Jump to content

User talk:FoCuSandLeArN/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

RE: Your reply to Draft Software-Defined Enterprise article

Thank you for prompt response!

From the [reply] from another editor: "I think it's got a decent chance of being accepted, as I think 8 of those sources look to be reliable sources (Wikipedia doesn't accept LinkedIn as a reliable source)- if you could find a few more similar sources about the topic, that would increase the chances of it being accepted on Wikipedia."

Some points:

  1. making an analogy to a cake, VMware says a cake is cooked dough, Dell says a cake has icing, and HP says what can be done with a cake.
  2. Because each of these companies is trying to say that SDE is their proprietary solution, it is creating a lot of confusion as I illustrate in the article
  3. what they all say however is that foundation of an SDE is Software Defined Networking which is founded on the OSI model I reference
  4. my article simply states what these companies are all saying in common (and many others are also saying) but takes out what each tries to include in the term "SDE" that is their proprietary technology.
  5. Thus if you were to ask any company, including VMware, if they accept the article they would all say no because the article only includes references to non-proprietary standards
  6. in other words, while the article doesn't say anything new, it would be very much of interest to Wikipedia readers because it brings clarity to those who want to know what an SDE is, rather than what sales people trying to spin SDE as what they sell
  7. I will rectify the point you make regarding inline referencing, thanks for that.


Question: if after reading this, with the exception of linked in, you still disagree that the sources are unreliable, is this considered a dispute that I would bring to the link referenced on the "reliable sources" page?

Many thanks again, 76.10.171.51 (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Look, what you've posted here is way beyond my means to comprehend. And that's a pretty good indication the submission would be a whopper for the average reader to understand as well; this means the draft is simply too confusing. Remember this is an encyclopaedia, and should be written in an approachable manner. As it stands, I have no clue as to what is being discussed. As for referencing, I stated that in order for us to consider a topic as notable, we must be provided with extensive coverage in independent and reliable sources, which is what Joseph2302 (talk · contribs) said in other words. If you're able to provide these, then we'll be glad to accept the submission. At the moment, I could identify just 2 decent references, namely Wired and cioinsight. The links I provided previously for identifying good sources are really a must-read if you want to improve those. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft article; Nebojsa Nakicenovic

Hello, thank you for the hint regarding the in-line external links. I have removed them and added some to the references. Looking forward to further feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.125.98.63 (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

DecaWave Article

Hi FoCuSandLeArN! Thank you for reviewing my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:DecaWave&redirect=no. As per your comment, I attempted to find more sources other than the company's website. Could you let me know if I need more sources or if I need to find different sources? Considering this company is newer, a lot of information is similar across many different platforms. Thank you! -N00dles

I didn't review the article, just provided some feedback for future reviewers to see. I'm inclined to say the company doesn't fulfill WP:GNG nor WP:CORP, but I'm erring on the side of caution and letting someone more experienced review the submission. For future reference, it's always useful to provide full citations to the source material, including name, author, date, etc, and not just bare links. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Shmuel

I would like to respond to the comment you left on Draft:Rav Shmuel. Should I do that here, on your talkpage, or under the comment itself?

Hello! Any will do, but let's do it here so I can get to it easily. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Draft:Bombardier Flexity

Hi, I would just like you to be aware that my AfS is intended to expand the existing Flexity (tram) article under a more appropriate name consistent with other language wikis (e.g. de:Bombardier Flexity, et:Bombardier Flexity). When I resubmit my article, I hope you will be willing to take this into account by redirecting the existing article to the newly accepted rewritten article). Thanks a lot, <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Duly noted. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Spam404 Draft

Hey, I just wanted to know what was needed to accept my draft submission, Draft:Spam404. Any help would be appreciated greatly.

Spam404 (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

It's non-notable. I'm afraid we won't accept it. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:E Square Young Engineers

Hello FoCuSandLeArN ! Thank you for the cookies (trouble is i run to the kitchen thanks to u :) As for my draft, I dont understand why you wrote there isnt extensive coverage.. I have 11 References and all are to big and good sources and on top of it i have 6 links! There many articles which do not have that amount.. what can I do? should I just move the article and let all decide? Its a very important article I think and my son gained much from this lego and ways. please help 11:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlinejonathan (talk • contribs)

Two reviewers have already declined the article for being non-notable. You can resubmit, but it'll likely be declined again. Some topics just don't pass our notability guidelines. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Thans for being so fast!!! I went and read again the General notability guideline and can you please explain why my article doesnt meet it?

There is Significant coverage = all the links, and there are many Reliable sources including major websites... You dont believe in this article at all Onlinejonathan (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's look at your references one by one. Mind you that everyone refers to this as "Young Engineers" and not E2. Israel 21 is fine, but I can't judge its circulation; Cphpost isn't reliable; JChron, same as Israel 21; CNBC is fine; Ynet isn't reliable; this isn't reliable; IBLF is fine to corroborate the non-notable prize won; Bloomberg is also OK; BFP is fine with regards to the claim it's supporting. All in all, I counted 4 reliable sources about the endeavour itself, 2 of which are in non-notable online publications, and the other 2 as short segments in TV shows, which by no means constitute extensive coverage. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
You are amazing fast! I must point out a one thing if I may... Ynet is the biggest news site in Israel, if this isnt reliable, I dont know what is. Also, even if it's only 4, isnt it enough? Please advice me on what to do, should i resubmit or move? Onlinejonathan (talk) 10:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
It might be a big news cite but it looks as if they have no editorial process. They don't even post the name of the authors involved in their pieces. I wouldn't trust them to fact check information, ergo they're not reliable. You can resubmit and get a third opinion, but it's highly likely it'll be declined again. No matter what you do with submissions, sometimes things just are not notable according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Boustead & Co history revised

Hi there. Thanks for reviewing Boustead & Co.

Boustead Berhard is no longer part of Boustead & Co. Boustead Holdings Berhard split off from Boustead & Co after World War II when Malaysia declared independence from the British (in 1957) and Singapore declared independence from Malaysia (in 1965). This saw Boustead & Co split into three entities, Boustead Plc in London, Boustead Holdings Berhad in Malaysia and Boustead Singapore Limited.

Boustead Plc was reorganised in 2012 from a public company to a private company (from Boustead plc back to Boustead & Co, which is its original name).

I've made the following edits to Boustead Berhard:

"After World War II, Malaysia declared independence from the British (1957) and Singapore declared independence from Malaysia (1965). This saw Boustead & Co split into three entities, Boustead Plc in London (which was later reorganized as Boustead & Co), Boustead Holdings Berhad in Malaysia and Boustead Singapore Limited."

I added the source to the new Boustead & Co article, as well: 

    Drake, Peter Joseph (2004). "Currency, Credit and Commerce". pp. 65-69

Pls let me know if you have any questions or further comments.

Thank you for your assistance on this matter.

-History Buff(oon) — Preceding unsigned comment added by History buffoon (talk • contribs) 21:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. There should be no issue if it is duly stated. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

article of Ihor Pavlyuk

Hello FoCuSandLeArN,

please could you explain me, what are you asking me for under my request for confirmation of my article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ihor_Pavlyuk. I just dont understand, what means that "russian ref check". Are you asking for russian version of that page? Thank you very much. Please answer to my email: mucka.kuba@gmail.com

best regards, Jakub Mucka — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.192.88.13 (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't have an email account activated for my username. I was leaving a comment for future reviewers with knowledge of the Russian language, so that they would appropriately check those references. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Aah, yes, I have also link to russian version. I will put there some link to that page. Russian version has already been accepted... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.192.88.13 (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I have just put there two links (after his name and also in "links"). Please check it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.192.88.13 (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, thank you. We'll have to wait until someone who's qualified looks at the references. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Request on 23:39:38, 8 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Notablearmenians


I made corrections in the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruben_Hakobyan_(Ruben_Sasuntsi)#Publications Please remove the article as being suggested for deletion. I am sorry for any inconvenience: this is actually my first Wikipedia article. Thank you in advance.

Notablearmenians (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I will do no such thing. The AfD discussion needs to take place, after which there will be admnistrative action taken. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Paul Ewing (actor)

Hello. I didn't accept an AfC submission, it looks like the article's creator created Draft:Paul Ewing a few minutes after creating the same article in mainspace, for some reason, and it's still pending. I just saw the article on NewPagesFeed, skimmed it to make sure it wasn't an obvious speedy, and cleaned it up a bit. --McGeddon (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification! It seems I interpreted the move you made to be an AfC accept, but I misread the edit summary. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Inner_Source

hi FoCuSandLeArN, thanks for your review and comment on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Inner_Source. I'm aware that the term is not widely known but it is used in the software industry and research literature. Also, I added a set of more than 30 links to various websites that discuss Inner Source. The word "software" can be added easily of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjstol (talk • contribs) 12:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello. As I said, there is very little coverage about it, including the literature. It doesn't appear to pass our relevant notability guideline, which is WP:NEO. That you think it is notable is not enough; Wikipedia has its own set of rules. Please provide independent and reliable sourcing that attests to its notability, otherwise it will be declined. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
There are numerous peer-reviewed academic publications on this topic. Do these count as "independent and reliable sourcing"? I have updated the page with a number of links to pages on which people talk about this topic.Kjstol (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

DJDB

I am not requesting this to be merged with DJ DB. I would like to include a link to the DJ DB page, but this is focused on DB Burkeman's personal identity and history, not just his career and identity as a DJ. Thank you! Ley04 (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Squalius malacitanus
added links pointing to Axis and Coronoid process
George Sumner Bridges
added a link pointing to Provost
Squalius valentinus
added a link pointing to Coronoid process

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Bathymodiolus tangaroa

Wow! I am very impressed FoCuS! Thanks for the hard work it took to get that image! It's a valuable addition. Invertzoo (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Glad to help! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You comment on article

This article was initially declined for inadequate notability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Loandepot After it was resubmitted, you made a comment that the article has enough coverage to attest notability. Then, someone else declined it because in their opinion it reads like a press release. I have two questions: 1. Does one reviewer's opinion determine if an article is approved or not? 2. Should this article be written in a conversational tone rather than just factual?

Thank you for your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visitrick (talk • contribs) 21:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello there! Thanks for getting back to me on this. A few pointers on your submission: use prose, and not just a bunch of historical statements; provide full citations, including authors, date, publication, etc; provide an overall description of the business, including historical information, as well as a short description on what it does. If you provide evidence that the subject has garnered extensive coverage from independent and reliable sources, then it'll be accepted. Otherwise, different reviewers might decline it for a number of reasons, as you've seen.
As for your questions, if two or more reviewers disagree, you can look for other opinions on the Help desk or the AfC talk page; the article should be written encyclopaedically, in a neutral tone, providing references to corroborate the facts, and always in prose. Let me know if you need further help. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Sujit Meher Article to be publish

Dear FoCusSandLeArN

I wondered, when i checked the reason about declining of Sujit Meher draft page as not notable. Sujit Meher is a famous young designer of India and placed among to 10 designers list of India [1]and also his official page verified by facebook itself, because of this popularity and fan base. And i checked the current edits on the article with more reliable sources and references. Please i request you to kindly go through this matter and try to publish the page.

Draft Page link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sujit_Meher

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celebtech (talk • contribs) 10:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Facebook is not a reliable source. If he's notable then I'm sure you'll be able to provide extensive coverage. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:TEAM*

Hello,

I noticed my article for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:TEAM* was declined "Due to its name it's hard to find refs about them, but from the ones you've provided I can clearly say they're non-notable." I was wondering if I could get some help on getting this article cleared. I am unsure as to why the band is non-notable when the references all lead to the information that is mentioned in the article. If I could get some help so the article can be published that would be great. Thank you.(Cmireland (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC))

Just so you know, AfC isn't a process that guarantees an article will be created. Some topics are just non-notable or inadequate for Wikipedia. As for your particular case, you need to provide evidence of extensive coverage in reliable and independent sources. A music-specific guideline can also be found in WP:MUSIC. The subject of your article doesn't seem to pass either the latter or WP:GNG, hence my decline. Please read those guidelines attentively. A simple rule of thumb about notability is ample coverage that is exclusively written about the subject (non-trivial mentions such as a feature article), is atemporal (articles from a wide period of time), and is present in good sources, such as books, magazines, newspapers, national TV, etc.
The sources you've provided, while they may as you say, corroborate the facts you've stated, are primary sources that merely show the band has played at certain venues, etc. This is by no means evidence of notability on Wikipedia (which is usually not the same as notability as used quotidianly). Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Loandepot

Thanks for the information you provided regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Loandepot I re-submitted the article after making some improvements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visitrick (talk • contribs) 21:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to notify you I have deleted Frederick T. Davies a draft you moved into the main space for copyright violations. A large portion was taken directly from the Texas A&M University System's website. Even if the person creating the article says they are the person in question (not sure they did but their user name implies it), we would need still need permission to use it word for word. Kindly Calmer Waters 12:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

That's bizarre; if I remember correctly I trimmed that article to a mere stub. I wish you had notified me first so I could have rewritten the few short phrases that remained unchanged. Oh well, thanks for the heads-up! Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Getting access to deleted article

My submitted article on Janet E. Mertz was rejected because of the inclusion of some material with copyright. I would be glad to edit this article to bring it into compliance, but I neglected to retain the latest version of the article assuming that Wikipedia would retain the text in my Sandbox. It would save me a great deal of time if I could get access to the deleted material so that I could change the quoted passages.

Kanejon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanejon (talk • contribs) 20:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

If you hurry up, you can find it here. Otherwise, once the corresponding admin deletes it, I can ping him and you and you can sort it out. Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am apparently too late to recover the article. Please put me in touch with someone who can help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanejon (talk • contribs) 11:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: See above. Appreciated, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 11:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
FoCuSandLeArN, thank you. I'll restore what appears to be non-copyright text to Kanejon's sandbox soon, I'll need to check the est of the text first. I'll post any other messages on Kanejon's talk page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Joram

Hello, You recently trimmed and accepted my article - Joram Piatigorsky. Thank you. I am the representative for Joram Piatigorsky, the article was not created by he himself. But I created it under his user name. Is that a problem? Should I have created it under my own username? Could you explain why you trimmed what you did? And what would be the best way to add some more of that information back in? If you don't recommend doing so, that's fine, but I would at least like to add a photo and a text box - how do I figure out how to do that? Joram Piatigorsky (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC) Mia Cortez

Hello there! Yes, per WP:COI, it's best if you didn't. You may request edits on the article's talk page or through WP:EDITREQ. Per WP:USERNAME, it's best if you didn't use his name as a username either. You can create your own the same way you did the previous one. The information I removed was mostly original research, which is inadequate, given you provided only references to his own work. As for adding a photo, go to this link, and for an infobox, see Help:Infobox. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

eby friedman

@FoCuSandLeArN:FoCuSandLeArN thank you for approving my page!! :-) i see that a lot of what i have written was erased . i am guessing its because lack of citation my quetion is . if i find new citation for some of the data not approved. can i just add it to the page? tnxs!! Gal lilos (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

See my comments about Joram Piatigorsky above, as they apply almost exactly to your submission. After looking at your recent edits and subsequent fallout, I recommend you abstain from editing any articles, to be honest, until you're familiar with how Wikipedia works and how the community deals with editing as a whole. WP:TUTORIAL is a great place to start. Thank you, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Indigenous Peoples Rights in the Philippines

Hello. You pointed out a possible copyright violation of an ADB pdf on the draft:Indigenous Peoples Rights in the Philippines. I went on the live chat and was pointed towards the plagiarized checker websites and saw that most of the violations were actually direct quotes both by the writers of the pdf and us from the only law in the Philippines that discusses Indigenous Peoples Rights. I've also consulted with my professor who had told us that paraphrasing the law is risky business because we might be placing interpretations of the law. I really feel strongly about being accused of plagiarism I think the mistake can easily be rectified and was not in fact a plagiarism and instead a misunderstanding of how to discuss law provisions and definitions. If you could lift the speedy deletion so my groupmates can delete our direct quotes from the law and write the article without much issue, it would be much appreciated. Thank you, I hope to hear from you how I can improve the article Ceeveers (talk) 06:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Ceevers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceeveers (talk • contribs) 06:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I see you've been working on Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act of 1997 as well. If you wish to recover the deleted draft, you must talk to RHaworth. I'm doubtful as to whether we need such an article, however. It might be best to keep both the indigenous rights and the Act information in one place, due to the fact both texts seem to have been very similar. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 11:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Access to a deleted AfC

I am in the same position as Kanejon who posted on 14 July 2015. My AfC on Gordon Graham was rejected today because of the inclusion of some material with copyright and then deleted before I knew it had been rejected. I would be very happy to edit the article to make it compliant, but didn't keep any version of the article assuming that Wikipedia would retain the text in my Sandbox. Are you able to give me access to the deleted article so I can make it compliant?

Hargs775 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hargs775 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@RHaworth: will take care of your request. I believe your subject might be notable. When you can, please contact WP:MILHIST for help copy editing your draft. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:E Square Young Engineers

Hi, I cant find what we last wrote.. :( so I must ask again, will you be able to help me with the edits you suggested bacause I dont know how... Onlinejonathan (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

See User_talk:FoCuSandLeArN/Archive_19#Draft:E_Square_Young_Engineers. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Alpheus fasqueli
added links pointing to Chela and Lamella
Alpheus tricolor
added links pointing to Chela and Lamella

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

How to quote a document

Hi, You recently rejected a page I created on the Five Points. I understand that I copy and pasted material but I think you misunderstood the nature of the actual content that was pasted. The Five Points (text that was pasted) is not copywrited material but a policy, somewhat like the Bill of Rights.

I did not copy any part of the copywrited section of: http://west-wight-sangha.blogspot.com/2010/03/more-on-nun-ordinations-at-amaravati.htm

I only copy and pasted the actual Five Point policy, which was a secret policy issued by Amaravati Monastery, and not by the authors of the aforementioned website. The website listed above is the only place where the Five Points is written down, outside of Amravati Monastery, which has not made the policy public. So the material is quoted on the above website, and not under copywrite agreement. Other non-copywrited policies, such as the Bill of Rights, ARE quoted verbatim on Wikipedia.

I think you misapplied the copywrite policy. Please look at the Five Points page again, and either reverse your decision or point me to the correct policy that, correctly applied, disqualifies this non-copywrited content.

Thanks, M Browning Vogel — Preceding unsigned comment added by M. Browning Vogel (talk • contribs) 18:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Even if that were the case, it would still be copyright of the Monastery. You can quote portions of the text if absolutely necessary, with the appropriate attribution, but please check if you're topic is notable first. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Review of José Luis Encarnação page

Hi,

since you reviewed this page (José Luis Encarnação) in May 2015 I have made significant changes and improvements to writing and verification. However, I am not sure about the process to have the page reviewed again to improve it's quality standing beyond the current start-class.

Can you help with that?

Thank you.

See WP:GA? for information regarding article quality. If you're associated with the subject, it is best if you request edits instead of make them yourself. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

09:52:43, 20 July 2015 review of submission by Mikefly


You cite that not a single notable source has been used, although Malta Today is one example of a reliable news source. Wikipedia guidelines state that the majority of sources must be secondary in nature, which is what I have submitted. Although many are not from established editorial websites with a strong reputation for fact checking or accuracy, the information provided by them is factual in nature and does not provide trivial coverage or brief statements.

Furthermore, Wikipedia states that "material available from sources that are self-published, or primary sources, or biased because of a conflict of interest can play a role in writing an article, but it must be possible to source the majority of information to independent, third-party sources." The sources I have provided within the article are not affiliated with OneTwoTrade and can be considered independent, third party references.

Please let me know your comments, I look forward to hearing back Mikefly (talk) 09:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Mikefly (talk) 09:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The Malta Today reference merely states that the company was granted a licence. If you read carefully what I stated as a comment, you'll see I actually said "can't find a single source attesting the subject's notability". I did not say that I couldn't find a notable source, but rather that the sources available in no way provide evidence that the subject of the article is notable. If you wish, we can go through the references one by one, but I think that would be a futile endeavour. If you cannot provide extensive coverage of the platform in independent and reliable sources, that actually state why it is notable, then it can't have an article, no matter how many links you add. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

16:18:56, 21 July 2015 review of submission by Vucrusader


Hi FoCuSandLeArN, Thank you for your careful eye. I have reviewed the guidelines on notability.

To clarify, you are opposed to the references to company issued press releases, correct? Is there anything else, reference-wise, that is objectionable?

Thanks in advance for your assistance. Vucrusader (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Vucrusader (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia, not me. We need independent and reliable sources, i.e. sources with an editorial process and that have no association with the article's subject. Also, do not use Wikipedia itself as a reference. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Another

Dear FoCuSandLeArN,

Thank you for your feedback. I added many, many independent verifiable sources to the article: over 14. This includes Who's Who in America, Contemporary Authors, prestigious newspapers, magazines and radio shows. Could you please take a look at these sources and footnotes? I have viewed other biographies on Wiki and think mine is much better sourced than a lot I found. Do you have a model article to look at? Other people on Wiki like Macrakis do not have such extensive independent sourcing.

Please let me know.

Thanks!

BiosforauthorsBiosforauthors (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Most of the references you've provided are not extensive, i.e. they do not discuss the subject of the article directly. What we're looking for is stuff that resembles the Kirkus Review of one of her books, for example. As I said before, I do believe she is notable, alas I would like to see a second opinion before accepting. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Nano

Hi FoCuSandLeArN, you have declined a submission for the page Nanö Collection. I was wondering if you had any tips on how to edit and make the article better so that it is published. Nano Collection does have a lot of its business purposes based on charity for children in needs. Thanks a lot. Frankgoose (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

At the moment I don't believe there's anything you could do, given there just isn't extensive coverage about Nanö available from independent and reliable sources. See WP:GNG and WP:CORP for clues about what we require. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jeb Bush

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeb Bush. Legobot (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

20150708114436 | Not Richard Rahul Verma

This Rahul Verma is not Richard Rahul Verma, he is Indian activist and founder of non profit Uday Foundation . I am sorry I do not know how to comment on post or if I am authorised to do so. So I am writing it here. Thanks Shibanihk (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, thank you for the heads-up. Please provide evidence of extensive coverage in indpendent and reliable sources. For a general guide, see WP:REFB. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. There is already 53 references of top most news papers, publishers etc. Do I need to give more reference . Regards Shibanihk (talk)

12:46:56, 23 July 2015 review of submission by WikiDandyCandy


Hi, would changing the article from "Louise Meanwell aka Louise Neathway" to "“Brian Cashman Yankee General Manager V. Louise Meanwell Lawsuit” overcome the problem with Neathway not being notable on her own. WikiDandyCandy (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello. You could try asking the people at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, but I believe it's likely to be a negative. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Frank Harrison Draft

>>> I looked at several sources including death announcement and was not able to find one. kllwiki Grave headstone does not show a middle name.Kllwiki (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Empire State Building

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Empire State Building. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Sexual harassment

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Sexual harassment. Legobot (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bruchidius siliquastri
added a link pointing to Tarsi
Munidopsis tuberosa
added a link pointing to Rostrum

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sabra and Shatila massacre

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sabra and Shatila massacre. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Political positions of Jeb Bush

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Political positions of Jeb Bush. Legobot (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Request on 07:42:02, 27 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Tsdcorp


Hi I want to verify my article please suggest me the guideline Tsdcorp (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello there. You have substantial feedback that has been left on that page for you to read. Mainly, you haven't provided evidence that the digital platform is notable. For this we need to see that it has garnered significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. If this isn't possible, then the subject is simply not suitable for Wikipedia. Thank you, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Dewing Woodward Draft Article

Hello, I added more citations to the Dewing Woodward draft page. Ralph Rees and Mary Sieminski are the only leading researchers on Woodward which is why they're cited so often. Should I include a note about that in the article itself? Thank you!

I see. Let's see if anyone from WikiProject Visual Arts cares to comment about this. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

20:31:03, 27 July 2015 review of submission by Leesfer


Trying to figure out what else I need for this article to be "notable."

The article about notability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)) has "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" and "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)."

The subject of the article has both of these covered, but the article is still declined?

Leesfer (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

You need to read that over carefully: multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent. You have provided no such sources. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Death of Sandra Bland

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Death of Sandra Bland. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Daryl

Hi! thank you so much for your feedback on the Daryl Cloran article. I just wanted to check in about what section you thought was too close to the zoominfo page. I have rewritten the section I thought seemed closest. The section about Daryl Cloran's work on Drum! I appreciate your help. This is m first article. Best Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loopserloopser (talk • contribs) 06:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

See this. Thank you, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Advocacy ducks

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Advocacy ducks. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Planned Parenthood

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Planned Parenthood. Legobot (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Creating Draft:John Mollison

Hi FoCuSandLeArN (talk). I may have made a mistake by submitting the John Mollison draft for re-review. I wanted to know if the new references were usable and if the subject was notable. What I submitted was not to be the article. Because it was a draft in my user space I didn't think the blatant copy/paste job mattered, another error on my part. This is my first Biography of a living person but not the first article I've created, please take a look if you like. May I ask if you think the references are usable and if so, the subject is notable? Samf4u (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. We can contact Diannaa, the deleting admin, about that and see if we can recover part of the draft. Once that happens I'll be happy to check your references, etc. Let me know. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi FoCuSandLeArN. I have restored the draft and cut the copy vio material and added links to the additional websites at the bottom of the draft. Hope this helps. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Diannaa (talk) was nice enough to restore the draft. When you get a chance can you take a look and give me your opinion? Draft:John Mollison. Thanks Samf4u (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for that. As far as I can tell, coverage about him is very local and minor. I'm inclined to say he doesn't pass general notability at this stage. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

on being unduly grumpy

Hi FocusAndLearn, you are correct, I was not being WP:NICE to sulfurboy in my comment at Draft:Michael Elliott. Thanks for nudging me.

That said, 1) it is not my article, the WP:OWNer is User:Gabrisa(sp)(see edit-history of draft) who I am trying to assist, after seeing them flailing on en-wikipedia-help IRC.

Furthermore, 2) I'm *really* having difficulty seeing that this is any kind of borderline case. Before I cut it down to size, there was a lot of WP:ABOUTSELF content, true, but there is now a negligible amount, that I can see. Before I added the additional sources, there were not really enough to demonstrate WP;N and satisfy WP:42, also true ... but with the sources listed now, I would have thought that WP:GNG was obviously met.

Sulfurboy disagreed, and said that any refs specifically about promotions were invariably "routine coverage"... whether in major national newsweekly media, or not. That's just flat wrong, hence my grumpy comment, that it was flat wrong. (I've also seen some other declines by sulfurboy from that same day which I disagreed with; it's not just this one action which made me grumpy) (but there is no excuse for being grumpy in any case).

You *also* seem to think the sources are fake, aka press-release-regurgitation. So maybe I'm just in the wrong here. But can you be specific? Here are the 'main' ones, of which only the independent.co.uk cite was acceptable to the eyes of User:Sulfurboy, ping in case they wish to comment further.

Which don't you like, and why? If you do a bit of googling in your search engine of choice, for "michael elliott" (time OR newsweek OR "the economist" OR bono) , methinks there are more sources out there. Thanks for your time and your patience; I'll try harder to keep my horses docile. WP:NORUSH applies, as always. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I see you continue to distort what you're being told. Never did I say your sources were fake. Please note nobody owns articles, per that precise policy you've just ironically linked. I'll answer the rest of your claims tomorrow. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm saying that PR-regurgitation is a 'fake' source (my terminology). Press-releases are inherently not wiki-reliable, thus, when used as refs in an article, they are "fake"-sources (my terminology not yours), because they cannot possibly contribute towards wiki-notability, or even be WP:NOTEWORTHY. Here is what you said: "in my opinion he's a borderline case. Yes he has some coverage from reliable sources (although you did provide some press releases, which we do not consider reliable), however it is mostly due to his appointment at ONE, as is all other coverage I could muster."[9] Of the six sources listed (seven if you double-count the Guardian), Sulfurboy discounts all but one, independent.co.uk, on the basis that either 1) coverage about promotions is routine, or 2) interviews cannot count towards demonstrating WP:N regardless of the specific publisher and interviewer involved. Sulfurboy thus says the article is WP:FAILN, due to there only being one (known/listed) single in-depth source left standing. I'm interested in specifically which of these six-or-seven sources you think are press-releases, and thus as non-WP:RS cannot count towards demonstrating WP:N, and how many of the remaining non-press-release sources you do believe can be counted towards WP:N. The usual heuristic is three in-depth sources, to achieve WP:N, and if (emphasis on if) you are doing your assessment based on that rule of thumb, WP:CALC suggests that you believe either three or four of the sources above are press-releases, or otherwise do not count towards WP:N for whatever reason. Or maybe you like to see more than three in-depth independent WP:RS? p.s. The irony was intentional, not accidental. Text-only communication fails to capture nuance of tone. I'll do my best to avoid intentional irony in the rest of our conversation about Elliott, but please be aware I find it a natural mode of expression. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FoCuSandLeArN/Archive_19&oldid=803569261"