and will have to be changed. You cannot have a username that implies that you are representing a company. Representing the subject of an article is considered a Conflict of interest. I'll add the full information about COI on your talk page. LaMona (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
16:44:39, 5 January 2016 review of submission by Petpan089[edit]
Hi LaMona thank you for reviewing this article. I have added as many independend ressources as possible. What do you think I should add else?
- I have to admit that I still don't see anything "encyclopedic" about this company. What the article shows is that it is a company. The Operation section reads like something that could be on the company's web site, advertising their services. The fact that the article gives prices is VERY promotional. (See wp:promo). I'd have to reject it as an advert for the company. LaMona (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
LaMona:
Thank you for reviewing my Upton article. I will work on the tone and source you mentioned. Will you review this piece again when I am ready to resubmit?
Many thanks,
lastcall Tapestry1 (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding article - DOP Sridhar in my sandbox[edit]
Hi Mona,
Thank you very much for taking time to review my article and helping me point out my mistakes and your suggestions in creating better articles.
I didn't want to call that article "Sridhar" since that's already in use . I thought it could be called "DOP Sridhar" or "Sridhar G". Moreover the article "sridhar" doesn't really have a content that supplies some vital information regarding the topic "Sridhar" as discussed on that article. So This article could be replaced with that article .
That's is not my suggestion or anything . Maybe, that's just my opinion. Maybe some people might find lot of information from the already existing article "Sridhar" and its really good if its already serving the purpose.
Again, I don't want to resubmit it unless you find that my article could be posted on wiki with the same title- "Sridhar" or with the these titles "DOP Sridhar" or "Sridhar G".I don't want to argue on just creating a page for a person, since that would sound like advertising that person.
Either post them or delete them all, so that there is not even a deleted record of that person found on the real "Sridhar" in question , Because people who know him may get offended or even report to him if they saw a deleted page about due to some violation which traces back to us or me.
And they won't even care its a Wiki Policy violation but it would look like the person violated something. As i said everyone has different opinions without even totally reading the content.I don't want media and others hunting me for spoiling that guys name on internet space. I understand if it cannot be done. Rules are rules.
Please don't take it personal , I don't even know you. Maybe, you would be someone who would save me from an accident in the future with a good heart. This mail is for Wiki Mona, not you personally .
God Bless You Mona,
Sincerely, The KeenWatcher Thekeenwatcher (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- The page for Sridhar is what we call a disambiguation page -- it lists all of the uses of the name so that people can find the right one. Each article on WP must have a unique name. These can be created by adding something to the name like "Sridhar (cinematographer)". That makes it easy for people to pick out the right person in the drop down list.
- Also, I note that there is a great deal of similarity between this article and the IMDB article. WP articles cannot be copies of text used elsewhere, even if you wrote both. You will need to reword the WP text. LaMona (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding article - DOP Sridhar Cinematographer[edit]
Hi Mona,
I have removed removed all the content I had already posted on IMDB and have also created a Special page calling it "Sridhar DOP Cinematographer" as per your suggestion and have left it for you to review and advise me of any corrections.
Special page link : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thekeenwatcher/Special:Mypage/Sridhar_DOP_Cinematographer
If I got the right assistance of those item0s I had to remove like the way you guided me , I would have removed them long back.. I want to follow the rules and policies following your guidelines .. Please help me ..
Thank you again for your assistance and help, God Bless You Mona,
Sincerley, The Keenwatcher Thekeenwatcher (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- If "DOP" is an honorific then it cannot be used in the title. We do not allow honorifics in titles. I know that they are highly used in some cultures, but not in WP culture. Also note that when/if the article goes to main space the title can be changed at that time. LaMona (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding article - Change Sridhar DOP Cinematographer to Sridhar Cinematographer is fine[edit]
Hi Mona,
If "DOP" is an honorific then it cannot be used in the title as per Wiki Policies , I agree to that . As I said earlier , I want to follow the rules and suggestions made by you.
Please help me in removing it from the title and Lets just call the title "Sridhar Cinematographer" as you suggested. Because I don't have Any idea How to edit a special page title -> send it for approval -> delete special page -> Make it a live. I'll just wait for you to perform the action . Maybe these all things done by administrators like you.
Special page link - Where I have removed the word DOP from the Special page source code in the title section if that's what you meant ,
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thekeenwatcher/Special:Mypage/Sridhar_DOP_Cinematographer
New Special page link - Where I have removed the word DOP from the Special page URL
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thekeenwatcher/Special:Mypage/Sridhar_Cinematographer
Thank you very much for your assistance again, God Bless You Mona,
Sincerely, The Keenwatcher --Thekeenwatcher (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mona,
If "DOP" is an honorific then it cannot be used in the title as per Wiki Policies , I agree to that . As I said earlier , I want to follow the rules and suggestions made by you.
Here you go , check these two urls where I have removed the word "DOP" as you suggested from "Title" .
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thekeenwatcher/Special:Mypage/Sridhar_DOP_Cinematographer - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thekeenwatcher/Special:Mypage/Sridhar_Cinematographer
Which one would see the Main space is your decision. I will wait for it.Thank you very much for your assistance again, God Bless You Mona,
Sincerely, The Keenwatcher Thekeenwatcher (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- You need to resubmit for review. There's a button on the page for that. And it isn't guaranteed that the article will be added to Wikipedia. As I said before, we don't usually have articles based on works that haven't yet appeared and been reviewed. And even then, the work has to be proven to be notable. LaMona (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
regarding article - sridhar cinematographer[edit]
Hi Mona,
I cant find the submit button, could you please tell me where it is on the page. or you mean the save changes button. Thank you very much for your assistance again, God Bless You Mona,
Sincerely, The Keenwatcher Thekeenwatcher (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
regarding article - sridhar cinematographer[edit]
Hi Mona,
I read you comments and I would sure follow the guidelines you gave me. And at this time I will wait for the right sources and submit it for you to review again when its ready.
Thank you very much for your assistance again, God Bless You Mona,
Sincerely, The Keenwatcher --Thekeenwatcher (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
10:12:51, 7 January 2016 review of submission by Louism1991[edit]
- Louism1991 (talk · contribs)
Hey there, I'm very new to submitting on wikipedia so I was wondering if you could give me some more details on what needs to be changed in order for a successful submission.
I think the problem is reliability of the sources, however sources include websites such as The Independent, Miami New Times and Ibiza - Voice. Given the industry that this agency sits in I'm not sure where to look next and I was hoping you could give me some tips about finding more reliable sources, as well as a little more detail regarding why the current sources are not sufficient.
Kind regards,
Louism1991
Louism1991 (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Louism1991. thanks for coming by. Indie music (anything that isn't Bach or Adele) is a hard one here at WP, and I've had some conversations with the various music projects (start here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music) to see how we could clarify what is and what isn't a "reliable source" when, after all, you're trying to be underground. The way that sources work "officially" though, all information has to be from reliable sources. So you should work to remove some of the less reliable sources, possibly cutting the article down some. Also, where you say: "... have been featured by...." - it's better to incorporate what those sources say into the article and use them as references. As a simple list they don't tell the reader anything, and could justifiably be deleted as not providing content. Also, some of those cites aren't complete, so it's hard for a reader to find the actual source. LaMona (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi I see that my page Charles Burton has been flagged as having a copyright issue I have requested consent of use from the webpage stated and I believe they have stated permission to use in the footer of the website.. <a href"=http://mobileiom.com/charlesburton/" rel="nofollow>Charles Burton</a>
87.254.85.183 (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
87.254.85.183 (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- We may need to ask at the copyright noticeboard, but I did find this: Wikipedia:GNU_Free_Documentation_License_resources. What is significant there is that the content can be used but must be attributed. For a photograph, that would mean adding a "Photo by...". But it's trickier with text, especially with text that may be integrated with other text. You would have to have it all in quotes, or something like that. So it would still be best to re-word the content rather than copy directly, especially because others often use the WP text and they might not also include the part that has attribution. I'll add a note on the article about this. LaMona (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Please take a look at the article[edit]
Hi LaMona,
I have removed the irrelevant content and added some new content. Please take a look. Let me know how I can improve the article further.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Breakthrough_Management_Group_International#BMGI
A barnstar for you![edit]
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Thank you for reviewing my article 'Integral Channel Features' and accepting it. Thanks. Prabhjot Kaur Gosal (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC) |
Wyoming Senate Files 12 & 80 'Trespassing To Collect Data'[edit]
Although my article on the above was rejected by yourself, I can see why it was so on reflection. Hopefully I can alter it in the correct way as I think this is an article that should be written. NPOV and stating only useful and unbiased facts rather than a collection of emotive quotations is what WP is all about. Thanks Richard Nowell (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- You're welcome, Richard Nowell. If you're old enough to remember Sargent Friday from TV, keep in mind his "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts." ;-). LaMona (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've re-written the article completely taking out 95% of the quotes and sorting the legalities. Hopefully it now reads as a WP article should do. Can you glance at my Sandbox and give an opinion please? Richard Nowell (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
11:38:20, 9 January 2016 review of submission by Retengineer[edit]
- Retengineer (talk · contribs)
Thank you very much for your help. I have corrected citations where you noted ‘not in citation’ . I have added citations where you noted ‘citation needed’. I have deleted entries where I could not provide a citation. The only citation I have not changed is citation 11. Please have another look at this as I believe it does support the statement. If you click ‘html’ and read the cited article, you will find the following sentence: ‘In expressing her disappointment that Canada does not seem have nurtured (yet!) a particularly local version of the British JK Rowling, Phillip Pullman or Brian Jacques, or the US’s Tamora Pierce, Robin McKinley or Ursula le Guin, or even the Australians Patricia Wrightson, Garth Nix or Anna Ciddor, she establishes an expectation ...’ In this sentence the fantasy writers listed from the UK, US and Australia are given as examples of top writers in each country.
Retengineer (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Retengineer, thanks for stopping by. I hope you've resubmitted your draft. I usually try to let another reviewer see it before I weigh in again, but I will take a look and let you know if I see anything that needs attention. As for that sentence, you say: "She has been described as one of the top writers of fantasy in Australia." That is, however, not what the article you cite says. That's an interpretation. I'm trying to think of another way to word it, but "top" is... over the top. These could be just the author's favorite writers. Plus, that article is what we call a "name check" -- she's named, but nothing is said about her. If I think of something I will let you know -- not enough cups of tea yet this morning. LaMona (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Draft: TEECOM (rewrite)[edit]
Hi LaMona – Thank you for your help. As you suggested, I have taken out the list of services and changes in personnel. I have also added more notable and award winning projects, as well as further information on TEECOM’s patents. If this still does not appear to make the article’s subject notable, are there other approaches I can explore? Carolbro (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- I looked at just one of the references, the one about the Academy of Sciences (which I visit frequently) and in that short article I learned more about TEECOM than what is in the whole WP article. The WP article doesn't say anything interesting about the company, yet there are obviously interesting things to say. Rather than list projects, use those articles to say interesting things about the company -- things that someone interested in "Internet of things" would want to read. I'll do some editing myself, but just a start. LaMona (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
LaMona – THANK YOU is insufficient to say for ALL your help. I am blown away that you would assist a first timer with such helpful input! I took your suggestion and expanded project info adding four more examples that seemed noteworthy and represented buildings that might be interesting to the general public. But I do not want to cross the line of making it sound promotional. Do you think this is enough? Am I FINALLY on the right track? Carolbro (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Carolbro, I did some editing to make it less "list-y". Please resubmit and let's see what other reviewers say. It is hard to avoid promotional language, but I think that WP readers would be interested to hear even more about the technology used. Maybe in the future you can add more of that in. Oh, and you're welcome! And I hope you stick around and join us here at WP for general editing. There's always a lot to do, even working on existing articles, and the list of topics is unlimited so I'm sure you'll find your interest or hobby here. LaMona (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
ROMAN ZADOROV-resubmission[edit]
Hi LaMona, I resubmitted the entry on Zadorov for your review. This revision still has not addressed the formatting of the references. It focused on addressing the content, its neutrality, and expanding on some issues: DR KUGEL, Students in the high school, and the most recent developments. Since I first submitted, the Israeli Supreme Court denied his appearl 2:1. In a paradoxical development, it led to approximately 3 fold increase in public support for Zadorov within 24-48 hours. Membership in online support groups grew to close to 250,000... Please give me some feedback on the content before I get into the references. Regarding the references: I vaguely remember that there was an easy editor (Kind of for dummies) but couldn't find how to enter it. Can you give me a tip on entering the friendly editor? Thanks, Joseph
- It still has a strong point of view, and WP requires a neutral point of view. You are obviously making a case, not just reporting on what others have said. Also, it is much too long. You need to remove a lot of the detail and only report on key points. However, reviewers are not going to read through it without proper citations, so you should do that FIRST, then edit it down afterward. LaMona (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, and I forgot to tell you about the easy editor. It depends a bit on how your preferences are set up, but if you see both "Edit" and "Edit source" then Edit is a WYSIWYG editor. However, in both editors there are forms to fill out for references. I don't remember what it is called in Edit, but in Edit source at the top of the edit box there is a pull-down called "Templates". If you don't see that, then click on the link "Cite" that is on the right of the options above the edit box. You'll see "B I ... various icons... Advanced / Special characters / Help / Cite". LaMona (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! First - I added inline references. I see your point on neutrality, and will try to address it with cutting the length.
- There is a typo in the main heading "ROMAN ZADOROV" - how do I fix that?
Thanks!
Changes made to draft:NCache - Please Review[edit]
Hi, I have edited Draft:NCache and provided what you asked. I was unable to modify the page title. Proposed title would be "NCache (distributed cache)" or "NCache (computing)". Please suggest if any more changes are required. NCache (distributed cache) solves database problems whereas the other articles on NCache are for boosting hard-disk performance and DNS Cache is an internet standard.
Hi, just want to ask did you find time reviewing my draft? Do I need to 'Resubmit' Draft:NCache for this to be reviewed? Jaimie_daz (talk) 02:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Linguistic Society of America[edit]
Hi LaMona, You responded to a request from a newbie to edit the lead for this page, but I had already addressed and expanded on the request. I went ahead and restored my original edit and left a comment on the Talk page. BTW could you tell me how you in particular got alerted to the request? I don't understand how the edit request feature works. Thanks. jjbvawv 02:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- It wasn't a newbie, it was a wp:COI request from someone directly related to the organization and therefore not able to make the edits themselves. Their edits were much better (more in the desired WP style) than the one you restored, so I'm going to revert your edits. If you have questions, bring them up on the discussion page of the article. LaMona (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
15:21:00, 7 January 2016 review of submission by 109.131.17.253[edit]
Hello, concerning the list of winners, all the violin competition pages use the same way as I did:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elisabeth_Competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganini_Competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Fritz_Kreisler_Competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Tchaikovsky_Competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Violin_Competition_Henri_Marteau https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Violin_Competition_of_Indianapolis ... Are you ok the keep this table ? I will also add the link of the website winner page for more reference samuel
- Yes, I won't decline the article based on the table. I always advise not to include date-dependent lists in articles because they often aren't kept up to date, but it's not a reason to keep the article out of WP. The list, however, does not establish notability, so you still need to have more significant references and a fuller description of the competition, enough to make it encyclopedic. LaMona (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hey LaMona, Thank you ! I m still working on it. What do you think about what I already added ? I added wikipedia pages linked to this subject. E.g : princess Léa of Belgium, Tatiana Samouil (famous violinist), IMEP (the shool of this competition), ... but a problem is that some wikipedia pages are in another language :/ So I don't really want to mix that. What is your idea for that ?
- It is ok to have sources that are not in English, so go ahead and use them. I'll take a look at the article and will also look for additional resources. LaMona (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not finding any new sources in English even when I look under "Bravo" (since the name only changed in 2015). I hope you find sources in French or German -- they'll definitely be needed. I added the age ranges for the categories, but had to source it to the competition's web site, which isn't ideal. LaMona (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hey LaMona, Thank you ! I m still working on it. What do you think about what I already added ? I added wikipedia pages linked to this subject. E.g : princess Léa of Belgium, Tatiana Samouil (famous violinist), IMEP (the shool of this competition), ... but a problem is that some wikipedia pages are in another language :/ So I don't really want to mix that. What is your idea for that ?
- Hello LaMona, I have update the References part with some reference to Bravo! competition and Grumiaux competition.
- We have a Japan site http://www.zhmozart.org/en/video_V_A.asp talking about a winner Lina NAKANO .
- A Turkish site http://www.turquie-news.com/rubriques/actualite/27751-la-violoniste-turque-agee-de-8-ans.html talking about Laçin Akyol. An other winner.
- A news paper in Belgium. http://www.lavenir.net/cnt/dmf20150322_00621811
- An other Turkish site http://www.milliyet.com.tr/lacin-dunya-ucuncusu-oldu-gundem-2040264/
- and http://kentgazetesi.biz/kilisin-gururu-dunya-ucuncusu-lacin-akyol/
- Usbekistan site https://www.hellostage.com/profile/4423/biography
- A reference from Chapelle Musicale reine Elisabeth http://musicchapel.org/alexandra-cooreman/
- An other Belgium candidate http://mayalevyviolonist.com/biographie/
- and some others
- https://eksisozluk.com/gokce-catakoglu--4749452
- http://www.telesambre.be/concours-remportez-5x2-entrees-pour-les-etoiles-montantes-du-violon_d_12951.html
- http://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_classical_music_competitions
- https://www.imep.be/fr/infos/8eme-concours-international-arthur-grumiaux-5815
- Do you think this can be enougth ?
- The tricky thing is that you need to find articles that are ABOUT the competition, not just ones that mention the competition in an article about a performer. If there aren't articles about the competition then it doesn't meet the criteria for notability for WP. That's why I assumed that you would find articles in local media, like newspapers in Belgium. But they may not exist. LaMona (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- hello i have added several articles from belgium media and turkey. i think this is ok now for notability
- 72.80.94.128 (talk · contribs)
Hi LaMona. I'm a student working on this page for a project and it is my first time creating a page. I see I should have included more notable and verifiable sources in the draft. In addition to the Village Voice review you mentioned, this novel was favorably reviewed in The New Yorker, by NPR.org, and BOMB Magazine. I will be sure to include links to these in a re-submission.
You also mention that the novel does not rank as notable if it has not won awards, but only been shortlisted? I have not seen that standard applied on other novel wikipedia pages, but even so, I'd argue that an Honorable Mention for the prestigious PEN/Hemingway Award does warrant notability. Unlike inclusion on a shortlist/longlist, Honorable Mention recipients received awards at a ceremony at the JFK Memorial Library and receive fellowships.
The American Library Association listed it as Notable in 2014 as well - http://www.ala.org/rusa/awards/notablebooks/lists/2014
Additionally, the author did win the Sherwood Anderson Award for Fiction in 2014, and the winner profile on the foundation's site as referenced specifically praises both this first novel and his forthcoming novel. This is a well-established and respected national award, and I believe that it does suggest the required notability.
Thanks very much for your help! 72.80.94.128 (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi. Couple of things: 1) I hope you plan on sticking around and continuing to edit WP. It is best if you create a username for yourself because with just an IP address it's harder to communicate 2) Use the reviews to add content to the article, don't just say that it was reviewed. Assume that your reader wants information, not links. A WP article isn't like a web page where linking is enough -- it needs content. 3) The WP:NBOOK actually says: "The book has won a major literary award." That is ONE of the criteria, but this book doesn't meet that one. The book doesn't inherit an award to the author, it has to win on its own. If there are significant reviews (plural) it might pass. LaMona (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi LaMona, that's the plan! Once I get the hang of this, anyway! I'm learning a lot here, so thank you. I'm going to start a profile once I feel a little more confident in my WP skills.
- I'll certainly look at the other reviews and see if there is information within them that would add meaningfully to the page. Often the reviews will recap the plot briefly, so perhaps I can refer to that in the plot summary section.
- If you're saying that the Sherwood Anderson award makes the author notable, but does not carry over to his novel, would that satisfy the requirement for notability in the main Kristopher Jansma article? If so, would that be enough to remove that flag? I will copy this to that article's talk page as well, so there is a record of it there too.
- Thanks again!
- Hi. Rarely does one single piece of information guarantee notability. An exception would be a Nobel prize. I don't know what the reputation is of the SA award -- we'd need to find evidence that it is considered a major award. Unfortunately, it was only given for about ten years and is no longer being given, so that kind of goes against "major-ness." Also note that the SA award is for "emerging" writers - WP's notability tends to embrace those who have already "emerged." Anyone noted as "up and coming" gets a "too soon" designation. That's why having written one well-received book is a start, but we don't know if his next will also be well-received. So this has the air of "too soon" for him, IMO. But others may see it differently. LaMona (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- I see the award has been given since 1988, so that's 28 years, not 10. And I don't see how its recent discontinuation means its importance in the years it was given should be lessened. His second novel will be out in a few weeks, and the two available reviews so far are both positive. It has been included on three Most Anticipated lists including the Chicago Tribune's. I suppose we'll have to wait and see if others agree that an emergence is complete? I'll be continuing to update the entry throughout this semester at least for my project. Either way it's been a very illuminating and educational experience so far. Thanks again for helping to show me the ropes here.
What type of editing i need to publish Acquisory' article[edit]
First of all i like to thank you for advise me for my first article on wikipedia. Hey i need to known what changes are required for making acquisory's article publish.
As it has not isolated news about it self except two.
Please check draft of sumchit and acquisory — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pay9891 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, User:Pay9891, first, please sign your posts on talk pages with four tilde's. There's a link at the bottom of the edit box that helps you remember that. Here's what I said about the article: "articles listed must use the title of the article, not a description. But having more information from those articles in the WP article will aid notability, and having a list of cites in news does nothing for notability. However, the articles must be ABOUT the company, and not just quotes from an officer. See wp:corp for what is considered valid information about a company." So you need to fix your references so they have the actual title of the reference, not an interpretation or explanation from you. It would help if the references were more than http links, although that isn't required. At least some of the references must be substantial articles about the company, not mentions or quotes. All of this is given in wp:corp which you need to read. You should not have a list of related articles. Either use those as references for content in the article (hopefully giving the article more content) or drop them. LaMona (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Citation Question[edit]
Weebuefweebuef (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)== Question about citations ==
Hello Thank you for your comment on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Maureen_Selwood
Could you tell me, for the citations you've requested. Do they need to include references to Maureen Selwood, or if I find citations about Marshall Plan or the Special Olympics is that sufficient?
Weebuefweebuef (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weebuefweebuef (talk • contribs)
- Hi, User:Weebuefweebuef, thanks for asking. Since the article is about her the references need to be either substantially about HER (not just the plan or olympics), or they can have a mention of her that is needed to verify a fact. Articles that do not even mention her are not appropriate. That information can be found by following the link to the related Wikipedia pages. LaMona (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Jack_Thomson_(Executive)[edit]
Hi,
for the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jack_Thomson_(Executive)
what do you mean this article is not supported by reliable sources ?
Kevin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.162.170.135 (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Kevin. Read the comment I made on the article. See where it says "citation needed" after some sentences or paragraphs? The article must have a reference that supports the facts stated there. All information in a WP article must be verifiable to external sources. You should read pages wp:v and wp:rs for more information about these policies. BTW, I did work on the article, adding sections, etc. One usually expects a "thank you" for that. ;-) LaMona (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi LaMona, sorry, no disrespect meant at all. I am grateful for your amendments. I guess I have been trying on and off to publish this article for over 4 years, and have had many hurdles to over come to meet a multitude of different views. I will look into the citations. I assume once the citations can be defined then the article is acceptable ?
Kevin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.162.170.135 (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. It is very difficult to reach the level of notability required by WP as someone who only held local offices. I hope you've read wp:rs and wp:n. Notability in WP is judged on third-party sources, and it requires significant content about the person in sources that are not just local in nature. That means finding a book or a large regional or national newspaper that has written about him. At the moment you have only one suitable source that is about him, and that's The Age. If others did not find him notable enough to write his story, then he cannot meet WP's notability criteria.You have two sources that should be removed -- the link to the artist of the portrait -- that's not ABOUT him. (Also, there is a chance that the use of the portrait is a copyright violation. The copyright would be held by the artist, and the date is 1964, so unless the artist gives permission to use the portrait it cannot be included in WP.) And you should not include the Google maps link. Again, that's not about him. WP has a mechanism that uses coordinates and then gives the user a choice of maps. We try not to send users to a particular brand of map. I'll see if I can figure out how to add the coordinates to the article. LaMona (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
LaMona, I own the Portrait and I have placed it in Wiki Commons for years. The Age was the largest Newspaper at the time for Australia. If I find another source I will include it. Perhaps you are right, even if a person has a Park named after them then why should WP know about it. Perhaps this is a lost cause. Kevin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.162.170.135 (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Depending on your country's law, the artist continues to own the copyright even after the painting is sold. See this. In your case, the artist may not care, but if they do, then the copy will have to come down. The question isn't "even if a person has a park named after them..." WP policies say nothing about things named after you. As I said, it's all about sources. So the question isn't whether WP cares, it's whether others cared enough to write about him so that WP can pick that up. If you are unhappy with the results, at least direct it where it belongs, which is that others in your region didn't write his story. WP is a reflection, not a "decider", of what the world has deemed important. If you think he should be better known, you could start with getting the attention of folks who you think should pay attention to him. Then WP could reflect that. LaMona (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
You recently reviewed a submission of mine. I'm still not understanding what I should have done differently to have it approved. You said there are not enough references but there are numerous references from magazines to newspapers to TV. She creates a specific type of painting unique only to her and it has gained national attention. Can you please give me some insight. Thank you.
DDlb5 (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- User:DDlb5 Please read the explanatory comment I left on the article. I think that should give you some ideas. LaMona (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Edwin John Beer[edit]
Hello LaMona
Many thanks for your recent comments on this article.
Sorry about the mixed style of referencing. I will sort this out once the fundamental question of Professor Beer's contribution to Rayon synthesis has been agreed.
Edwin Beer consistently refuted the idea that he discovered Viscose Rayon. He and his team are recognised as developing a laboratory curiosity into an industrial commodity by a reliable and repeatable process.
You state that he is not mentioned in the short history section on Viscose. Correct, for his achievements took place during the Courtauld era. Numerous citations are contained in my References 4 and 5, a book entirely devoted to Courtauld's involvement with Rayon. This was published by The Clarendon Press, alias Oxford Univerity Press. Reliable and prestigious enough?
Supersort (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC) Regards Supersort
- Supersort, hello. It's not a question of the reliability of the source, but it is incumbent on you to clarify this difference between the two articles, since WP is a linked collection of articles. Whenever there are different points of view, we want them to be made clear to the reader, who might otherwise be confused at getting different info in different articles. There should be reference to this difference in the article on Viscose, which can then link to your article on Beer. And in the Beer article, you should also clarify this difference. Since the Viscose article exists and has editors, it is best to first bring up this issue at Talk:Viscose where you can discuss it with those editors. If no one there responds, then you should feel free to edit that article. LaMona (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, LaMorna !
Regards
Supersort
Supersort (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your comments on the Ian Gardiner draft I submitted. i appreciate your point about a possible conflict of interest and have read the suggested entries. I will add the line. 'This article has been prepared by Rodney James. James was commissioned by the artist's estate to catalogue all his known art works and produce a monograph about his life and work. The Wikipedia entry includes referecnes and quotations to the published monograph but is an unpaid, independent piece of writing.' In your opinion will this statement suffice or does it need reworking?
Also, I don't know what else I can do to provide better documentation of the sources used. You comment that the article is 'not supported by verifiable sourcers' but there are about 8 verifiable souerces listed from public libraries.
Can you please advise me further on this as well
Thanks for your interest
Rodney
Rodney B James (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- User:Rodney B James, thanks for getting in touch. Your suggested wording for a statement of interest is fine. As you may learn (and I hope you stick around WP for more work!), this is a very social environment, and knowing who is connected to the topic helps us all interact. It will also allow you to step into discussions and say: "I know for sure..." even if you don't insert your point of view into the article. Now, as to sources, you say that there are "8 sources from public libraries" but I'm not sure what exactly you are referring to. What we look for at WP is independent, neutral, third-party sources that can be cited as verifying information in the article. Your references are mostly your book and an interview. Neither of those has the independence we are looking for. Independent sources are newspaper or magazines articles about him, content in books by others, that kind of thing. HIs own works as listed in public libraries are not sources ABOUT him, they are BY him. Assume that we accept that he and his works exist -- the article goes from there. LaMona (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks LaMona. There are only three external references in the body of the essay (to the Mainshi Daily News, Melbourne Age and Melbourne Herald. The other five are in the bibliography - seems like I need to introduce more verifiable content in the article and fully document those. Will do so now. My first entry - will get better I am sure! Rodney Rodney B James (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC) Rodney B James (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
08:54:56, 18 January 2016 review of submission by Alfshire[edit]
Re Draft:Glen Gabriel. Dear LaMona, Thanks for your assistance, it's editors like yourself who help to improve submitted articles by inexperienced writers such as myself. I have to say some Wikipedia editors are too harsh and scathing their reviews and put contributors off, whereas you have been constructive in your criticism. As a result I will look for subjects with the required nobility and use the support sources you suggest. In fact I have an article in mind for a composer (not covered on Wikipedia) who has had chart hits on Billboard and throughout Europe, this may be a better one to tackle. Best Regards, AlfshireAlfshire 08:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, User:Alfshire. I think some of the harshness is built into the boilerplate in the messages that get created when we select reasons. I agree with you on that, so we should work to get those better written. In any case, glad you have other subjects to bring here. And since your interest in music, there are lots of music areas with articles that need help. If you look at Template:WikiProject_Music/Related_WikiProjects you can see what the individual projects are. Most of them will then have an assessment list (like this one). The "starts" and "stubs" are ones that need work or they might get deleted. OH, there's so much to do! Happy Wiki-ing. LaMona (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again, I will check out the stubs and make a contribution, which will also help to improve my skills. By the way, why has no one written a book on how to use Wikipedia? I know the advice is all on line, but it's very fragmented and I think a easy guide book would be great. Alfshire 11:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I've found this, fairly basic, and although it could cost me a fortune in ink and paper I might print it out for personal use. Help: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual Alfshire 16:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you![edit]
|
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Thank you SO MUCH Jeffkov (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC) |
Hi LaMona,
Thank you for reviewing this WP article I submitted : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikhil_Goyal. Since you have created and edited many articles on books and authors, I wanted your take on whether this article is ready to be submitted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:A_Paperboy%27s_Fable.
Thanks, Editor2626744 (talk) 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Jonathan Michaels[edit]
My apologies, I think I posted on the user page by accident. I just received notice that the article was rejected because of the sources. Can you advise on this. The sources are 3rd party references, but they are pdf files. How do you handle scanned articles or pdf from printed news. Thanks- Jpop73 (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Jpop73. I don't see anything on a user page that looks erroneous so everything's fine AFAIK. OK, about sources. Now I must apologize because I didn't realize that your links were pointing to saved versions of 3rd party sources. However, regardless of what format you have them in, you need to cite the original source. So if you have a PDF of a newspaper article, you need to cite the original newspaper article, giving the name of the paper, the date, the title of the article, the name of the author, and a page number (if you have it). Ideally, you would go to the effort to find online versions to link to, since that's the easiest way for readers to go to the source you cite. However, links aren't required. So I'm looking at this one and fortunately you have everything you need to create a good citation. When you are editing, if you are editing in source there is a clickable word "Cite" at the top of the edit box. That opens a dropdown of templates that you can fill it which then do all of the formatting for you. There's something similar in the WYSIWIG editor but I don't use that much and so I've forgotten what it looks like -- but in any case, you dont have to hand-code the citations, so it shouldn't be too bad.
- I have to mention, though, that if you are associated with the person who is the subject of the article, that you should read wp:coi on "conflict of interest". Any direct relationship (e.g. family member, employee, best friend, etc.) is considered a conflict of interest that could cause one to have something other than a completely neutral point of view WP:NPOV. This doesn't prevent you from creating the page, it just asks that you declare your relationship with the subject and, when the page is in the main wiki, be careful about certain edits. If you'd like, I can put the whole COI "story" on your talk page so you can get it in one go.
- But don't be deterred by this, and happy editing! Come back if you get stuck. LaMona (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Reference errors on 23 January[edit]
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Chris Jones (drama critic) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Any update from wiki project companies ?[edit]
Referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Breakthrough_Management_Group_International
Did you hear from Wiki Project companies ? I could really use some help.
- No, let me try again. If someone does respond, you will see the edits happening on the page. If the star at the top of the page (to the right of "View history" is blue, you will see changes when you click on Watchlist. If not, click on the star so it turns blue. LaMona (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Re-submission: Draft:EDAW from Lacanada1[edit]
Hi LaMona - many thanks for your comments. I hope I have been able to address them by tightening the article up, removing the project list (and incorporating some of them into the text), providing more citations and also making sure that article assertions are indeed backed up by these specific citations.
- Great job. I removed the refs to Wikipedia article sections. Ironically, we don't allow using WP as a reference since it's not a reliable source. But if you think about it, that makes sense. I've approved it. Hope you stick around and do more editing. I don't know any landscape architecture articles that need help, but there is an architecture project (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Architecture) and you should find there a list of stubs and other articles that need work. LaMona (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Draft: Grovo - No Paid COI[edit]
Hi LaMona,
I'm feeling really frustrated and confused about my draft you flagged, and I'm hoping you can help. User: DGG clearly told me it would be ok to submit a draft since I do not have a paid COI. He didn't tell me I needed to add a special notice. You can see that in our conversation thread. I'm honestly just an inexperienced editor trying my best to help a friend. I worked really hard on that draft, and found so many sources. Every line I wrote was backed up and written objectively. How is a company that's been written about in such prominent publications and with so many high-profile clients and awards not considered notable? Goodwork84 (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes ,Goodwork84 you need to place a notice. I was trying to assume good faith that you were just "trying to help a friend", butt in my experience that often does mean a direct COI involvement. DGG ( talk ) 08:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- DGG is right. Please read through the pages linked from the COI notice that I placed on your talk page. All COIs must be declared. And I'm afraid that with your pattern of editing, wanting to "help a friend" is not totally convincing. You began editing on Wikipedia by creating an extensive article for Charitybuzz, a non-profit, then you did Skillshare, which looks pretty promotional, and now Grovo, another promotional site for a company or organization. Maybe you just have strange friends, but I see it otherwise. LaMona (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes ,Goodwork84 you need to place a notice. I was trying to assume good faith that you were just "trying to help a friend", butt in my experience that often does mean a direct COI involvement. DGG ( talk ) 08:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Those are all socially minded startups in NYC. That's my passion and area of interest. I spend my free time going to social good events and learning about how people are changing the world through purpose-driven businesses. That passion is also what made me want to learn more about Wikipedia. After donating to Wikipedia for years, I'm so disappointed in this entire experience. I didn't realize that people could use baseless allegations and and bullying tactics to push inexperienced editors out of the community. Goodwork84 (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- So I invite you to prove yourself by creating articles that are not promotional in nature. Even when there is no COI, Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion of people or organizations or products. And having a COI does not mean you cannot edit Wikipedia, it means that you must be transparent about your relationship to the subjects of the articles you are creating. The reason why Wikipedia cares about COI is that it is very hard for someone who is passionate to also write with a neutral point of view. We require that articles be as neutral, factual and dispassionate as possible. This is a vital part of the WP culture that all contributors must adhere to. Articles that are overly promotional will be deleted, regardless of who created them. So it isn't about who you are, but what you create here. I advise you to put on your user page a short note about your interest and the types of articles you are interested in creating. And I also advise you to read carefully the related Wikipedia policies, from wp:rs about reliable sources, to WP:REFSPAM about avoiding use of unnecessary references, and also WP:CORP about the rules for articles about organizations. You should see that the policies rule here, and that when people apply the policies they aren't going after you, personally, they are trying to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. That's what we work for here. LaMona (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- LaMona, thank you so much. This is great guidance that I'll follow. I feel like it's very challenging to get good advice here, and I really appreciate it. Those links are really helpful. I've been trying to write neutrally but will work harder to achieve an objective tone and use references in the right way, as well as add a note to my page. Thank you! Goodwork84 (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
19:37:41, 26 January 2016 review of submission by Cipherking[edit]
- Cipherking (talk · contribs)
This is a software development framework which is still in early stages. There are no books that have written about it nor there are many web pages that talk about it. Yes most of my citations are from the makers of the framework but some independent blogger sources have also been mentioned. Could you please give me an example of a source which may help strengthen the validity of the article. I will surely lookup for it and edit this article accordingly.
- User:Cipherking - if it's in its early stages then it is too soon for it to have a Wikipedia article. It can't have one until it has gotten to the point that there are substantial news and journal articles written about it. Blog posts are not considered reliable sources - we need published sources like journals and magazines. So you just may have to wait until those exist to submit the article. Some examples would be reviews in respected IT journals or sites (TechCrunch; etc.). More details are at Wikipedia:Notability_(software). LaMona (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for commenting the Zoltan Demme article, here is an answer[edit]
Hi Dear LaMona! I am Norbert, a Hungarian. I worked in the Hungarian crew of one of the movies of Zoltan Demme (Prometheus) years ago. This Prometheus-shooting was an important part of my life, full with fond memories, so I was very sad when I saw that the Zoltan Demme Wikipedia Article was nominated to deletion. I am not a Wiki contributor, but maybe I am able to help with some information the decision making of the contributors, and I can give answers to the problems arised in your precise and careful comment.
Working hard during the day I had just limited time for research, but I have some initial results. Let me mention to you, talking about the biggest concern arised in your comment, that his books are rather not copyright deposits, manuscripts, or informally published releases, but real books (You can see the pictures of 20 items, if visiting this website that I found from year 2013: http://forimdb.webnode.hu/ [[2]] if visiting, please scroll down, and on the left side make a click on this: "Könyv/Zoltan Demme books"). Please, do not misunderstand me, I highly appreciate all your arguments and carefulness, but being a Hungarian for me it was probably little bit easier to search the .hu websites and to find something. The native language also helped me to identify the precise ISBN numbers of many LC numbered book (for instance: book Programme, where instead of the LC 56592831 the ISBN 9635500718 is correct, or, book Chords of Scales, where instead of LC 54373620 the ISBN 9635500726 is correct, etc.). Almost each of the books has correct ISBN, I will collect them, double-check them, and provide them for the decision makers very soon.
The basis of the other problems, as I think, that is the pre-Internet era. Most of these book are from the eighties of the past century; and who knows what happened with (not more than 2-3) involved publishing houses during the almost 30 years that passed, maybe they does not exist in our era. (Others survived, http://akkrt.hu/ [[3]], and I will continue when having time). Same thing with the 1980-1990 printed reviews of the books: researching via Internet the pre-Internet items easily runs to poor result. For instance, here, in the very local library, I found the full texts of 8 Hungarian review items about Zoltan Demme's books, while by Google none of these! In the Internet were nothing else, than, sometimes, the name of the author and the title of these reviews. (for instance, see the bottom item in this site http://vfek.vfmk.hu/00000115/sz_05.htm [[4]] and the 16th item in this site http://www.matarka.hu/cikk_list.php?fusz=27226 [[5]] I will collect them and I will provide the all to the decision makers).
The other thing is, that I am not wondering at all that these mostly philosophical books have poor presence in libraries. WorldCat lists only 74 and this is not too much, even if we know that most of the libraries of the past communist countries and Russia are still not fully digitalized, thus Russian and Hungarian books are underrepresented in WorldCat. But the Library of Congress has the larger half of his books (as I think, 2-3 books could reach the LC shelves even accidentally, but not 10). And oppositely the Internet sources, here not the "no publisher given" note is indicated, but the name of the publishing houses, each occasion. But besides his books, in Hungary this author is also known by his publications in popular periodicals, thus I made a short search on this path. ( https://www.antikvarium.hu/index.php?type=search&ksz=deme-zoltan&szid=159001&oldalcount=1&interfaceid=103 [[6]] , these are the first results.)
The other problem is the author himself. From the time of the Prometheus-shooting I know the he is an absolutely against-the-media person. This old man, close to his 70 years of age, as I know during his life consequently refused all the interview requests, all the media invitations and media appearances, saying: talk solely by the books, by the films, let them express everything, instead of myself, my colleagues, reporters, magazines, etc. He allows to release his products only 12 years by 12 years from his youth, he is against of any werkfilm, promotional material, etc. For sure, who thinks like this, will be present in Google search modest way. Despite of this, still there are lots of printed sources about his life and biography (for instance Balogh György: Deme Zoltán, Hungarológiai Értesítő 1987., Fried István: Deme Zoltán könyveiről. Irodalomtörténet 1985., etc. I will collect these too.) Besides, my starting search efforts resulted some Internet sources either (for instance http://epa.oszk.hu/00000/00001/00358/pdf/itk_EPA00001_1990_02_275-277.pdf [[7]], and I plan to continue this search).
And last, a little problem, a misunderstanding. Not me added the References and sources to the article! They are there since almost 6 years, with no changes and no dispute, as I see (if you think, please check the history of contributions of the article for verification). Many eagle-eyed persons control the Wikipedia, the 6 years time is long, from this reason I think that these data might be correct - but I did not search the databases I can access, this is a later-to-do for me, at first I collect reliable additional sources. Being a very experienced contributor as I see in your Talk Page, if you would have any advice, any proposal, any suggestion relating to my search, please, let me know.
Thanks for your attention and reading this message dear LaMona. What you did, when searching, I feel that it is great, but I feel also that this matter still needs some more further investigation and search. Sincerely yours, Norbert.89.133.187.29 (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for reviewing the article. I believe the article qualifies for notability under the following guidelines:
1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself
2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. The college radio charts are indeed a national music chart.
Please reconsider. Thank you
108.250.97.125 (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- "College Radio Charts" is a blog, not an established chart. Here are the criteria for a chart:
- "A chart is normally considered suitable for inclusion if it meets both of the following characteristics:
- It is published by a recognized reliable source. This includes any IFPI affiliate, Billboard magazine, or any organization with the support of Nielsen SoundScan. Recognized national measurement firms, such as Crowley Broadcast Analysis for Brazil or Monitor Latino for Mexico, are legitimate sources of charts.
- It covers sales or broadcast outlets from multiple sources."
- The college chart blog isn't a recognized source, AFAIK, but we can ask at the music project discussion board. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music. It seems to include everything played, so Kadooge is # 425 on the unweighted chart. Therefore, this isn't a chart in the sense of a top ten chart, this seems to be a chart of everything played, therefore all music appears on it.
- The other thing is that the music is self-published. We generally do not consider self-published material (sound or text) to support notability. The criteria for musicians is: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)."
- And reliable sources must be at least regional but preferably national, and have paid staff and an editorial policy. Your sources are mostly indie and local, so not strong. For example, Chicagoland is "Chicagoland's Free Music Monthly Magazine". Chicago is big, but it's local, and Kadooge gets three sentences, not much of a review.
re: T35 Hosting draft[edit]
Was hoping to get some feedback regarding the T35 Hosting draft decline. I just spoke with some people on the support chat that gave me great feedback but trying to see if there was anything specific you noticed that I can fix and re-submit. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amelen1 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, User:Amelen1, I'm glad you went to the chat area -- they can be very helpful. It looks like you added some more reliable sources. However, you don't say much about the company so it is hard to understand why it is notable. For example, why does this matter? "T35 Hosting was the hosting provider for Joseph Stack, implicated in the 2010 Austin suicide attack[7]" Was the company involved in the investigation? The article you site has much more to say than the one sentence in your WP page. You need to tell your readers why this is important, what the story is. Good luck! LaMona (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
15:42:37, 28 January 2016 review of submission by Jasiunas[edit]
I would like to ask for re-review due to possible misunderstanding about author and the misunderstanding about notion of notability.
Hello LaMona, first of all I would like to thank you for you time and efforts reviewing this article. By this letter I would like to explain some possible misunderstandings and clarify some arguments. First of all, the username is not related to the person that this article represents. The name "Jasiunas" was selected so that it would be easier to remember due to the fact that this Wikipedia account was mainly created in order to create an article for Martynas Jasiunas. To prove that we are also trying to create an article about his father Zydrunas Jasiunas, which you can find in this account. I am not quite clear about the references and notability. According to Oxford dictionary notability is described as: "The fact or quality of being notable". Doesn't the articles about the persons awards are the information about his notability? Also doesn't the references about the person's notability (awards) are more relevant than the references about where he has been or studied? I deeply appreciate that you spent some of your time checking this article I am just not clear what do you consider notability because I believe that actions define person more than words.
Kind Regards,
- User:Jasiunas, assuming that you will want to edit other articles on WP, you may wish to choose a username that reflects YOU and not the first article you are creating. As for notability, WP has extensive definitions of what it means by notability with details for different types of subjects, and also has a great deal of detail on what sources are required and accepted. You should read those because any article will be compared to those criteria. LaMona (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Martynas Jasiunas article review[edit]
I would like to point out that WP describes "Notability" as:
" "Notability is the property of being worthy of notice, having fame, or being considered to be of a high degree of interest, significance, or distinction. It also refers to the capacity to be such. Persons who are notable due to public responsibility, accomplishments, or, even, mere participation in the celebrity industry are said to have a public profile"
Martynas Jasiunas is very famous in Lithuania, due to the fact that he is very young and already Baltic, Lithaunia's, Estonia's, World and Europes prizewinner and champion. He has high degree of interest in Lithuania by coaches, clubs, fighters and so on due to his high perspectives. Just so that I would be clear what I supposed to do could we go through the editing points one more time? What exactly I need to do? Write more text about where he studies, lives and what he does on his free time and then find some references to these points? I am not quite clear why awards and wins (which by definition is a recognition of achievements) is not appropriate for notability?
Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasiunas (talk • contribs) 16:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Please read the full text of the policies. That is the general definition but how one shows notability is very carefully described in those. You can't keep arguing based on single sentences, and there is no use arguing with me because the policies are Wikipedia policies, not mine. LaMona (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Laura Pearce Ltd. Article Review[edit]
LaMona, I wanted to thank you very much for taking the time to review the Laura Pearce Ltd. article that I submitted for review. I was disappointed to see that you had rejected the article, stating that "nothing points to notability in an encyclopedic sense". I respect your opinion, but I would have to disagree with you, based specifically off of the Wikipedia article concerning Notability. I have listed numerous references concerning the article topic, all of which can be considered reliable sources. For this reason, I do not understand how the article has not completely satisfied the "significant coverage" requirement under the General Notability guideline. I would love to continue these discussions and thank you very much for your time. -Cullen.graves (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Have you read the policies about wp:reliable sources, wp:corp and wp:gng? Let's look at your sources. #1 is a neighborhood news source saying that the shop is being opened. This is a fact, but does not support notability -- all shops open at some time. #2 is a tourist publication, not a source of independent news or analysis. Tourist publications do not cover their topics in a balanced way - e.g. if there's something wrong with the place or the store, they don't report that. They exist to promote. See WP:PROMO. #3 Is a local business journal promoting the business - two strikes against it because local publications have little weight for promoting notability, and any article that uses wp:PEACOCK language like "has designs on fine jewelry" is promotional in nature. #4 same as #2. #5 I can't get to this right now, but I'm sure it isn't a deep analysis of the pros and cons of this company's product, and again, the title shows that this is a promotional piece: look at these great places to shop!. #6 A local magazine, obviously a promotional article ("best shops" is neither factual nor neutral) #7 Her own site, not a reliable source #8 Can't get to this either, but first, it's probably not primarily about her company, as it isn't mentioned in the title, and second, T&C is again a travel-type magazine, not a place where analysis takes place. So, no, they aren't reliable sources in the sense that they are all promotional, and what we consider a reliable source is one that will report all sides of a story. Now, if any of the big publications (e.g. T&C) had done a long, in-depth story, including history, of the company it might be considered to support notability, but the information about this company appears in the promotional areas of these magazines. LaMona (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
23:44:20, 28 January 2016 review of submission by Diversified interests[edit]
McClafferty is definitely a widely-known regional political figure and I don't know too many Ohio General Assembly members (which are included) that have had or do have the amount of exposure the he has had and continues to have. I think representing almost 350,000 People is a much larger swatch than some Mayors that are included. Most importantly I think that the Wikipedia community should be proactive on up-and-coming profiles, especially politicians. Let's take the President for example. Prior to being elected President, Barack Obama was a U.S. Senator for two years. Prior to that he was a State Senator from Chicago and merely a community organizer less than a decade before that. Point is people rise quickly, and the Wikipedia community should be ahead of the curve.
Let me give you a quick hypothetical: Congressman Tim Ryan who represents a heaviliy Democratic constituency for which McClafferty is a part. Tim Ryan will be the Democratic nominee for Ohio Governor in 2018 and will be leaving Congress. McClafferty at 30 years old, in a congressional district made up significantly of Portage County and Summit County, Ohio (two counties where McClafferty has been a high profile public servant) could easily be the next Congressman from Ohio's 13th District. That gives him 20 years in Congress from 30-50 years old (the ideal age) to be elected anything from Governor to Vice President, or even President in theory.
I know Wikipedia focuses on what is and not what could be, but there has to be some leniency given to articles pertaining to local public officials; especially those serving as the youngest on a federal board. Why be reactionary when a politician runs for high office when we can begin documenting their moves, which carries significant historical value for the future, at an early age and early on in a political career.
In my opinion the sources are all solid: Los Angeles Times, Associated Press, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Sharon (Pittsburgh) Harold, Akron Beacon Journal.
This article should at least be considered for a "stub" article. If it's challenged, then it's challenged.
- Passing by: whether or not the subject meets notability guidelines, the tone isn't close to acceptable by encyclopedia standards. If it were posted in article space it would be tagged quickly as a promo. A puff piece that requires substantial copy editing from neutral parties. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Dear User:Diversified interests - No use arguing it -- either the subject of your article follows the policy guidelines or it doesn't. WP:NOTCRYSTAL If you can't make arguments based on the policies, no amount of explanation has an effect. LaMona (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
07:29:16, 29 January 2016 review of submission by Meddy007[edit]
Dear LaMona,
I would like to inquire on the Diamond Trust Bank (Tanzania) Limited article. Please assist to elaborate which sections made you feel that the article seems to be more of an advertisement/promotion? Also, please let me know what i can do to alter it and make it look more neutral.
- Hi, User:Meddy007 - I removed some of the promotional wording, but there is still: "fast-growing, medium-sized, banking institution" "acquired a much wider public profile" -- Non-promotional would be to say: on dateA was this size, on dateB was THIS SIZE. I realize that it is a bank, but listing of the current $$ assets isn't of interest to an encyclopedia. What would make a bank encyclopedic? What has it done that is not the same as every other bank on the planet? It doesn't matter if it's a big bank or a little bank -- it will have investors, assets, locations. None of these are particularly notable. What might be more interesting would be information on how it has supported the communities it went into, anything it did that was not simply "banking." LaMona (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
17:14:41, 29 January 2016 review of submission by Wilkos73[edit]
My resources are the boston globe - a rather large newspaper and the boston business journal. I am not sure why these rather large new sources do not qualify as significant sources.
- Hi, User:Wilkos73 -- Boston Globe is itself notable, but 1) a single source is not sufficient for notability. The policy says "multiple significant sources" and that means at least 2, but preferably more. and 2) that article is about an aspect of the subject that is secondary (at best) to the notability of the company. Cybersquat battles are common, and this is irrelevant to the notability of the company for what it is, which is that it is an auction house. So although the policy says reliable sources, reliable sources about irrelevant topics do not apply to notability. LaMona (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
19:21:23, 29 January 2016 review of submission by Sfwikiman[edit]
Thanks for your review. I could use some additional help if possible. So the sites I used for reference have been found credible enough to have wiki pages of their own. A similar site; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequence_of_Sound - only cites it's own page with various mentions of their work used by other sites, similar to how EARMILK is used. Would it actually help taking out the mentions of the sites (even though they have wiki pages) that use EARMILK as a source for news?
Thanks again -Davd
- Hi, User:Sfwikiman - We have a saying here: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Wikipedia is always a work in progress, so just because a page exists doesn't mean it is 1) done 2) going to stay. Hundreds of pages are deleted every day for not meeting the general guidelines. In the case of that web site, there is a chance it would not survive a delete challenge, but may just not have come to anyone's attention yet. So work on meeting the policy guidelines, regardless of what else is in WP. LaMona (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Fictional Draft[edit]
You raised questions about a fictional draft. You obviously are an educated Anglophone somewhere other than in the United States. Any American would have recognized an attack on a particular controversial American businessman and politician. I am sure that there are similar people in the United Kingdom and other English-speaking countries, as well as in various non-Anglophone European countries and in various non-Anglophone non-European countries (controversial people whose controversy is not always known outside the country.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- Born, raised and living in the USA, although I've also lived abroad. never heard of the dude. Looked him up, and results were pretty much random - no famous person jumped out at me. Nothing on NYT. So I'm still in the dark. Is it spelled correctly? LaMona (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- You haven't heard of Donald Trump? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe you meant that you had never heard of the protagonist. The protagonist was fictional. However, the villain was a real person, a controversial businessman who is running for President. As such, that was an attack page against him. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Precisely. LaMona (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think we agree. The issue with the protagonist is that he wasn't real. The issue with the antagonist is that he is a living person. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Precisely. LaMona (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Born, raised and living in the USA, although I've also lived abroad. never heard of the dude. Looked him up, and results were pretty much random - no famous person jumped out at me. Nothing on NYT. So I'm still in the dark. Is it spelled correctly? LaMona (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
22:57:58, 29 January 2016 review of submission by 68.102.34.65[edit]
- 68.102.34.65 (talk · contribs)
Hello, I respectfully disagree with your assertion that Anna is not notable. Anna has recently evolved into a major player in the cosplay universe as well. She has made several lists of the most popular cosplayers around today. Cosplayers like Ginny McQueen have a Wikipedia page and Anna is far more notable. I will update the page with more links and info and try again.
- You need to learn this: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's an argument that never wins here. LaMona (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Well it does say the "Other Stuff Exists" argument can be valid. And in my case I believe it is so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobsanders1991 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Anna has achieved international status. I think if you look up the definition of notable that qualifies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobsanders1991 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Please learn to sign your messages on talk pages with four tilde's. WP has a detailed definition of what it considers to be notable, which you will find at WP:N. There are special rules for articles about living persons: WP:BLP. If you wish to argue your point on WP, you need to do so in relation to the WP policies, not an outside definition. WP notability is based strongly on verifiability and reliable sources. It is a different criterion than one uses in general speech. LaMona (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I work at a library and we are wanting to host a feminism + Art edit-a-thon. There is a Vancouver meetup page but I wanted to add our own sub-page with information about our event. Is Wikipedia not the forum for this? Should we just provide a link to an external website with the event information? The pages I was hoping to link to is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver/ArtAndFeminism_2016
I am new to this, can you tell?
Esomers (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- User:Esomers - you can indeed add the page, you just don't need to send it to AfC, which is for actual encyclopedia articles. You need to get the page out of your sandbox by creating it with the name you want it to have. I would suggest contacting one of the users who created the Vancouver page (you can see who they are in the history) and ask for advice on creating a sub-page -- I'm not sure whether it makes more sense to create it as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/[sub to Vancouver]/ArtAndFeminism_2016 or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver/ArtAndFeminism_2016[/sub to Vancouver] but maybe someone there has done this before. Then you simply type in the page name you want and you'll be told the page doesn't exist but you can create it. The easiest thing to do is to have copied your source page and paste it there. Let me know if this advice doesn't work ;-) LaMona (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Birthday Networking (January 30)[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Birthday Networking and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
- You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello! LaMona,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! LaMona (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
|
12:20:27, 31 January 2016 review of submission by Keepcalm&write[edit]
Hello, I requesting this be reviewed again because the basis of the sources aren't correctly being identified. I quote from the the UK Census records and I'm told they are a "user based site. If I had been citing my family tree on Ancestry I would agree, I also quote the ONLY place official RMS TITANIC documents are around at all only to the told the same thing, The offical records exist & do pn much snaller sites.
- Hi, User:Keepcalm&write, The sites like "ancestry" are not considered to be reliable (see this) but of course can be used as background research to lead you on to more reliable information. If there is census information from a government, it is therefore best to cite it directly from the government source. The Titanic site even says that it is crowd-sourced ("Encyclopedia Titanica is built by its members..."). It may be your only source online for those documents but it isn't considered reliable. Census information and original documents are considered to be primary sources, which generally means that the article contains original research. Wikipedia articles must be based on secondary sources, so they are at least one step away from the primary sources. You need to base your article on mainly on secondary sources, although for some facts reliable primary sources can be used. But the article must be mainly taken from secondary sources. Given the time frame your best bet for sources would be books to see if he has been written about, although if you have access to newspapers of the time those are excellent sources. If, however, no one has written about this person in books, newspapers, or magazines, then he will not meet the criteria for notability that Wikipedia requires. For another Titanic victim, see Harry_Elkins_Widener. LaMona (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note, the UK National Archives has documents relating to the Titanic: Kerley. That would be considered to be a reliable source. LaMona (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Germany's teacher of the year award (Deutscher Lehrerpreis) your comment[edit]
Hey Mona, concerning your comment "Given that this is a German award that is only really relevant in Germany, why is this being offered to @en wikipedia but not @de wikipedia? LaMona (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)": There already exists a fairly extensive German article about this award on the de Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutscher_Lehrerpreis I did not know how to link the English draft / version with the German version. Maybe you are able to do that? I think it is important to have an English version of this German encyclopedic article about this important award since English is the lingua franca that also non-Germans can speak and understand. Since it is a large award that is done to promote teaching not only in Germany but world-wide this topic is relevant in English as well
- Ah, thanks, I see it now in the @de WP. It looks like the links can only be added after the article ceases being a draft. At that point the "Edit link" button will appear. I admit that I am still skeptical about having this in @en WP, except for the fact that everyone wants their article in @en WP. That makes sense for international awards or organizations, but not for something that is solely local. But that's me. LaMona (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Assistance with Article 11lionsd[edit]
Dear LaMona, Thank you for your specific suggestions. In the cases of viola news and viola channel I have referenced articles where Sandro Mencucci is specifically credited as the CEO (amminastratore delegato AD) of the ACF Fiorentina Club, and where the article quotes Sandro Mencucci and/or gives credit to Mencucci for his direct contribution as the Club's Director. Once I have referenced Viola Channel with a pdf of an article from the reputable newspaper Corriere della Sera because the archives of the newspaper no longer had that specific article. Articles speaking about the reconstruction of the Stadium and creation of the Sports Center refer specifically to Mencucci and to his contribution as a director of the Club. Even the article that you referenced to me as an example of being about the team and not Mencucci, it is a case where a) Mencucci is identified as the CEO of the ACF Fiorentina's youth initiative which he started, b) Mencucci is directly quoted, here the article credits Mencucci with the success of the initiative and Mencucci in turn credits his Sportive Director. In the cases where the article is about the team but in the article Mencucci is specifically credited with a success in regards to his contribution the article then also refers directly to Mencucci. Please advise. I have also taken your advice and removed any references to blogs and any articles that speak only towards the team. I have reference reputable newspapers The New York Times, Corriere della Sera, La Repubblica, La Nazione, important Sports media in Italy, Sky Sport, national and international federations and governing bodies such as FIGC, FIFA, UEFA and have referenced 19 published books with valid ISBNs on the topic of the contemporary history of the Italian Serie A Club ACF Fiorentina. Perhaps the issue is that the references with the exception of the English references such as The New York Times, Save the Children, Pune City FC, Transfer Market, Wikipedia are often in Italian. However all resources have been carefully chosen because they specifically reference and identify Mencucci as the CEO of the ACF Fiorentina or where Mencucci is directly quoted or credited with the success of the initiative in his role as a Sports Director. Thank you for any and all suggestions.11lionsd (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)