User talk:Torokina

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Torokina, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Doctor^G (talk) 02:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by David.moreno72 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines for academics, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

No indication of passing WP:PROF. The 'Distinguished Alumni' award does not satisfy criteria 2 of WP:NACADEMIC and the book does not pass criteria 7. The claims of 'book has won acclaim from some of the world’s top scientists' is just a series of Amazon reviews and reviews on the subjects website. They cannot be considered notable and reliable.

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

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Torokina/sandbox 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.

David.moreno72 07:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by David.moreno72 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines for academics, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Still no indication of passing WP:PROF. Images are copyright violations, taken from the subjects website. Claims are not supported by references. For instance, claim of Masters and PhD in Antarctic science. Reference says it's geology. How does a reference which says 'Take Fraser Range Holdings, a listed granite producer. It has a surprising combination of board members, from the State Transit Authority chairman David Herlihy to racing identity Noel Bracks. Up until February, Mosaic Oil boss and former priest, Howard Brady, was also on the board.' suddenly morph into 'Between 1998 to 2000, Brady managed a company with contracts from the Sydney City Council to repave the main plazas of Sydney in preparation for the 2000 Olympic Games'. Looks like either an undeclared WP:COI or misrepresentation. The biggest problem though is that there is no indication of passing WP:GNG. There needs to be a minimum of 3 independent (that is, not interviews or quotes) reliable (not blogs like Watts Up With That or Youtube videos) that have significant coverage (not just mentions).

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

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Torokina/sandbox 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.

David.moreno72 00:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by David.moreno72 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines for academics, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Previous comments have not been acted on. External links are not permitted in article. Needs to written in a neutral fashion. Blogs are not permitted as references. Still no indication of passing WP:PROF

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

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Torokina/sandbox 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.

David.moreno72 09:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: User:Torokina/sandbox has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Torokina/sandbox. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by David.moreno72 was:

This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read 'What Wikipedia is not' for more information.

The comment the reviewer left was:

per WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:COISELF. Editor has been told to remove references to Watts Up With That and the Youtube videos, but have failed to do so. It was noted that the images were copyright violations, taken from the subjects website, but the editor did not remove them, I had to.There is only one published, reliable, secondary source about the subject, that is independent of the subject, and that is the Media Watch reference. It is highly critical of the subject but that has been glossed over, violating WP:NPOV, and instead is used to promote the subjects agenda (a reference to the subjects YouTube channel). The claim that 'his book has also been reviewed in scientific journals' is highly misleading to say the least. Both the 'Journal of Scientific Exploration' and 'New Concepts in Global Tectonics Journal' are fringe theory pseudojournals. The biggest problem though is that it does not pass WP:GNG. There needs to be a minimum of 3 independent (that is, not interviews or quotes) reliable references that have significant coverage (not just mentions) about the subject. There is is only one. Virtually all the references are primary or not independent, highly indicative of a WP:COISELF. Per WP:PRIMARY it states that 'Do not base an entire article on primary sources'. The Wikipedia policy is very clear, in WP:IIS it states that 'if no substantive coverage in independent reliable secondary sources can be identified then the article should be nominated for deletion.' . Only resubmit when the article is based on independent reliable secondary sources and is not used for WP:ADVOCACY.

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

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Torokina/sandbox 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.

David.moreno72 14:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing warning

Hi Torokina. I have reverted your change as it violates WP:ELNO. Please do NOT resubmit without first addressing my previous comments. Also, please do not resubmit until you have added reliable, secondary sources that have significant coverage about the subject. This was mentioned to you on your Teahouse question, and in my previous decline comments, yet you have still failed to add any. This is Wikipedia's most fundamental policy set down in WP:GNG. If a subject does not satisfy WP:GNG then there can be no article, plain and simple. Also, a listing in a category of Amazon's best sellers does not qualify under WP:AUTHOR. If you continue to ignore Wikipedia policies and community input, your edits may be considered as tendentious and disruptive. Thank you David.moreno72 07:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]