User talk:LaMona/Archives/2016/07

User talk:LaMona/Archive Header/header=Archive for %(monthname)s %(year)d

• Tukombo (talk · contribs)
  • talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-africa-35231594?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=56952b8520000086ab5a4bb0%26Malawi%27s%20celebrated%20woman%20freedom%20fighter%20dies%2616.49&ns_fee=0#post_56952b8520000086ab5a4bb0

User:Tukombo - It is absolutely true that @en Wikipedia's policies favor the Western North. I personally think that dividing WP by language, rather than by region, may not have been the best idea, but I can't change that. Twitter never verifies anyone, nor does Facebook. Mentions and cites also don't support notability. That's true for everyone. The policies say that you must have sources that are ABOUT the subject of the article. If you have access to local media (newspapers, magazines) that carry articles about the station, those are what will support notability. From what little I can find, Malawi24 has done some important breaking stories, and you need just a few sources that actually say that. You most likely will not find what you need in Western sources, but the sources can be from any reliable publication. LaMona (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• TracieBurns (talk · contribs)
  • talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

I just saw you had provided an Internet Archive link. Thank you very much. I never got an email on this to know you had replied, and I didn't know that you would reply to a section that wasn't the most recent, so I lost a couple of days there. At any rate, the fix on the briefly AWOL Memorial Resolution is made, and the article is resubmitted. I will watch this space and the others, as well as the article itself for additional notices. TracieBurns (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)TracieBurns[reply]

• Jkaczmarczyk (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Marcelo Lehninger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

I'm asking after this draft article that was rejected: Severl points were made, probably because of boilerplate. I'm not clear what's the most important concern. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Marcelo_Lehninger I can easily add section headers and I will if that's the primary issue. I didn't because I've observed that other brief articles on individuals don't either. The rejection as given suggests I've used ambiguous sources. I used legitimate news sources except for two awards. I sourced the organization that awarded them. I can replace them with news coverage of the award, but I thought the actual organization rated higher in legitimacy. The suggestion that Marcelo isn't notable enough has merit. But the two previous music directors of the Grand Rapids Symphony have articles in Wikipedia, and for both, their tenure with the Grand Rapids Symphony was the pinnacle of their careers. I think the precedent speaks for itself. What's more, Wikipedia also has articles for Grand Rapids Symphony's principal pops conductor, Robert Bernhardt, and even for its associate conductor, John Varineau. Thanks in advance for your time and trouble.

Jkaczmarczyk (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added section headers and noted where references are needed. All information in an article must be verifiable in reliable sources. Nothing speaks for itself. It isn't a question (yet, anyway) of notability but that information cannot come out of thin air, it all has to be

WP:VERIFIABLE. LaMona (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Please let me know concretely how I can improve this article (as a bare minimum) to get it approved and then asking others to improve it. While the person I am writing about is indeed my father, I believe he very much deserves a place on Wikipedia (considering some of the less notable garbage articles that I have otherwise found about people whom I don't believe have pretty much faked their popularity!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sansari (talk • contribs) 11:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

conflict of interest which must be declared on the talk page of the article. This declaration is both required, it also helps reviewers help you get the article into good shape. Yes, the next editor may reject it again. This is an iterative process, but you cannot expect us to accept articles that do not meet WP standards. You claim to be a seasoned editor, but you placed this comment at the top of this talk page (they belong at the bottom) and you failed to sign it properly. You appear to have less than 50 total edits. I'm afraid that it takes quite a while to be seasoned, so please be patient and accept that you have yet quite a bit to learn. We all go through this at the beginning, and I realize that WP rules can be quite confusing. The editors here are trying to help, so do not blame or attack them; we are all volunteers, doing this because we care about the quality of Wikipedia. LaMona (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:N (notability). LaMona (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Tukombo (talk · contribs)
  • talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

Hi, Thanks for your response LaMona. Would this article that appeared in The Daily Times of Malawi, the oldest publisher/newspaper in Malawi count as reliable and valid evidence/reference material? I have added it on the reference list of course. http://timesmediamw.com/malawi24-starts-publishing-literature/

Yes,

wp:SYNTH, but it might fly.) Although I just tried the BBC link and it didn't work for me, although it did a few days ago - could you see if it works for you? LaMona (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Hmm2015 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Cornelia Herrmann (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear LaMona, thank you for taking the time to look through the article for pianist Cornelia Herrmann. I apologise for having included the link to a sale website! I have tried to provided citation where you asked for them. The inclusion of 'famous people' is not to make her famous - it is simply a list of the teachers she has studied with. All biographies of performing artists include names of teachers. After all, this is an important piece of information about this artist. If there is anything else I should improve I would be grateful for your support. Thank you! Christoph Hmm2015 (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hmm2015 - you have more than the list of teachers - you have the list of orchestras, the list of conductors, the list of venues... lots of lists, and many of them are not verifiable in the references. These lists do not help with notability, and they don't make for very interesting reading. A person's life and work is not a series of lists, hopefully, and you need to show the reader why this person matters. After reading this article, I know very little about the person. What you need is a feature article about her, or some in-depth reviews. The references that are announcements of performances do not support notability, nor does the link to her agent's site (I assume that is what Matthew Sprizzo is.) Also, I just looked at this and you have copied from this (or another provided press release) the entire first two paragraphs, which is a violation of copyright. You must change that because any articles that violate copyright, even drafts, can be summarily deleted in order to protect WP from harm. LaMona (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm2015 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Cornelia Herrmann (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear LaMona, again thank you for looking at my article. Whilst I completely agree with you - (that lists don't make for a very interesting read!), it is these lists that do describe the process of development of an artist, in this case a pianist. May I ask you to look at some articles of musicians like Christopher Hinterhuber (a very similar article to the one I wrote with very few references to back up statements!), or Janine Jansen (even more lists!) or Till Fellner (again, similar but very few references to back up claims!). For somebody who does not know this person (but must have some musical knowledge or interest - otherwise he/she would not look for more information about a musician!) it is in fact extremely interesting to read about the teachers this pianist has studied with and to read about the concert halls she has performed in or the orchestras she has performed with. To some people it might be meaningless lists - to others it might be highly relevant or interesting information! I myself have been in the classical music profession for the last 25 years and do find these fact very interesting and relevant! After all, the accomplishments of a performer are very much reflected by the venues he/she has performed in or the partners he/she has performed with. Even the most well known artists in the realm of classical music have articles in WP that read a bit like lists - just look up Anna Netrebko as an example. I think that a pianist like Cornelia Herrmann should have an article on WP - she has won a major piano competition, over the last 20 years she has performed all over the world in important concert halls and with major orchestras/conductors and she has recorded a number of successful CDs. She has furthermore initiated a music festival that has received a substantial amount of press in Austria. Yes, I have more or less copied the first couple of paragraphs - as they were taken from her website in the first place. I realise that this does not comply with copyright and will change that. In fact, I will rewrite the complete article - most importantly I will make it more compact and then re-submit. Maybe I wrote it too much like a biography for a concert program and tried to squeeze in as much information as possible. However, I also wanted to show you (or the potential reader) enough 'evidence' of her accomplishments as a pianist. best regards, Hmm2015 (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comments, I've removed unnecessary detail of Morrow's youth, added more precise references at points where they appeared to be missing, and have stuck to the bare facts, as you have suggested. I trust that the article is now more acceptable. Charlesgannon (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LaMona,

Thank you for your edits and for approving my article. I have just one question regarding your edit removing the fact that the wine produced by this estate is one of Italy's leading wines in its category. I thought this would be of significance and provided some solid references to back it up. I also based this structure on an article on Tenuta San Guido which has a similar wine and notability.

Thanks again and look forward to hearing from you.

Regards, Crionnacht123 (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crionnacht123, the concept of a "leading wine" is not factual. If there were a reference saying "was selected in top 10 wines by X expert" you could say "X selected it as a top 10 wine". Otherwise it is simply promotional. In any case, it probably would not fit into the lead unless that same information were covered in the body of the article. The lead is a summary of the body. I would change the wording in the Tenuta San Guido but I do not have access to the works that are cited. LaMona (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona, thank you for your quick reply and explanation. I understand your point although it seems more succinct to just phrase it that way rather than mentioning specific ratings and journalists. I appreciate it is slightly vague but it is not "promotional", as it is a statement of fact given that it is consistently rated as such. However, I will reconsider and perhaps go into more detail on the wines. By the way, the works cited in the Tenuta San Guido article are simply journalistic works referring to the wine's prominence in this category of wine, so there is no difference here.

Crionnacht123 (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since WP is not a place for promotion or advertising, it really shouldn't matter what other articles say. Nor should it matter that ones' product is lauded. An encyclopedia is about social and historical importance. The policies on

WP:CORP say: "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." LaMona (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for reviewing the entry Popgun Presents (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:PopGun_Presents), LaMona! I have made all of your suggested edits, including making more use of the New York Times article on the subject's venue Elsewhere. I have removed sources that did not directly mention the subject. I have also added additional notable sources.

One thing I would ask you to reconsider is the removal of certain details regarding the company's formation. The occurrences that motivated the partnership are discussed in detail in source #6 and #1.

There was a "citation needed" that I've replaced with markers from two existing sources.

Thanks again for your time!

(MrFarenheitsMom (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, MrFarenheitsMom. The motivations for the partnership were not referenced, and also did not follow a formal, neutral tone. Saying things like "Frustrated with...." and "had been looking to occupy time" are statements about someone's state of mind, something we don't generally go into here because it isn't verifiable. You could say "In an interview they said that...." but in fact interviews are primary sources, not secondary, and so are discouraged. And no one else can know someone's state of mind. That's why it is encyclopedic to stick to the facts, and leave the more emotional bits to journalistic treatments. LaMona (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Billquinn ky (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Johnny Conqueroo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi LaMona - I am NOT requesting a re-review, but asking for advice.

I was focused on notability, and trying to catch the early history of a young band out of Lexington KY. But I am struggling. With respect to notability criteria #7 "Has become one of ... the most prominent of the local scene of a city"

In order to show this, it was required to use the local record store, and local radio charts - these are both 100% independent, and long standing references. The CD central, and WRFL rankings are now clarified as being local to Lexington, KY - but support the claim of prominence.

Likewise several of the local / Lexington blogs represent we added to show more independence - but I understand these can not be verified.

I would like to add more links to known nation distributors, such as iTunes, spotify, etc. So I will be working on that.

Let me know what you think :-)

User:Billquinn ky, first, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. The problem wth iTunes and Spotify is that they are sales or promotion sites, and we do not allow either sales or promotion here on WP. You can link to those in an External links section, and it might be ok to say that they achieved X on a chart, but those are not independent sources because they have an interest in selling or promoting since that's how they make their money. #7 is not just that the group is popular (and charting needs to be national), but that they have become the iconic example of a unique, local musical genre. This generally applies to traditional music (e.g. Zydeco, traditional blue-grass), not to "nouveau" forms. I have to say that for a musician to meet notability they are going to have to be a "star", not just a local favorite. Consider your guy "up and coming" and when he "up and comes" then he will be notable. LaMona (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Kennyung6 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Clement Dzidonu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please please LaMona, Could you kindly just help me fast track the creation of this article by specifically pointing out the external links - references to remove, move and replace as you suggested the last time you reviewed the Article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Clement_Dzidonu

Thanks. Your Help is greatly appreciated.

User:Kennyung6, first, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. Next, there is no fast track, and I gave you the information you need - which is to use the articles you have as external sources to add solid information to the draft. Creating an article is a lot of work, there's no question about that. You'll just have to do it. LaMona (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LaMona, Today I submitted a draft of an article about Kathleen Dean Moore. A friend of mine who knows Ms. Moore asked me to help her create a Wikipedia page for Ms. Moore. My draft was declined because "This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Kathleen Dean Moore, which is also waiting to be reviewed." I looked at your article and the text is indeed very similar to mine. I wonder if perhaps Ms. Moore also gave you information to post for her?

My draft also had the comment "The existing submission is very poorly formatted. I suggest that the current editor either request that the existing draft be deleted to make way for this draft, or that the editor of this draft move it in place of the current draft."

I have spent a lot of time formatting my draft, and I'd like to ask you if you are willing to delete your draft so that mine may move forward. I believe it would be the most efficient way to get the page about Ms. Moore accepted. Are you willing to consider this suggestion?

Thank you,

 Jg0590 (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jg0590 - The draft is not mine - I was the reviewer on a draft. Unfortunately, the user who created that draft does not have a username, so they cannot easily be contacted. Look in the history and you will see their IP address. You can try to contact them, but IP addresses are not stable so it isn't clear that you will reach the person. I'll post this on the reviewer site and see if anyone knows what we should do. LaMona (talk) 05:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just looked at the messy one, and it looks like it was a copy and paste of yours, only it copied the displayed version to the source. In other words, it's a bad copy of your article. I don't know who did it, but that's what it looks like. So it's even more mysterious. LaMona (talk) 05:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help LaMona. Jg0590 (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's me again. I turns out the person who wrote the messy draft is the friend I referred to in my first message to you. She tried to write the page for Ms. Moore but didn't know what she was doing and it came out not formatted. Then she asked me to do it, but she didn't mention that she had already created a draft. When I found out the draft was hers I asked her to delete it. She was happy to delete it but didn't know how and asked for my help. I looked up how to delete (I'm a newbie too) and thought that if we did it from her computer the request would have the same IP address. Obviously it didn't. So how do we proceed? The author of the messy draft and I both want it deleted, how can we make that happen?

Thank you for your help! Jg0590 (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jg0590, I'll tag it as a delete as requested by the creator. Let me know if that doesn't work. (It may take a day or two.) LaMona (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It already has a deletion request on it, so it should get deleted before long. An admin has to do it. LaMona (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sorry I didn't leave you a message about that. This morning I figured out the way for me to request deletion. I appreciate your time and attention! Jg0590 (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Angusparker (talk · contribs)
  • talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

PS I will also commit to making no further edits to the page once it is accepted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:2:338D:3978:4494:79A1:63F7 (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Angus. From my quick reading, it's only the section starting "Island focus" that drifts off, but you know the article best so edit with that in mind. Meanwhile, the article Island ecology could possibly get a link to your organization once the article goes live - interlinking is what helps people find related articles. And if you have anything to add to that article, PLEASE DO! LaMona (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. I'll chop that bit off and add some of the content to the

Island Ecology page down the road. If I resubmit it tomorrow would you be able to review it again? Cheers Angus Angus Parker (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

It may not come to me - we get articles in some kind of random rotation. I will try to remember to look for it, though. LaMona (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will need to get the redirect removed to Island ecology as well so that Island Conservation with a big C goes to the right content. Best, Angus Angus Parker (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmitted the article having removed the "excess" island stuff and added an additional reference from CBS News. Hopefully you will get a chance to review it again. Thanks. Remember the redirect has to be removed from [Island ecology] and the tile of the page is [Island_Conservation] with a big C. Thanks for all your help. Best, AngusAngus Parker (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

added some more good references Angus Parker (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Eperless (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Joseph Fuller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for your valuable help, LaMona. I have addressed the awards references and included the publication and date onwhich it was published or url of the awarding body and the award. I have also provided a reference for Fuller's Company's structure.

Could you please explain why some of the live links are showing up in red. I don't know what that means. I have tried to use the exact wording of the Wikipedia Article when referring back to it.

Thank you. Eperless (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eperless (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Eperless. You have redlinks because you are not using EXACTLY the same as the WP article. So you have "Old Town Hall, Stamford, CT" and the actual article is Old Town Hall (Stamford, Connecticut) - in another you have a comma within the square brackets that is not in the heading. The best thing is to copy the actual article title directly off of the article page. LaMona (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Eperless (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Joseph Fuller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you very much for your help, LaMona. I believe that all changes you asked for have been made. Eperless (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• ARC-MC-RF (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The Sethi Partnership Solicitors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi LaMona

Thank you for your review. We do want to re-submit the application and wanted your thoughts so we get it right. Your notes were in regarding the references on the published articles. We are unsure what areas you required references for, if you can list what needs to be fixed this would really be helpful. Would you require any scanned hard copies of articles as they are not all available online.

Theses are my contact details in case you need to contact me directly

[email protected]

Thanks

Rahila

wp:SMOS

. Essentially, your article is not yet in any way a WP article in terms of how it is presented, so you need to fix that before a review of the content can be done.

I would also ask you to look at

WP:COI, our policies for what we call "conflict of interest" - that is, creating articles on topics of which you may have a personal interest. I intuit this from your username. We discourage COI editing, although it is allowed on a temporary basis for a draft. Once the draft goes to main space, however, anyone who is directly involved with the topic of the article is asked not to do any direct edits, but instead to request edits on the talk page. WP is not like Facebook or other services where you create "your" page - it is an encyclopedia of information that is of general interest. Creating a page for the purposes of promotion can result in the page being deleted and the user account being blocked. LaMona (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• 185.5.63.200 (talk · contribs)
  • talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

Thank you for the review! I have added better references where you have told me they were not working. Do I have to start a talk page or just wait for the re-review now? Best, --185.5.63.200 (talk) 10:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you've re-submitted it for review, that's all you need to do. LaMona (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LaMona,

Thank you for your review of the article written by me (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bhadrakali_Mishra)

While I will continue to build upon the article by adding relevant references as well as new referenced content, I had two quick questions:

1. Do I need to add references to "Summary" part of the article, even though the text summarized there is from the duly referenced text in the main content?

2. In my original draft, I have included references, to the texts mentioned, from a number of published journals, books and newspapers, both national and global publications (about 40 references in total). I will continue to add here.

Your thoughts and comments most appreciated.

Thanks

Himalayanbullet (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HI, Himalayanbullet. If everything in the summary at the top of the article is covered in the article with references then you do not need to add references there. You have a fairly long summary, so you should check this. If necessary, add references to the summary if there are points that aren't obviously made in the article. LaMona (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, LaMona. I will re-check that and make corrections. Once done, I will re-submit for review. Himalayanbullet (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• HattieWalker (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Lawrence "Larry" Watson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

Also, thank you for your earlier feedback. It was very useful.HattieWalker (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Hattie WalkerHattieWalker (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, HattieWalker. It is ok to include the Highbeam URL as long as you also provide the full reference so that folks without highbeam access can identify and find the source (and you've done that!). An extra service to your readers would be to see if you can locate open sources for the same articles, but in many cases they do not exist. You can put that on your "to do on a rainy day" list. Thanks, LaMona (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LaMona,

I resubmitted a Draft:Burnaby Lake Rowing Club article. After waiting a month for its review the article was rejected for the following reason:

"Submission declined on 8 July 2016 by Tseung Kwan O (talk). Making an article about something you're affiliated with is a huge COI. Also, using sock accounts is prohibited, I've already reported your account."

Upon your advice on 04:02:04, 21 February 2016 I created a new user name Round4figure and I added a COI declaration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Round4figure "User:Round4figure From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I once edited under the name Team BLRC but I am no longer doing so."

Could you please advise me on what options I have?

Thank you, Round4figure

Round4figure (talk) 03:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Round4figure, your editing is still assumed a conflict of interest since you are most likely affiliated with the rowing club. That doesn't change what you do here on the draft, but will make a strong difference when the article goes into main space. At that point, you will not longer be welcome to edit the article directly but will need to request edits on the talk page so that others can make them in a neutral, non-involved way. You also need to declare your COI on at least the talk page of the article. I'll put the COI information on your talk page, and following the links there you will see what to do.

To my mind, COI isn't the big issue with the BLRC article; the issue is notability. Our policies for organizations says: "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local (as in - with a circulation limited to a single city or metropolitan area) media, or media of limited interest and circulation (such as trade journals), is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." I'm not sure if the sports-reference site is considered a reliable-enough source to pass, because it appears to be an amateur interest site, but at this point you have better sources than many other rowing clubs. That said, sports is not my area of expertise, and rowing even further from it. LaMona (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LaMona,

Thank you for your response. Firstly, I want to reflect on your statement that "I'm not sure if the sports-reference site is considered a reliable-enough source to pass, because it appears to be an amateur interest site." When you say "an amateur interest site", do you mean that the site is not credible (trustworthy) or it appears amateurish?

This is what the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_Reference) says about that site:

$ citation start

Sports Reference, LLC is a company which operates several sports-related websites including Baseball Reference, Pro Football Reference, Basketball Reference, and Hockey Reference. The site also includes sections on college football, college basketball and the Olympics. The sites attempt a comprehensive approach to sports data.

$ citation end

And this is what the site says specifically about the Olympics data (http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/about/sources.html):

$ citation start

The data used to create the web site that you are accessing is the product of years of work by a group of dedicated Olympic historians and statisticians. The group that has compiled the database refers to itself as MADmen — MAD being an acronym for several of the members of the group, but also signifies their commitment to the project in another sense. The group consists of Hilary Evans (GBR), David Foster (GBR), Martin Frank (GER), Arild Gjerde (NOR), Jeroen Heijmans (NED), Martin Kellner, Bill Mallon (USA), Wolf Reinhardt, Ralf Regnitter (GER), Paul Tchir, Magne Teigen (NOR), and Christian Tugnoli, with some assistance from Herman De Wael (BEL) and Ove Karlsson (SWE). All of them are members of the International Society of Olympic Historians (ISOH), with Mallon a past-President, and have been working on compiling databases of complete Olympic results and a database of all Olympians for many years.

In the late 1990s, they found each other via e-mail and discovered that they were independently working on the same, or at least very similar, projects. Since about 1998, they have worked together, and the database used to create the web site you see now is probably the product of about 60 man-years of work.

Since 1998, the method of their work has been for each of them to work on various aspects of the database and then send the work out for editing to all of the others. In this way, they believe they have compiled the most complete and most accurate database of Olympic athletes yet known.

$ citation end

To the best of my knowledge, the site is considered accurate and a reliable source for all the Olympic sports.

On your second statement "To my mind, COI isn't the big issue with the BLRC article; the issue is notability." I reviewed Wikipedia's criteria for sport organization notability, which I have listed for reference.

• • • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)

$ citation start

Organizations and games notability

Teams This guideline does not cover sports teams. For guidance, please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).

Olympic and Paralympic Games Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924), or have won a medal at the Paralympic Games.

$ citation end

• • • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)

$ citation start

Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." ... Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published.

No inherent notability No company or organization is considered inherently notable. ... When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics[1][note 1], economies, history, literature, science, or education [2].

Primary criteria

... is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. ... A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.

Depth of coverage

The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered.

Audience

The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability [3]. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary[4].

Independence of sources

A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it.

Non-commercial organizations

Nationally well-known local organizations: ... Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area.

Factors that have attracted widespread attention: The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements[5], prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization should be considered to the extent that these factors have been reported by independent sources. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive.

$ citation end

When assessing the notability of a subject, a Wikipedia editor must consider it in its context. The subject in the article draft satisfies the following notability criteria for a sport organization (sport club).

[3][4] at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary:

The article uses three level of scope in its reference, all of which are general circulation newspapers: 1. local: Burnaby Now, 2. regional (provincial): Vancouver Sun, 2. international: Magazine Life

[4] had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics[note 1], economies, history:

Below I have evidence of BLRC's effect on rowing sport history in Canada
- In 1973, Rowing Canada Aviron (RCA) established the first national training centre at Burnaby Lake.
- The Canadian national rowing team transitioned from a club to a composite crew development program ... Burnaby Lake was the center of this transition.
- setting up a provincial association to get a more equitable distribution of funds forthcoming from the province. After the Olympics, the British Columbia Rowing Association (BCRA) was founded in 1969.

[5] major achievements:

A major achievement of the BLRC was that it 
- "helped produce many world-class rowers": it has a history of 16 Olympians that won 15 (6G, 4S, 5B) olympic medals in rowing, and many more participating in the national rowing team.

[note 1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_of_athletics The Athletics is a collection of sporting events that involve competitive running, jumping, throwing, and walking.

Thank you, Round4figure

Round4figure (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can use links rather than copying large amounts of text into my talk page, also because those texts are not formatted correctly with the cut-and-paste function. I am quite aware of what the policies say, and, if not, I can read them on the policy pages. What I mean is that sports-reference does not list an editorial board nor editorial policies. It appears to have been done by a group of enthusiasts. The WP article on it is minimal and does not have sufficient citations (its own site, a short article saying it was purchased, and another that is a directory entry - nothing substantial about it). That article probably does not meet notability criteria, but even if it did, the fact of there being an article on WP does not mean that the site is a suitable reference. Many sites that we do not allow as references (IMDb, Discogs, etc.) have WP articles. The criteria for articles vs. references are not the same. LaMona (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LaMona, after your comments about the references used in the article, and specifically about the use of amateur interest site, I found the following:

The Wikipedia's own template about sports reference uses all the examples to the Sports-Reference.com website. Also a quick search revealed that Wikipedia contains a few hundred articles that have one or more references to the Sports Reference LLC website.

For example, the articles with reference to Sports Reference LLC website include:

1 of 2 references List of 1904 Summer Olympics medal winners
55 of 56 references List of 1908 Summer Olympics medal winners
18 of 19 references List of 1948 Summer Olympics medal winners
1 of 2 references List of 1996 Summer Olympics medal winners
1 of 19 references List of 2000 Summer Olympics medal winners
1 of 31 references List of 2004 Summer Olympics medal winners

Lastly, recently published books about Olympics that reference Sports-Reference.com include:

- Success and Failure of Countries at the Olympic Games by Danyel Reiche, 2016
- London, Europe and the Olympic Games: European Perspectives edited by Thierry Terret, 2015
- The Olympic Games Effect: How Sports Marketing Builds Strong Brands by John A. Davis, 2012
- Igniting the Flame: America's First Olympic Team by Jim Reisler, 2012

Thank you, Round4figure Round4figure (talk) 04:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 193.188.156.131 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Conference of Translation Services of European States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear LaMona, I wrote to Robert McClenon on 31 May to ask why the draft of this page had been rejected when it was a direct translation of the German, French and Portuguese language entries, which have been in place for several months now. We are keen to have the English version published as this is one of the organization's official languages. On 1 June, Robert McClenon stated that he was willing to accept the draft if I resubmitted it. I did so, but it has now been rejected again. Could you please help me to resolve this? Many thanks! Ruth Brown, Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs193.188.156.131 (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Each Wiki has its own rules for what is and isn't acceptable. We require that all facts in the article be verifiable. I don't know what your conversation was with RC, and there is nothing on his talk page about this that I can see for June 1. His message on the draft is that it needs more references, which is also my message - you must have references for all of the information on the page here at @en wikipedia. LaMona (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response and the guidance. Robert McClenon wrote his comments at the Teahouse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_491) - it's the first item on this page. He said: I'm willing to accept if the originator resubmits, based on the same article being present in other Wikipedias. I don't defend it if there is an AFD, but it looks like the sort of article for which AFD is unlikely. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC). This is why I resubmitted as I'd been told it would be accepted this time. Thanks again for your help.193.188.156.131 (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He said HE would accept, not that anyone else would. So you can ask him to accept it, but his response was only about his own view. LaMona (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I found that you rejected my proposal for the article Draft:Ambedkar_Students'_Association I would like to get your kind advice on how to improve the article and make it available. I have put proper references in the page and also given reliable sources. The information that I provided doesnt include any of MY point of views. Kindly help! - Roughbook (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Roughbook, as I said in my comments, you need more source and more text. There is quite a bit more in the few articles you cite that is not in the WP article. What you have here would be at best considered a stub, and it would be best to raise it to the level of an actual article if you wish to avoid having it deleted. So you need to find more sources and write more about the organization. All we know now is that it exists, which is not encyclopedic. LaMona (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

La Mona, I'm not certain why my article was rejected again. I have utilized references from The Arizona Republic, the Chicago Tribune, the New York Times and established that the chain was the subsidiary of a notable wikipedia articled company,

Historiarvm Arizonensis (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the message I left for you? It said: "Mentions do not support notability (NYT & LAT). The guidelines for companies says: "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local (as in - with a circulation limited to a single city or metropolitan area) media, or media of limited interest and circulation (such as trade journals), is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." The key word there is SIGNIFICANT, not just mentions." That's pretty clear, I think. The Arizona Republic is presumably statewide, but notability requires multiple sources that support notability, and you have perhaps one. (Multiple articles in a single source are considered a single source, not multiple sources.) LaMona (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've started searching for additional sources; however I must ask: why does the United States' National Register of Historic Places not qualify as a source that supports notability? Historiarvm Arizonensis (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFD. You probably don't want to go through that. LaMona (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

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

There, you had stated that the first two links had the the headlines edited. This has been rectified, and the excess link has been removed. If you could look into the page and see if it has been set as per the required standards, it would be very helpful.

Thanks and regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin.wwd (talk • contribs) 06:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sachin.wwd. You have re-submitted it, so that's all you need to do now. However, I think it would be a good idea to look for more references, ones that are more about the magazine and not just the one event. There may not be articles - it is hard to find articles that are really about magazines since other magazines wouldn't want to write about a rival. Look in any newspaper indexes you can find, maybe those would have something. It would make the article stronger to have a few references that are about the role and impact of the magazine. LaMona (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LaMona Thank you for your response. I have a lot of references, since this a magazine that has been in publication for more than 37 years. But the trouble is that the references that we have are in Malayalam (regional). Will it be helpful if I submit these news paper clippings as references? Kindly guide me through the same.

Thanks and regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin.wwd (talk • contribs) 11:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sachin.wwd, you can indeed use non-English sources to support the article. Obviously, this being English Wikipedia, English sources are preferred where they exist, and there need to be at least some supporting sources in English, but your Malayalam sources are welcome if they are needed to verify specific facts in the article. LaMona (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 86.145.3.159 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jude Cook (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for explaining your reasoning. However, I thought the issue was notability not whether the reviews were positive or not. Personally I don't think either of those reviews were panning this novel. I included the reviews in order to illustrate notability. Pegasus, the US publisher of the book quoted from the NY Times review as follows: And now we have Byron Easy, the young hero of Jude Cook’s first novel. Byron is a poet of the self-published and permanently wine-stained variety. Cook can clearly write. . . . [He] has written something new. This is certainly bold, a proud flourish of anti-wisdom." They obviously found it positive enough to use as their lead review.

As for the Independent review, after the paragraph you quote, the conclusion is very positive: "And yet, Byron’s voice is so convincingly realised – at once eloquent and pathetic, generous and self-serving – that you feel compelled to keep him company for the duration. Towards the end Cook shrewdly varies the tone, offering some tender observations on family life. The result is not an easy read, but it is a rich and rewarding one." I'm not sure anyone could leave this review thinking the book wasn't worth reading.

But regardless of these quibbles over how we are reading the reviews, surely the breadth of the coverage for Cook's novel & his music career as part of the historic Britpop movement mark him out as notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry alongside other novelists with far fewer available references, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Blackmore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elise_Valmorbida

The problem is not whether the reviews are positive or not, it is that you picked certain statements to quote from those reviews. If you didn't quote from them, there would be no problem. But if you quote from them, your quotes cannot be selective to provide an unbalanced view. In fact, quoting is often dangerous ground. The main thing is that an article must abide by a

WP:SMOS

(the manual of style) 2) you cannot use http links within the text (e.g. links to Byron Easy and Pegasus) 3) you link to Amazon but WP does not favor links to sales sites, as that is promotional (the information at Amazon is rarely considered reliable).

I would also advise you to create a username for yourself. It is very hard to engage with Wikipedia with only an IP address. This also assumes that you are here to engage in editing and making the encyclopedia better, and will make corrections and additions to many articles as we do here. LaMona (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 June 2016, you rejected

You should also read the policies in

WP:CORP which govern articles about companies. Among other things, that says: "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local (as in - with a circulation limited to a single city or metropolitan area) media, or media of limited interest and circulation (such as trade journals), is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." It is difficult for local companies to meet the notability standards. And again, being mentioned in media in other localities does not guarantee notability. LaMona (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I have removed part of your addition to the above article, as it appears to have been directly copied from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/nyregion/donald-jelinek-lawyer-for-attica-prisoners-dies-at-82.html?_r=0, a copyright web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I may have made a mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa - Unfortunately, your modification removed the previous versions so I cannot see what was removed. I tried very hard to reword the NYT Obit, but may have missed a bit, and I would like to try again. Perhaps you could contact people before removing things? That would allow us a chance to right any wrongs in the article. Is there a way that you could restore at least the earlier versions so I can fix what you think was wrong? LaMona (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but we have too many potential copyright violations to assess every day to do it the way you suggest. I have temporarily undone the revision deletion so that you can check the paraphrasing that I did. If you wish to review the copyvio report it is visible here. — Diannaa (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

La Mona, I've determined that my articles for creation Arizona Club and Draft:Hanny's simply do not fit Wikipedia's standards of notability and I would like them submitted for deletion but I am not sure how to go about doing this. Thanks.

Historiarvm Arizonensis (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Historiarvm Arizonensis, if you blank the page (basically highlight and delete all of the content) this is identified as a deletion request from the page creator, and the page should then be deleted by an administrator. I haven't actually done this myself so I don't know how long it takes, but if nothing else the blank page is doing no harm. I suspect, however, that deletions are taken care of fairly swiftly. LaMona (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Littlekaira123 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Garance Genicot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

In terms of a reference for the MacArthur Writing Grant, I mistakenly said page 21 instead of Page 29. The link to the paper is: http://www.econ.nyu.edu/user/debraj/Papers/GenicotRayCE.pdf

The link is to an independent site (NYU). Unfortunately, the MacArthur Foundation does not list its writing award recipients on its site.

LittleKaira123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlekaira123 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LIttleKaira123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlekaira123 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Littlekaira123 (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LaMona -

Thank you for your comments on ^[1]

To address your notability concern - I have added a number of citations from independent sources in the popular press (Wall Street Journal in India and the US, the New York Times etc). Also, please note that in terms of notability, Dr. Genicot is one of the pre-eminent Belgian economists today. Additionally, as a woman, she is considered one of the stars in the field of economics and especially development economics. She is highly respected in the field as evidenced by the honorific committees and associations (all invitation only) that she is part of.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Little Kaira Littlekaira123 (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC) Little Kaira[reply]

Littlekaira123 - that's good, but there's a disconnect between the text and some of the references. The reference to Bread did not mention her, and the reference to IZA was to Bread. I've fixed both of those. There isn't a question of her being notable, but the article can't be incorrect. I'll see if other references need to be fixed. LaMona (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Littlekaira123 - I expanded references and made minor changes. Please resubmit. LaMona (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

La Mona, is the section on the officers of the FAIR Foundation OK or should I delete it with just a brief mention of who they are? Thanks! AuthorKJ (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AuthorKJ (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:AuthorKJ, you should not mention them at all. Again, that is about the foundation, not about him. Also, WP does not allow external links (http to other web sites) within the text. You have some of those links in the infobox, but if you wish to include links to other sites you can create a section called "external links" and put them there. LaMona (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I edited through "Illness and coma" to give you an idea of what "just the facts" means. You can reinstate a sentence about the bill, but since it hasn't passed a single sentence will do. I think it will fit into the Legacy section. Also, for articles that you have found on Highbeam you need to provide a full citation that will allow those without access to highbeam to find the article in another source. That means author, title, journal, volume, number, date and pages. LaMona (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you!!! About the poll, I will research news stories to see if I can find any mention that he commissioned it. AuthorKJ (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC) AuthorKJ (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 109.155.100.154 (talk · contribs)
  • talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

Thanks, again for help with this :-)109.155.100.154 (talk)

You can now make the link in any articles that refer to him. I would suggest that you create a username for yourself, which makes it easier to communicate (IP addresses can change), and that you now see if there are articles on gaming that need some work. We can use all the help we can get! LaMona (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think

See: this WaPo article about Cooke criticizing Trump and Cooke confronting Hannity and Ann Coulter

If not I can check book sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should hit the "re-submit" button now. I added an entry for the book. It would be nice if there were more text, but most likely it will be added as time goes by. LaMona (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re-submitted :) - Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At

Yes, after you've done major changes you should always resubmit. It won't be looked at again by a reviewer unless it's in the queue. LaMona (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! Strangely because I've been editing here so long and usually just directly submit articles I haven't had a lot of experience with the articles for submission system WhisperToMe (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your recommendation for deletion of the Article about me: Gary Lefkowith. The original Article was written by Casey Skinner about 5 years ago. He was a Recording engineer who freelanced at my Studio & used the hifiadd username. I was not aware of that when the Article was written. I had no part in writing the original Article. Sam DeRose did updates when there were issues about content & presentation of material. I have done minor edits on occasion, for clarification, but I was not aware that was outside of protocol. It's difficult not to take this personally, when this whole deletion process challenges my integrity & lifelong career. Out of the blue, a Editor looks at this page & in my mind goes on a Witch Hunt - though I'm sure he dosen't view it in that way. Still there's an arrogance & yes, cruelty; to blindly go after someone like me, who has a proud career. I certainly can't know for sure that there is malicious intent or even claim that. But it comes off that way. In just the same way that you allude to the fact that there are questions about the true existence of TEEC. It's just so far from the truth. TEEC exists - a phone call or "real investigation" would substantiate that & all the Truths that you have questions about. TEEC is a company owned by Chubby Checker & distributed by RED, which is a part of Sony Music. My name is on the Contract. The Records I have co-written & co-produced are listed in Billboard & on Mediabase. TEEC / RED is a known entity in the Music Business despite your approach to research. I respect your intellectual background & desire for credibility, but have a problem comprehending the Procrustean Bed logic you & the other Editor present. There are pictures with me & Chubby Checker all over the Internet & my work with him & other Famous Artists is very well documented. If you limit a focus to one way of thinking any event or story can be called into question. This is obviously important to me because it calls into question my life's work. I'm at a huge disadvantage because I am totally exposed, without a way to appropriately defend myself, in a forum that I am unaccustomed to & properly understand. This Wiki world is your language & procedure. I hope you will research me further & not limit yourself to the guidelines that are convenient for your standard methodology. Your misgivings about my Career & yes Honesty, are the core of the issue for me. There is nothing that is untrue in the Article. In fact, on some levels it is understated. Best, Gary Hifiadd (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: 1) it is a violation of WP

wp:AGF - "assume good faith." You haven't done that. LaMona (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The problem with e-mails & the written word is that tone cannot be properly conveyed. I am not angry at you or the editor who started this process, even as the 2 of you converse about me in a negative way. And after he started a process that seems like a chance whim, to further the credibility of his stature. I freely admit that I do not know Wiki protocol. I did not write the Article 5 years ago. So how can I be "outed" for telling the truth. I was thrilled, humbled & proud when the Article went up & surprised that it happened. Subsequently I wanted to ensure it was up to date & Sam DeRose made changes. Casey Skinner obviously used the hifiadd. If I need to get another username, I will do that, but before this deletion process, I can't remember the last time I logged on & never knew he used it. I have freely admitted that I am not tech savoy & would go as far as to say that I am naive of Wiki protocol. I am sorry you & the other Editor would categorize my response as "hassling" you, when in fact out of the blue my career & integrity are in question. I'm expected to be what is essentially a good sport, while you & he network to erase my life's work in the music business, on Wiki. "Everyone" associates me with Chubby Checker. Try making a phone call to Billboard. The end of Charlie Gracie's recent Biography talks about what Charlie & I did to give him his first Air Play in 50 years, with a record I co-wrote & co-produced. I'm sorry if my responses don't fit the image of what you & the other editor see as proper Wiki etiquette, but both of you are making an attack on my career, integrity, & legacy - which is far from complete. And now it's been escalated, which is unfortunate. I wish neither of you IL-will, but understand that deleting this article amounts to the vandalism you & he are so adamantly against. I truly hope this is an opportunity for reflection. I don't know you or him but your actions & words are cruel & hidden behind cover & with rules I am not well versed in. You & He know everything about me, name, #, etc. If someone you didn't know, arbitrarily attacked & challenged you in the way that has been done to me, the last few days, I'm pretty sure you'd be sensitive to it or maybe even more. I hope the both of you would please do some soul searching. If the article is deleted, I will not be harmed in a meaningful way - in the way that you & he will be. That is meant in a karmic sense & in no way threatening from me. Might be my Karma too. Even though this appears arbitrary from my perspective, who's to know? I can't know for any certainty. For your actions I feel very sorry & that's definitely not said with anger or hope of reprisal or with the intent to hassle. Again, reflection on both your parts. In simple language this situation he initiated is pretty uncool to me, but, I wish both of you the very best, The last sentence is the most important - I wish you both the Best in every way, Gary Hifiadd (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona there are a few things that are starting to concern me and I think we need to limit our conversations to the articles AFD page. This will ensure that both of us and the subject are protected regarding civility. It does seem very strange to me however that as Mr. Lefkowith continues to insist that he didn't know about the editing of this article and how he never goes onto the page and yet it took less than a few hours before a message was left on my talk page. It is also strange to me that with all of the claims to the article no one has touched the article for over a year. The last entry being that of July 2015. I understand that Mr. Lefkowith is looking at this as a personal attack of which you and I both know it isn't. I have read your response to him and I hope you will read mine as well. We have continually assured him that we are not in any way devaluating his contributions but instead informing him that there are no third party sources which are required. I do not see this as an issue that either of us should continue to engage in. The AFD discussion is taking place and lets allow the other editors to review and make their recommendations. I hope you are having a wonderful evening.--Canyouhearmenow 02:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the review of this article on June 15. I have edited and ensured there are many citations in this article that are independent sources and several from scholarly resources as well. After another rejection from a re-review I am looking for advice on how to make additional edits in order to be included. Thanks in advance. DataCurator (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

conflict of interest by Wikipedia's definition. Please read that carefully. Continued promotional editing can lead to an account being blocked, and promotional articles in the main Wikipedia space are deleted as soon as detected. LaMona (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@LaMona:: Please can you relate your rejection of this article to the criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation? I can see that they allow for the exclusion of blatant advertising (my emphasis), but I don't see how that applies here; and they certainly don't require the removal of "every hint of promotion" - that's something to be dealt with in post-publication cleanup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, one of the rejection criteria is precisely "Reads like an advertisement". And this article has been rejected twice with that reason. LaMona (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that I have done some editing to remove promotional language, so this is not the same article that I declined. See [1]. (It's a good idea to look at the history to see what the reviewer saw.) I think it is probably ok now. LaMona (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was referring to the article as it was at the time of your review, not now. But I cannot find the words "Reads like an advertisement" on the guidance page for reviewers (even searching the page source). Please can you be specific about where that occurs? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is one of the options in AFCH. Somewhere there are stats about which ones are used, but I can't find that right now. Are you finished doubting me? Really, this is all pretty standard AFC and I don't feel I have to justify myself to you. If you have questions about AFC or AFCH you should take those to the noticeboard. LaMona (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona - I very much appreciate your continued attention to this article. I reviewed all your edits and now can see where I went wrong. I look forward to your input re: when this might be ready for re-review. DataCurator (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No reason not to submit it for review now. If it is accepted, you can always add in any new or missing facts at any time. Articles are never "done", just resting ;-). LaMona (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LaMona,

Thanks for reviewing my article on 15th June - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Armaggeddon_(Singaporean_Company) I have made some edits as you said, removed product listings and reviewed the tone of the article to make it less promotional.

Based on what you side, would it be possible for me to create a separate page to list products? Of course it will be backed up by third party sources. I also appreciate if you could review my article and suggest improvements before I submit it for approval.

Regards, thewongthoughts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewongthoughts (talk • contribs) 07:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

company notability. Some of the game events you link to do not mention the company, so those cannot be used as references because they do not verify the fact that the company sponsored the game. Also, there does not appear to be a WP article for the parent company, and that would normally be the place to start. The subsidiary can then be named in the article for the parent company. It doesn't look currently that you have enough content for a stand-alone article on the peripherals company. LaMona (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi LaMona. Firstly, I'm still rather new to Wikipedia so I'm not familiar with conduct on talk pages. Please allow me to apologise for that.

Secondly, with regards to product lists. I went to look around at some pages of other gaming peripheral manufacturers and noticed that companies such as

Corsair Components

have product lists. Corsair's product lists have no third party sources, and the listed references are either cited from the same source or from the company's website itself. I think that it's a little inconsistent that my articles are being rejected on that basis.

Thirdly, the game events that I linked are being reported by third party sources. I do not understand how that is not considered verified that the company sponsored, or were one of the many sponsors for the events.

Thewongthoughts (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corsair Components is a good one, while Razer Inc. has verged on advertising (and I can see that others have remarked that in the edit history). Corsair lists the kinds of products, but not each individual product. If you look at an article like Maytag, they don't list every model of washing machine they ever made. Listing models, especially for current products, smacks of advertising. Talking about the kinds of products the company is known for, with references, is neutral information. As for the game events, one of them didn't mention Armaggedon, and that's what I remarked on. Yes, those would confirm that the company sponsored the events, but you still need to have multiple published articles that are substantially about the company itself, not its name as sponsor on an event. So there are two things: 1) you need references to back up all of your facts and 2) you need references that show that the company is notable. You have to have both. LaMona (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Corsair Components page, I still do not see how that page passed the notability test. The references used for that page are either from the same exact source, or cited from the company's webpage itself. I do not see how it can be considered notable when I have multiple references that attribute Armaggeddon directly. Thewongthoughts (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Thewongthoughts - not all articles go through review. Many are created directly in main space, and only get reviewed when someone chances upon them. This, obviously, is an imperfect system, and it means that there are indeed many articles in mainspace that do not meet the criteria. I will now mark that page as needing review relating to its sources. However, that doesn't guarantee that such a review will actually happen, since we're all volunteers here. Articles that do not have appropriate sources can be deleted, and many are each day. The goal of this review is to make sure that the article does not end up in the deletion pool. LaMona (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A quick note to acknowledge your review and feedback. When I get a moment I'll address the issues you identified and maybe you wouldn't mind commenting again before re-submission. Many thanks. Believeingood (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Cmnagel (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Wellborn Forest Products, Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am trying unsuccessfully on the chat page to ask about how I can adjust my article so as not to read/sound like a brochure. The revision is currently awaiting review. I have added relevant links to my article and adjusted the language to be neutral and factual. Can you make any other suggestions to help me ensure my page may be approved? cmnagel, wellborn forest products. Thank you. Cmnagel (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

WP:CORP for the criteria for notability for companies. Note that the opening paragraph states: "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." And also, there is a requirement for broad media coverage: "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local (as in - with a circulation limited to a single city or metropolitan area) media, or media of limited interest and circulation (such as trade journals), is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." LaMona (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Cmnagel (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Wellborn Forest Products, Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Many thanks LaMona for the further clarification. Cmnagel (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• D3vilishan9el (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ian James Lee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

User:D3vilishan9el - Hi. First, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. I looked at those articles you mentioned and both are marked as not meeting WP's criteria (those are the boxes at the top). Eventually such articles are either improved or deleted. What you don't want is to have YOUR article deleted, so we should make sure that it meets the criteria before moving into the main wiki space. This is both good for you and it saves the time of the many volunteers who do cleanup. LaMona (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a message for DeyoGlines. The article is looking much better now, but you have some references that you need to remove - you can't use Wikipedia as a reference. Instead, you surround the text that is the same as the Wikipedia article with two square brackets, like:

[[Alexander Chorin]]

That displays as a link:

[[Alexander Chorin|Alexander Joel Chorin]] displays as

Alexander Joel Chorin

.

You also cannot use Twitter, Facebook or other social media as references, nor the subject's website, nor the website for any of the books. None of these would be considered

   Thank you LaMona, this is the kind of feedback I'm looking for. I will contact the other reviewer as well but I'll start with your suggestions. DeyoGlines (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article also exists at Selina Sharma. I don't know what AfC process is in such cases. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 02:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! I had a feeling I had seen it before, but couldn't remember where. I'll mark it as a duplicate and let the editor know. Thanks, LaMona (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Toad's Tours (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Schultz Cairn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

hi There, I was a little disappointed that my article was rejected but that fine. personally I find the editing tools a tad odd but will get used to them. I can link some of the text to references but will struggle as this location is quite unique and has little written about it. or if it is written about i have not yet been able to track it down. when i compare my article with existing article on Wikipedia yes some lines are referenced but not all. often help is asked for and that is what I would also request.

I will go in and link the references I have to the text after that i will need help.

Toad's Tours (talk) 08:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Toad's Tours, to get help, you should go to the Teahouse. But I note that your username may imply that you are representing a company. Usernames that are company names are not allowed, as they may appear to be promotional. Also, each username must be used only by a single person, they cannot be shared. You can find out how to change your username to one that does not violate the policy by going to WP:Username policy. LaMona (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 162.254.216.90 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Bela Bognar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

If you are seeking help with the article you should ask at the Teahouse. But I need to mention that as the son of the subject of the article you have an unmistakeable WP:Conflict of interest. Please read the COI page carefully. The main thing is that you must declare your COI on the talk page of the article so that others are aware of it. This is necessary for collaboration, as anyone can edit any article on Wikipedia. Also, remember to log in before posting so that your username is visible. LaMona (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• NiravAsif (talk · contribs)
  • talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

NiravAsif (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:NiravAsif, you didn't ask a question. Try again? LaMona (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Aditya1Jayaram (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:CSS Corp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi , I've created the Page CSS Corp and dont please assist me with following the rules of engagement on Wikipedia. I've made multiple changes as per your recommendations yet have not been able to submit the page .

Do have a look at my latest submission and advice accordingly .

THanks Aditya1Jayaram (talk) 06:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya1Jayaram - you have tried to re-submit? You should see the "submit" button on the draft page. If you do not, let me know and I can submit it for you. LaMona (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've saved after editing as suggested . can you please resubmit the page for me . thank you for all your advice and assistance LaMona

Regards, Aditya Aditya1Jayaram (talk) 06:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC) Aditya1Jayaram (talk) 06:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

e-mail to Stephen at Wiki: Stephen, I see that the Article: Gary Lefkowith has been deleted. I really hope you & I can communicate again, because I think there is a broader issue at stake & I hope you'll allow me a dialogue. I understand that you may have cold feet because of the negative vibe that developed. But in my business, I accept whatever goes down, the best I can. Chances are I will be back in Wikipedia; because my career is far from over & I feel the best is yet to come. However, the important issue is the wrong conclusions that were drawn & the flawed logic that arrived at those conclusions; along with the 2 Editors procrustean methodology. In my opinion, The few Editors that made this decision really need to be monitored themselves & have their egos, motives, & expertise questioned. My background & character are well documented & I don't hide under an assumed username. I'd appreciate communication with you, but no matter what, Thank you for your initial response. All the Best, Gary Hifiadd (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Tubeyak (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Machinio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I visited livechat and requested additional feedback for improving the article. I spoke with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DragonflySixtyseven and incorporated his feedback such as additional notable references (internetretailer.com). I resubmitted again and shared with Dragonfly who found no flaws in the resubmission.

Hi, User:Tubeyak, and thanks for following procedure and doing the right thing. I'll let other reviewers do the next review, LaMona (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Laura bachrach (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Victoria Brynner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

Laura bachrach (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Laura bachrach - Hi. I took a quick look at it. Unfortunately, at least some references do not back up the text. The reference about the Gorbachev ad does not mention Brynner, so it cannot verify that fact. You also will have to have references for the CR Fashion Book statement, and the one about J Depp. LaMona (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona - Thank you for your quick feedback. I just addressed the three references per your note. Hope it these are ok. Laura

Laura bachrach (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• PascaldeLacaze (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Graebert (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear LaMona I have added a multitude of relevant publications and news publications in reference to Mike Baggz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.140.41.6 (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LaMona, thanks for your review and good tipps. I edited and shortened the article and deleted some of the OEM partners. Note that Graebert's notability is given by the fact that Graebert pioneered several CAD technologies (see also awards).

We are resubmitting the article now.

Kindly, PascaldeLacaze

• NiravAsif (talk · contribs)
  • talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

Hello,

conflict of interest. In general, we discourage people from writing about their own employer/organization or self because an encyclopedia must present a neutral, balanced view of topics, and those people who are directly involved, even when they intend to be neutral, often are not. You need to declare your interest on the talk page of the article, and you need to know that although you can continue to edit the draft, you would be in violation of policy if you edited this article when it is in the main wiki space. Interested editors are asked to discuss edits on the talk page but not make direct edits to articles. I'll put some additional information on your own talk page. LaMona (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Etherbug (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Astral Swans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks LaMona, I appreciate your taking the time with this.

I'm glad this got kicked back for notability, as I was using it as a bit of a test case. This is for a school project, and I was told that Wikipedia had strict guidelines over "notability", so I chose the largest local act I could think of who does not have a Wikipedia page.

This artist is someone who is signed to and distributed by a Major Label (Arts & Crafts Productions), who's included references include a full page spread in the Globe and Mail (Canada's national newspaper, who's daily readership is nearly one-tenth the population of the country), full page articles in newspapers and weeklies from Halifax to Vancouver and who's latest tour had him playing (as the opener, mind you) in 2,000 seat capacity theatres.

So I have a couple questions before revising this, or picking someone else to make an entry for:

1) What sort of criteria, beyond the above would count as being "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" — is the criteria that the publications in question must be from the U.S.A.? It's hard for me to imagine a more non-trivial source than a full-page spread in the Globe and Mail.

2) Is there an example of someone more notable that you can think of that I could create a wikipedia entry for (hopefully, someone local to my province of Alberta, as that is the requirement of my on-line course)? I'm sure there must be some larger act, but I cannot personally think of them.

Thanks, again I really appreciate your time answering these questions; much appreciated,

Etherbug.

User:Etherbug First, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. Next, it often isn't easy to judge articles in the music area because it is so varied. So, you say he recorded on "Arts & Crafts" but the articles say instead that he recorded on "Madic Records, the new label run by local hero Dan Mangan (with a little help from his friends at Arts & Crafts)." Another says: "Swann's partnership with Mangan's new label, Madic, which is in itself a partnership with Arts & Crafts..." So it appears from that article that Madic and Arts & Crafts are not the same label. The article for Arts & Crafts doesn't mention Madic, and Mangan is listed there as a performer. So the status of the Madic label is unclear. (It also isn't on the list of indie labels on WP, although that alone would not make it notable. See:list.) Another problem is name changes - the Globe & Mail doesn't mention "Astral" and seems to precede him using Astral. Should this article cover only Astral, or should it use his "real name" which would link to past work... and future work if he changes his name again. (He seems to do it a lot!) The criteria also recommend "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels ." He's released one, and it's a judgment call if Madic is to be considered an important indie label. The Globe and Mail article talks about a record release that isn't in the WP article, and he released it under a different name. You can see the confusion! My best bet would be to create an article under his real name (this one can be renamed to that), then have sections for his different personae: Extra Happy Ghost, Astral, etc. Then you can link the Globe and Mail to that earlier persona, the Calgary paper to the Astral persona, and you can list all of the recordings under all personae. However note that he is still an indie performer who appears not to have charted and records under indie labels. Once in main space it may or may not meet with approval. With indie musicians it's a bit of a crap shoot. Meanwhile, you did nothing wrong - the article is fine, it's just hard to work in this particular subject area. LaMona (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page guidelines, I think I'm doing it correctly (as an edit), but let me know if there's any protocol (such as signing with the tildas) that I'm still missing. Much appreciated!. Etherbug (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Etherbug - you did this right! There are the tilde's and also the indents (using ":"). That's about it for basics. LaMona (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is considered significant impact to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbutchko17 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. Next, the policies for companies and produces (at

WP:CORP) say: "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." It also excludes: "simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued" You will need more than announcements that a new product is on the market. This usually takes a fair amount of time. LaMona (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Why did you deleted Daniel Hasidim page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Hasidim)?

Their is no problem with copyright issue with the page of the zionist billionaire forum [8].

Both pages were writen by the same man.

I added the page as a source.

What is the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel12121 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, I didn't delete it, but I did mark it as being a copyright violation. Someone else will have deleted it. There are strict rules on WP about copyright. It doesn't matter if they were written by the same person - no copyrighted material can be included in Wikipedia. The page on Daniel Hasidim reads: "© 2016 Zionist Billionaires Forum " - that means that legally it is copyrighted by the forum. If, instead, the notice read "CC-0" or "CC-BY" then it could be used. You can reword in the information in your own words, and then it can be used.

Now, another thing, if "both pages were written by the same man" are you saying that

wp:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Please read these carefully. You must declare your conflict of interest and show that you will abide by the policies in place. That includes agreeing not to make direct edits to the article although you can create it as a draft article (without the copyrighted material). Persons with a conflict of interest may not edit the articles for which they have a conflict in the main wiki space. You can, however request changes to the article on the talk page, and others who are not in conflict may make those changes. LaMona (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]