User talk:Onel5969/Archive 27

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 27: February 2016

Dear Onel5969

You have rejected this article on

Hi. You've already resubmitted it, so we'll let another editor take a shot at it, okay? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Onel5969, I agree with

t@lk to M£

05:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Onel5969 and Wikic¤l¤gy for your concern and input. Will see what can be done to improve it. Isla Haddow (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I've improved the article and it's pretty better now. I will move it to the mainspace soon.

t@lk to M£

08:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wikicology - No, I have no issues with that. Thanks for helping Islahaddow out. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You guys are amazing!! Thanks Onel5969 and Wikic¤l¤gy !!Isla Haddow (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• 120.149.122.208 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Michael Nicholson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can my submission be reviewed please?

Hi - It was reviewed and declined on 1/19. Still does not have enough valid references to show it meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

My username is DRCRichardson (real name Erin ... hi!) and I am sending this in regards to a draft I submitted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Charles_Richardson) on behalf of Dr. Charles Richardson. Thank you so much for reviewing the article and I do appreciate your feedback as this is my first time writing an article for Wikipedia. I wanted to touch base with you for your thoughts as I plan to edit the draft and resubmit.

I agree that it reads more advertisement than encyclopedia. Are there specific sections you think I should fine tune? Right now I'm planning on cleaning up his companies as I think his inventions are the most interesting, but wanted to check with you as you have a different perspective.

I am working on updating sources and will include more news outlets and scientific studies of his inventions.

Any additional feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you! DRCRichardson (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Erin - Wikipedia uses categories for declines, and the advertising one was the closest. I think a more apt description would be that it reads like a CV, or a promotional brochure. I'll put up some links on the draft page which you can take a look at. On the whole, just state facts, not opinions, and use sources which are independent of the subject, and talk about the subject at depth. Right now, most of the sources are about the companies, not about him. Also, YouTube is not a reliable source, so you should lose those. The Charlotte Business cites are nice to verify the facts, but they don't help his notability, since they are more about the companies. If those articles were about him, they would be good. Also, he'll need at least one in-depth article from a non-local source (outside the Carolinas). Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Pbergstrom (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Theron Wasson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

Is this the sort of reference that you are seeking, from the Chicago Tribune archives? It was the only article I found there about him. http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1937/10/10/page/41/article/illinois-new-oil-field-shows-large-growth

Thanks Peter Pbergstrom (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pbergstrom - That's a nice article to verify a fact in the article, and slightly helps his notability. To show notability you need at least 3 in-depth articles from independent sources. If that article was all about Wasson, rather than about what he's announcing, that would go to notability, but the brevity of it would make you need 4-5 like that. I hope that gives you enough direction. I'm into mining myself, so I found the article interesting, and will be more than willing to help you get it into shape. Let me know when you're ready to work on it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Metalhorn1 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sean Young (psychologist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

I plan to add additional references to the Sean Young (psychologist) entry before resubmitting, but please note: I have cited an opinion-editorial from the New York Times; Dr. Young is the executive director of two research centers at the most applied to university in the United States; and he won a "Research Catalyst" award for innovative work. I believe these more than qualify him as a "notable person." I will also add sources independent of UCLA, but again, this is the initial entry and it is comparable to people such as Mary Jane Rotheram-Borus or James H. Fowler as well as many other behavioral scientists with lesser credentials who are included in Wikipedia.

If you have advice on why this may be the wrong assumption, I welcome your advice. Many thanks.

Metalhorn1 (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi

WP:SCHOLAR

. His citation counts on Google Scholar indicate he's nothing to sneeze at, although from Wiki standards, he's borderline. But once you work on the article, I'll ask a couple of other editors who really focus on scholar articles to assess it.

The other problem you have, is that it reads like a CV, rather than an encyclopedia article. Read

Wikipedia:Your first article which will help you. Hope this helps.Onel5969 ^{TT me}

01:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Nena Valnz (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Brian D. Lerner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Good morning. You have just reviewed my article on Brian Lerner. It was denied publication again. I see two distinct reasons (I think). One is showing more notability. The other seems to state I need to cite better or more clearly. I added more regarding notability but have not changed the its references. Thus, I am a little unclear if the article now has sufficient facts showing notability, but is not properly using references or cites. Can you please give me some guidance as to whether I need to both show more notability and work on the references, or if I just have to work on the reference?

Thank you for your help.

Nena Valnz (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Nena

Nena Valnz (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nena Valnz - on Wikipedia, there's a difference between accomplished and notable. Lerner is certainly accomplished, but nothing in the article points to his notability. The closest thing is the Grava decision, but you'd need in-depth coverage of that decision showing that he was the single person responsible for the outcome. Your sourcing is okay to verify the facts of the article, but to show notability, you need in-depth articles from independent, reliable sources (usually major newspapers or magazines). Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi there Onel5969!

I see that my article submission for Don Oriolo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Don_Oriolo) was declined...bummer.

I'd love to get this article up, but I'm unsure of exactly what I should fix. I know I used citations throughout most of the write-up, and other facts that I know to be true but can't find an immediate source I left as "citation needed." Should I remove the "citation needed" sections for now so that the article can go live, and then dig around for more sources?

Disclosure: I am a journalist and I wrote one of the articles used as a primary source for this page (the article appeared in the Milford Journal, which is Reference number 1).

Looking forward to your feedback. Thanks!

-Alex (aka TheFluffiestHead)

Hi

conflict of interest, so please read that link and take the appropriate steps. Second, to show notability, you'd need at least 3 in-depth articles from independent, reliable sources in order to show the subject's notability. Count your article as one (the fact you wrote it is a COI issue, not a notability one), now you need 2 others like it. In addition, you have a bunch of stuff in the article which needs independent sourcing. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

01:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, nice article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• 120.149.122.208 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Michael Nicholson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, this is my submission... Michael_Nicholson

My best friend, Professor James Simpson, Chair, Harvard University English department [he is the Head of the english department at the top university in the world] says ....>

I truly can’t see why Steve’s entry for me on WP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_Simpson) should have been accepted, and yours not, unless it’s to do with the nature of the links. Truth be told, I don’t think either of us really belong on WP, which is an encyclopaedia, designed to give people access to hard knowledge.

I have published over 6 books, had 'Rubbery Figures' the political puppets on Australian national tv for 8 years on the ABC and HSV 7 and l have recently produced to feature length documentaries on the Australian and New Zealand olympic rowers and scullers.

Can you please re-review my submission and get back to me.

Mike.

Hi Mike - Harvard? Meh. The man behind the curtain (read that "Ivy League schools") have been exposed of late as being highly over-rated. In fact, a state school out west actually outranked Harvard the past two years. You've made no changes to the article since I declined it. Still doesn't meet the notability criteria and referencing requirements. To show notability, you'd need at least 3 in-depth, lengthy articles about the subject from independent, reliable sources. Right now there are zero articles like that. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• DrRajKumarChabbewal (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Dr. Raj Kumar Chabbewal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I just wanted to create the biography page of Dr Rajkumar who is a well known politician of Congress Party.

Hi

in-line citations. Forth, you have some formatting and structural issues with the article. I've put some links on the draft which you might find useful. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

17:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• 162.245.166.5 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:St. Peter's Church (Slagelse) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Good day. This article has a corresponding very thorough article in the Danish Wikipedia. This Church is a major historic church in Slagelse Denmark, and is the home of the tomb of St. Anders. It is listed as a major Slagelse attraction in Frommers: http://www.frommers.com/destinations/slagelse/attractions/215905 and many more sources are given in the Danish Wikipedia version of the article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalhorn1 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 

Hi Metalhorn1 - Unfortunately, I don't speak Danish, so it's difficult for me to pull sources from that wiki. Do you have any others beside Fromer's? We need at least 3 from independent sources on English Wikipedia to show notability. If you can come up with the sources, I'm more than happy to put them in the article for you and move it to the mainspace, but right now, it doesn't meet our notability criteria. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

My apologies Metalhorn1 - as you can see, a wikibot said that the prior comment was from you, when in reality is was from Jellyjiggling Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I did some significant reworking of the

I included more than 10 references from sources such as CBS News, CNET, notable healthcare publishers/sites, etc. These sources cite, quote, or summarize Dr. Young's work in a wide range of contexts. I also included two external links to UC pages that list scores of news items about his work. I expect the entry's referencing would expand in coming years, given he is a "rising star" in the field of scholarly research about social media. Also, a minor quibble with your last reply: the article I cite in the New York Times was indeed by Dr. Young, but it is within the paper's Room for Debate section, which was solicited (and his piece is technically just one facet of a six-part article created by the Times' Editorial Board).

Finally, the entry still says "Review waiting" even though I did not resubmit. Hope that doesn't indicate a problem. Many thanks for all your work.

Metalhorn1 (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Metalhorn1 - Nice job, moved it to the mainspace. Congrats. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Fantastic. Many thanks! And sorry about my name getting slid under that other entry. Still learning my way around the interface. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:8401:5200:942C:DC84:D933:99DF (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Onel,

I refer to your request for 3 articles. I'm not an academic, or even attended a University. If you look at my website, www.mikenicholson.com you can click on 'Daughter to Bligh' and see the article written as a foreword by Professor James Simpson, Chair, English department, Harvard [the second top university in the world l now find out from you].

I have written over 4 books, l write all my own films and l'm an artist.

Why do l need to write 3 articles? [Not comparing myself to] Picasso is in Wiki and did he have to write 3 articles?

regards,

Mike

Mike9328 (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• MrSmooth31 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kyle Leighton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In my opinion, notability has been established. Every citation at least mentions him, and several go into quite a bit of detail about him such as interviews, etc. He received a national award in the electrical industry and an additional one from an accredited university in Michigan post college based on his career and published work. One specific study is also published on the University of California, Davis's California Lighting Technology's website. When combined with the articles about him, or the articles he's internationally published on the subject of efficient lighting, I believe this puts him in the notability camp. One Mlive article titled “"Jackson area business leaders applaud proposal that eliminates 'disincentive to invest'" and he’s one of the “leaders” cited; while in a completely different article, written by a completely different reporter, it headlines him and the fact that he, and his work, is at least academically/author notable. WP:CITEKILL may seem like it applies, but it’s because he’s been in a lot of articles. Perhaps the BIO links should be deleted? The issue here, per your comment, is of MLive, tED Magazine, The Parking Professional, Parking Today, Electrical News, or Yahoo Finance as “fringe” publications. These are national, and notable, electrical industry (except Yahoo Finance, although national, it's not specifically electrical, although his work has appeared there, too) relevant publications. In my opinion that is enough to push him over the GNG threshold. He’s not going to be mentioned in a Vogue magazine, or a Discovery Channel piece for a study on an electrodeless lamp. Should the notability of the publications he has been published in be elaborated on? Or at least lessen the citation use of the same ones more than once?

Further, I would also like to mention that in order to have shown notability for GNG, I have provided 8 in-depth articles specifically about the subject from independent, reliable sources. They are:

"tED Magazine Winner to Be Honored By University". tED Magazine. "2013 30 Under 35 Profile: Kyle Leighton". tED Magazine. “Name Expands Corporate Level Team”. tED Magazine. “Electrical Industry Young Professional To Be Honored by Michigan Based University”. Electrical News.

“New York City Based NAME Energy Group Expands Corporate Level Team”. Park News.

“Kyle Leighton receives alumni award from Siena Heights University”. MLive. “U.S. Energy Group Appoints New Leadership for Lighting and Energy Management Product Lines”. Power Metrics International. “Alumni Stars Mark the Start of Homecoming”. Siena Heights University.

Please be more specific as to what you are looking for so that the article can be re-submitted. Thank you for all of your help Onel5969!

MrSmooth31 (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi MrSmooth31 - First get rid of every citation which is by the subject. Second, if a reference only mentions him, delete it, unless it is to verify an underlying fact of the article (e.g. your cite #5). Third, get rid of all press releases. Fourth, Ted is an industry magazine, and is mostly a pr piece. Also, stuff like Siena are connected to the subject, therefore not independent. I hope this gives you enough direction to start out. Bottom line is that everywhere you have multiple cites, pick the best one, get rid of the rest. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Onel5969. I have removed all citations by the subject. I have also removed 21 references, including press releases, per your instructions. I have also added one new reference. Per my Google Alerts, an electrical industry organization copy and pasted one of the subject’s articles into their blog today. I will delete if it is a moot reference (#27). It is still my opinion that the independent, reliable sources that are listed in the article establish GNG of the subject. Regarding tED magazine, you are right. It is an industry magazine. However, it is also the publication of the National Association of Electrical Distributors (NAED), a notable trade association for the electrical distribution industry. I think the notability of that organization, and their interest and coverage of the subject (including his NAED national award), additionally satisfies GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Further, the third notable piece of the subject is the Siena Heights University award. Firstly, I do agree with you that the SHU articles are not independent of the subject as he graduated from that university. On the other hand, the subject possesses a communications degree from that university, and that university gave him a prestigious award based upon his communications career that was outside academia but in his academic capacity. That satisfies criterion #7 of WP:ACADEMIC evidenced by independent, reliable sources. I will re-submit and await your feedback. Thank you again.MrSmooth31 (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Onel5969. I have an additional comment from someone else on the page. By re-submitting, I did not intend for the article to go back into AFC, I was awaiting your instructions to improve the article as the subject meets GNG and WP:ANYBIO, and WP:ACADEMIC.MrSmooth31 (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

MrSmooth, I have made some comments reinforcing OneOnel5969's remarks on my user talk page here DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

MrSmooth - I agree with DGG's comments on his talk page. No editor owns an article, and no reviewer owns the review process. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I have responded for you both again in DGG's same area.MrSmooth31 (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Rehansiddiqiproducer (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Rehan Siddiqi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

hey what's going wrong? Approve my article and feel free to contribute and change it from the references etc. I don't much about wiki Thanks

WP:Tone, the article needs any further available in-depth third-party sources overall. SwisterTwister talk

21:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Sbettwy (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mary Bettwy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Would you please be more specific about what is needed? I have located several different newspapers and other reputable sources that confirm that she was an elected official, beginning in the 1930s when women's rights were just taking off, and that she was re-elected 5 times. Perhaps it is not a big deal today for a female to be elected to County Recorder, but it was notable in those days; plus the fact that she was Hispanic. I've added the notoriety of her husband because they were a political power couple in Arizona, and both are still talked and written about today.

Hi

WP:CIT on how to format citations. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

21:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt, helpful suggestions! I understand them, I agree with them, and I will follow them. SWB Sbettwy (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

re: James McNulty:[[1]]

General question: Besides the 3 citations needed what more would you need to see?

Thanks, Pat u/n: pajokie

Pajokie The article is interesting but still needs any further available in-depth sources overall. SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969! Thank you very much for approving my page, Ocean Speedway. This subject means a lot to me, so I appreciate being able to show off the work I put in on it. My question is how can I improve it further? It's classified in the "Start" category now and I would like to show off this page to the best of its abilities. I've tried my hardest to get enough reliable and third-party references, so I hope that isn't an issue with it. Also, obviously many, if not most, readers will not care to read about it in the first place, but I would like to improve it so it can't be put up for deletion on a basis of not being notable enough or something like that. I truly appreciate your input and thank you for reviewing my page.

Cheers, Sean Sstan19 (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi

WP:RS

, which explains about how to judge whether or not a source is reliable.

I wouldn't worry about it being nominated for deletion, I think the article clearly passes that bar, but it never hurts to keep improving an article. Just remember to use sources. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Onel5969, Thank you for the help and clarification! Sstan19 (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• 120.149.122.208 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Michael Nicholson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2] – that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike9328 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Mike,, this has to be shown by sources providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. The article currently has only his own web page, and a mention. You'll need better than that, or it will be deleted when it is moved into mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi One1, just to follow up with you, if you look at my website, www.mikenicholson.com you'll see everything is there. Why isn't that enough? Please reply! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike9328 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk

02:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I need the draft which i have not edited since last ix months. it has been delete by you. kindly uplad it again i will edit it as earlier as possible. than you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samraj93 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Samraj93 See WP:Refund/G13. SwisterTwister talk 02:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

User_talk:MBisanz#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FOpiate_for_the_Masses. Thanks! MBisanz ^talk 12:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi MBisanz - The AfD I took part in was about the band, OftM, which, imho, was clearly not notable enough for an article. I didn't take a look at the Ron Underwood article. The sources the editor left on your talk page are generic tour announcements, so wouldn't go to notability (although they could be used to verify those tour dates). Doing a quick search on News, Underwood is one of those borderline notability cases. My advice to the editor would be to get some good sources, and create an article using the AfC process, that way, some editors can take a look at it and decide on its notability prior to moving it to the mainspace. Take it easy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! MBisanz ^talk 23:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969,

I'm new at submitting articles for Wikipedia, so I would greatly appreciate your insight.

I submitted the article -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Merrill_Corporation -- which was declined based on my initial submission.

One of the reviewers said I should not include sources/citations from LinkedIn. Are there other sources, besides LinkedIn, that are discouraged? In writing the article I tried to avoid the company's website and other company sources and focus on third-party sources.

For the article, I used https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IntraLinks and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VITAC as models for building the article about Merrill Corporation.

My article was deemed as "reads too much like an advertisement". Could you share some thoughts about how I should edit the article so it's not deemed advertising. What I mean by this, is: Should I eliminate the entire section about Products, or is it more about eliminating adjectives such as "leading," which may lack a third-party source to back up that claim?

I also wanted to ask if it's helpful to link to other Wikipedia pages? For example, Merrill offers virtual data rooms as part of their business and I see that there is a Wikipedia page on Virtual Data Room (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_data_room)?

I would appreciate any encouragement that you can offer.

Thanks,

StephenDupont55403 — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenDupont55403 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi

WP:RS

to see how reliable sources are determined. Basically, if a site doesn't have editorial oversight, it's unreliable. That would include any social networking site, like LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. Blogs should also be avoided, especially if you're just starting to edit. There are some at very reliable sources like the Washington Post, which are reliable, but it can be tricky to figure out which, so it's best to avoid them at the beginning. Also, press releases are totally unreliable, so avoid them. About the only thing they are good for is to verify something like, "On February 1, 2016, Company A announced it had purchased all the outstanding shares of Company X...".

It's not a bad impulse to look at other articles to give you insight on how to edit a new article, however, if an article has a tag at the top, which both of your examples do, it's not a good idea to use them as an example, since editors feel there are issues with both of those. I'm going to put some links on your draft, which will be helpful for you to read. Particularly the

On how to properly format your citations

. Those should help you decide on what to include and not include, as well as how to improve the format/structure of your article, and how to properly format citations. Regarding promotion: yes, listing products can be problematical, especially when done in a way which highlights those products, which your article does. Also, be wary of phrases like "the company refocused its business to become a leader in ...", "Under CEO Rusty Wiley’s leadership...", "leverages technology and expertise to help its clients ". Those are all marketing statements, designed to sell the company to a prospective client. Articles tell us about the subject, ads sell us the product.

Yes, it is very helpful to link to other wikipedia articles you do that by placing [[ brackets around the article name ]] , like Saint Paul, Minnesota.

Finally, don't be afraid to ask questions. The more specific they are, the better, so an editor can address it. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Onel,

Walter Couvreur was my great uncle and he already has his Dutch wikipedia page. My uncle asked me to translate the article in English, which I did.. Why was it accepted in Dutch and refused in English?

There is a very reliable source I mentined: de volksunie website. Also, his name is in history books of Belgium.. but I do not have the names..

Thanks for yout consideration,

Gregory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.68.217.39 (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gregory. Different Wikis have different criteria for notability. English Wikipedia probably has the highest standards. On English wiki, the guiding principles can be read at

WP:ACADEMIC. What we need are sources, your draft currently has zero. The three references are to other wikis, which do not count. I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

00:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating at talk ) 02:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Monkey Shiva

Re: article for submission - The Nomadic Oracle - 27th Sept 2015

I have a problem. One that won't go away no matter how I approach it. It's out of my hands, so to speak.

We live in changing times and the rate of change is super-fast. How is it possible that new voices (such as mine), with new ideas (such as The Nomadic Oracle) can overcome a cultural closed shop? It doesn't matter whether I'm speaking of Wikipedia (which I love and hugely respect) or Google's pagerank system, or your federal government (no matter where you live).

If the work I'm peddling had been written by a notable monster (say George Bush, why not?), there'd be no problem with notability. If the work had been published by a notable publisher (which it couldn't have been, I wouldn't have been able to release editorial control) there'd have been no problem.

In this new era, we MUST respect independent and interdependent, individual creativity without question. ONLY by raising consciousness will any of our grand-children love us. We must protect the future. But in the ever-present game of celebrity status and commercial interests, those in control will never concur.

I believe the present Wikipedia notability policy is over-restrictive. It's not democratic, which is a shame since Wikipedia is, in many respects, a great pro-democracy tool through the free distribution of knowledge. Aims totally supported by the book in question.

Not all of us work to the beats of personal engrandisement or even profit. There are other motivations far more pressing. The work in question is one of love and concern for the state of this world. It sees its subject in a totally new way. It has brought healing and is greatly loved by those very few individuals who have touched base with it. But in this hard, rational positivist world, such thoughts are meaningless. It has taken the best part of a decade to complete.

I don't expect there to be any change of policy.Monkey shiva (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks for all your G13 work S Philbrick(Talk) 14:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi OneI,

How do I add WP:ACADEMIC tag? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Azad_Najafov

There are several molecular biology articles and psychology-related articles in the references. Some of those journals do not have websites because they were hard copy journals in the 90s and have since closed. But the articles published in other online places by other people are citing articles by Azad Najafov (e.g. 3rd reference)

Also, there is a book published on nakconsulting.com

Also, Azad Najafov was not associated with http://shkolazhizni.ru or http://webinary.com.ua or http://edric.ru. He just published his articles there.

Why is this not enough to show that this person was a notable academic in two fields (molecular biology and psychology)?

Best, Ayaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.61.54 (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The issue is I look Azad up on Google Scholar, and there is not a single thing about him. No hits, no citations, nothing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

Hi Onel5969, many thanks for your reply to my draft. In that draft I have provided at least one open reliable source. I do not understand exactly why the reason for rejection was lack of reliable sources.

Also it is mentioned that the style is not adequate. Does it mean I should shorten and make the text more consize to what: her work, her contribution, her life?

Many thanks in advance for your reply Vkguf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkguf (talk • contribs) 13:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi

WP:CIT. Hope this helps, and good luck. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

17:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I received your ambiguous note regarding the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Kimberly_McDonald&redirect=no

Other than a generic explanation about the piece being "like an advertisement" there is no specific reason given for the rejection.

The article consists of declaratory, FACTUAL statements, all of which are sourced (many to other Wikipedia pages) to neutral, credible news sources - The Los Angeles Times, ABC News, The Chicago Tribune, The Robb Report, and People Magazine, among others.

Perhaps it is Wikipedia's practice to reject a first draft. In any event, I am resubmitting it with one minor change (the deletion of the subject's website as a source). Beyond that, I can see no valid reason not to approve this article submission. As for the suggestion that I consult "experienced editors" at Wikipedia, I have been writing and editing for both consumer and trade news publications for over two decades. I have an M.A in English and Writing from Fordham University and, like you, I am a native New Yorker.

Please take care in reviewing the copy again, and if there are indeed any issues, let me know specifically what they may be. Beyond that, the article I submitted bears no more resemblance to an advertisement than similar Wikipedia pages of American jewelers which you can peruse for yourself - i.e., Lorraine Schwartz, Harry Winston, et al., - and consequently there is no legitimate cause to reject it.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Christopher Kennedy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fordhamlit (talk • contribs) 17:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fordhamlit - It's only Wikipedia's policy to reject articles which either don't meet Wikipedia's standards, or don't fulfill Wikipedia's guidelines, such as your draft. But really don't feel like arguing. If you had asked for assistance, that would have been one thing, but seeing that you know so much, good luck with your draft. I certainly won't look at it again. And please, don't contact me again, I have no wish to deal with unpleasant people. Any further communication with you will be automatically deleted without reading. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Any chance you can move it to Georgios Papachatzis. It seems more things come up about him when using "ch" instead "h" although I believe it is not the right way to write a greek name with latin characters (widely used though).

Initially I included this and some other alternatives like Giorgos or George etc. Unfortunately Greek databases in www are quite a mess since they do not follow a certain naming convention.

Thanks --DataDispenser (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi DataDispenser - Done. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969,

How are you today? I trust you're fine. Will you like to participate in

Hi Wikicology - I'll try to help. Wrote my first (although stub) article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for creating

t@lk to M£

13:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969,

Thank you for the review and feedback. I made the necessary edits and also added as few more supporting sources. I've resubmitted the article and would be grateful if you could take another look. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Avetik_Chalabyan

Thanks in advance, Alice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice Ananian (talk • contribs) 11:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Alice Ananian - I see you resubmitted, and it's been declined again. The issue is that the individual doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• ROS21662 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Harry Broadman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you very much for your feedback, Onel5969. To be honest, after reviewing several other entries very similar to this one--and they have no in-line citations--I really do not understand exactly which sentences in this entry you believe require in-line citations. The seven citations under "External Links" are the sources for the entry. I would be most grateful if you would pin-point exactly where in-line citations are needed for the entry to be approved. Grate for you help.

Hi

WP:ILC about how to use inline citations. A few of those links appear to be press releases, so I'd lose those, as they are not reliable sources (PRN Newswire, Businesswire, etc). Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

04:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• 192.195.83.138 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jim Heising (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for your consideration of the Draft at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jim_Heising.

Would the fact that the article was written about someone who was a primary (and verifiable) contributor to a number of other approved Wikipedia articles make the person notable?

For example, his name is referenced as a co-founder of Click Commerce, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_Commerce. He is also the joint copyright owner of freeboard and dweet.io as mentioned in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bug_Labs (source: see the bottom of the page at https://github.com/Freeboard/freeboard and https://github.com/buglabs/dweetio-client.

192.195.83.138 Still not enough in-depth third-party sources overall. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi OneI,

I understand your concern, but Google Scholar does not cover journals that have closed (do not exist anymore) and never been online or digitized. However, luckily there is an article that cites Azad's articles (PDFs in the "References" section).

Also, there are articles that Azad published online on various websites (See "External links" and "References" sections). These websites are independent psychology-related portals and articles get reviews. They are not affiliated with Azad. His only website is nakconsulting.com and there he published some of his articles and also his book.

Best, Ayaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayaz.najafov (talk • contribs) 23:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Ayaz.najafov Still not enough in-depth third-party sources overall. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hola! I (Fauxtoez) was working on an entry for abradable powder coatings and you requested a few changes. Pretty sure this version is quite sourced and ready to be approved; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Abradable_Powder_Coatings . Please take a look when you have a moment :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fauxtoez (talk • contribs) 03:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Fauxtoez I would be willing to accept it but still add any further available information and sources overall. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Marcjc (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:David King (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I am trying to figure out why my article continues to be declined. I am viewing other wiki pages for television writer/producers that have only imdb pages as references. I am providing five references to notable publications (not including imdb), and my submission continues to be rejected. Please advise.

WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk

06:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Si_Ri_Panya_School&redirect=no

Hi Onel,

You reviewed the page Si Ri Panya School Koh Phangan (it is a primary and secondary key stage 1 to 3) yesterday and found that it is not notable.

Thank you for your feedback and I have since made a few changes to the references.

reference 3 and 4 are sourced from real estate businesses, they are both unrelated to the school and independent and they are not merely repeating information provided by the school's administration. They are discussing the changes taking place on the island and the growing population and mention the school as evidence of this -saying...

reference 2 = "More and more western foreigners (farangs) - including young couples and families - are moving to Koh Phangan for a few years. The trend is clearly illustrated by the number of foreign students that increases every year at Si Ri Panya School"

reference 3 = Whereas once there were only a small number of children being schooled in Koh Phangan, there is a growing community of international families resident on the island. Si Panya school is an international school for children from ages 5-13. The school is soon moving to a purpose built school which is on bigger premises to accommodate the quickly expanding student numbers. For the first year ever, Si Panya will be offering a year 7 class (the equivalent of secondary school in the UK).

Reference 5 and 9 are from our local "newspapers" both are independent and reliable there editors value fact-checking and accuracy and are not in any way related to the school

reference 5 is from 'Koh Phangan Island News' is an independent local news site that again speak about the big difference having an international school will make to life on the island and the current state of education here.

reference 9 = from "Koh Phangan Information" again an independent local news site that is actually rather negative about the school, it is a lengthy comprehensive article that talks about education and literacy rates in Thailand as a whole and the education choices on the island, and how up until now many wealthy Thais have chosen to send their children off the island to be educated, and how the availability of the international school has made a notable difference to the islanders way of life.

There are now 10 references, some more notable than others ;) but I am hoping this article may now be allowed. 10 independent sources may not sound like a lot but for a small island of 125km/sq in the middle of nowhere with a total population of just 13,200 people it is significant media coverage, in fact we have been written about by every local news source on the island and being written abut by "Bangkok Post" for example is not at all likely.

on the wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28high_schools%29 it mentions how hard it can be for schools in Asia to find reliable internet sources - we are a small island within Asia and this seems to be exactly the problme I am encountering, we are very notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia but it is all local coverage.

"In major developed countries, many independent, reliable sources about schools can be found on the Internet, beyond the scope of the trivial. However, outside those countries, and particularly for countries in Asia and Africa, Internet coverage is poor. Where this is the case then, to avoid systemic bias, local sources should be sought."

Could I ask for your advice how to proceed so we can get the article included in wikipedia and part of the encyclopedia.

Sarah white 1 (talk) 05:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

schools notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk

06:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sarah white 1 - I'm afraid SwisterTwister is correct. Regarding your sources, a couple are from blogs, so they don't count, same with the Youtube source. The issue with sources like real estate sites, city sites, etc. are they are constructed to advertise for that particular community, and so therefore they are not the most reliable sources, since they tend to simply write about almost anything to do with the location. It is very rare that an elementary school qualifies for the notability criteria. I wish I had better news. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Klidenengro (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Violet M Digby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

The history of the British in India has been similarly out of fashion since the end of Empire, but as the distance in time increases, so has an interest in a more nuanced approach to the complex relationship between the governors and the governed. Violet M Digby is a part of that complex mosaic, as is her role as a ‘traditionalist’ in the history of the St Ives colony of artists, in which interest continues to grow (in the form of at least one television programme [The Art of Cornwall, BBC 2010, presented by Dr James Fox] and a number of newspaper articles, e.g., http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/may/09/tate-st-ives-modern-artists-localism .

Violet’s notability as a member of the St Ives Society of Artists (STISA) is also clouded by the politics of the colony, but for reasons other than that of her gender. It is curious and unfortunate fact that none of the historians of STISA have compiled a page for Wikipedia, choosing instead to write about the fractiousness of the society in other media. An online search will suggest the range of material. The reason why Violet M Digby does not immediately appear in the online search is partly explained by the old maxim that ‘history is written by the victors’. Violet was on the losing side of the factional dispute between the ‘traditionalists’ and the ‘modernists’. David Tovey (www.stivesart.info), who had access to Violet’s diaries, wrote an article about Violet M Digby reproduced on page 35 of ‘Violet M Digby, A St Ives Painter in Kashmir’. The following extract will give some flavour of why the traditionalists, like Violet, lost out.

The artistic community in St Ives during the 1950s was divided into cliques and was riven with ill feeling. After the split of 1949, which left permanent scars, there were further bust ups within the Penwith Society, as Nicholson and Hepworth sought to convert it into a society for abstract artists only. Leonard Fuller, Marion Hocken and other more traditionally minded artists, who had been founder members of the Penwith Society, were soon made to feel unwelcome and drifted back to STISA. Then, in 1955, there was a further coup within STISA, when Bernard Ninnes was ousted as Chairman, for holding too modernist an outlook, and a more reactionary committee was put in place, which featured leading marine painters, Claude Muncaster, as President, and Charles Pears and STISA founder, George Bradshaw, as Vice-Presidents. For instance, Muncaster, whom Violet records as socialising with in her diary and who shortly afterwards became president of RSMA, launched into an astonishing tirade in his first AGM, calling extremist forms of modern art “dangerous, decadent and destructive” and “a sort of Teddy-boy business” influenced by the Russians! Whilst this narrow-minded attitude now seems laughable, traditionalists in the late 1950s became increasingly indignant at the attitude that the media were taking towards representational art, for it became the target of brutal disparaging remarks, whilst funding bodies would not even contemplate giving it any support. Many traditional artists, who had enjoyed successful careers, were now facing financial ruin, and were exceedingly bitter.

In the Wikipedia guidelines about notability to which you directed me, is another contentious matter, which is that of sources. Clearly, and for good reason in the majority of cases, Wikipedia favours secondary sources, over less accessible primary source material. In the case of Violet Digby there is a considerable body of work and a large archive of material about her, which has only recently been made available to those who wish to examine it. Most academics would surely prefer primary to secondary sources, and the primary sources are now available and have been examined by historians and enthusiasts. This primary source material has resulted in a book about Violet, and has attracted the interest of historians of Cornish Art like David Tovey (http://www.stivesart.info). In the Violet Digby archive is a letter from David Brown, then Assistant Keeper of the Modern Collection of the Tate Gallery in London, seeking more information about Violet for the gallery records, saying that he was given the address by Howard Hodgkin, who also qualifies for a Wikipedia page.

The trustees of the Violet Digby collection intend to donate the archive to either the Tate Modern in St Ives, or to the Courtauld Institute in London, so that access is easier for those who do not live in Jersey CI, where the archive is now stored, and can be accessed only by appointment.

Another reason for the thinness of Violet’s presence in the record is that she did not need to, and therefore did not part with many paintings in her lifetime. Her son, Simon Digby (an oriental scholar who also appears in the pages of Wikipedia), held on to the paintings for his own pleasure. The result is that very few of Violet’s paintings have appeared in the commercial record for more than 60 years. The charity set up in Simon Digby’s name on his death in 2010 now holds the paintings, and it has been offered an exhibition of Violet’s work at the Nehru Centre in London in April of this year. After the exhibition, the trustees will arrange for the paintings to be auctioned. Thus Violet will re-appear in the commercial record and the number of Internet searches for Violet M Digby will inevitably increase. I hope that that the suggestion that Wikipedia does not have hard and fast rules, will allow some flexibility on this issue of ‘notability’. I am confident that the Wikipedia page will be a useful resource for historians of the British in India, for historians of the colony of artists in St Ives and for those that admire the work of this talented and rather curious artist.

With many thanks for your consideration.

Hi Klidenengro - I'll let another editor take a swing at the notability issue, but before they do, you really need to edit the article to a more neutral, more encyclopedic tone. Only use the artist's last name throughout, after its first mention, never by her first name. Get rid of all commentary, especially if it is unsourced, such as "...the class of British colonial civil servants and engineers which by the time of her death in 1960 was fast disappearing;" "Kidd and Mrs Carnell became firm friends and decided to remain together in Europe with their daughters, Violet and Enid, rather than return to the East to manage their husbands' households;" or "Violet had spent quite a lot of money on her expeditions to Kashmir and was feeling the pinch." Just reduce it to facts. Notability aside, it'll get declined for the tone. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• David V. Edgeworth (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Arnolds Mazitis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

(David V. Edgeworth (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC))

Hi David V. Edgeworth - It's not a heavy neutrality issue, more of an informal tone, really, and quite frankly, that's the terminology I should have used to begin with, my apologies. Phrases like "...to devote the rest of his life to his art," "Their marriage however reached a critical point during the war years," and "It was in this period of his life that Arnolds Mazitis developed a strong artistic friendship," are pretty informal, as is the constant use of his full name throughout the article, after the first time, simply refer to him by his last name. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, you kindly reviewed my draft on BuckleygrayYeoman. Since then I reworked it many times. Would you be able to let me know if it s ok now regarding the Wikipedia editing policy? Thanks a lot for your help https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:BuckleyGrayYeoman&oldid=702121954

Hi ArchitectureZMJ - I'll let another editor review it. To me, it still doesn't pass the notability standards. They are a successful firm, but not notable. Perhaps another editor will see it differently. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969, thanks for your message. Could you explain what do you mean by not notable? All the other UK architectural firms that are ranked the same as BuckleyGrayYeoman (same size, same kind of project) have wikipedia pages such as : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanton_Williams https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assael_Architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Parry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jestico_%2B_Whiles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapman_Taylor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopkins_Architects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_Architects

And many others... Would you be able to tell me what is the difference so I could understand? For example the two latest one in the list below have even long list of projects and awards which have been told it s not correct. I feel a bit confused then as it seems to be the judgment of one person here with no clear wikipedia guidelines.

Please see this link: https://aj100awards.architectsjournal.co.uk/aj120-2015.  They are in the top 50 architectural practice in the UK. 

Thanks for your help

Hello Onel5969,

I'm Ethan, thank you for reviewing my draft! - it's this article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:SpreadsheetWEB Even though i've been here for years, this is my first article on Wikipedia. I checked several other pages and did my best with this one. I tried making some changes in the language and modified the references. Is there anything else I can improve? Thank you for your time.

Best

Ethan

Hi Ethanjkagan - Well, the sources still don't show the notability, all but 1 are either connected to the company, or are press releases, none of which are valid to show notability (and press releases are pretty worthless, period). The article itself is still basically a promo for the software. An article tells us about the software: how it was developed, what made the development of the software significant (without just simply praising the software), who developed it, when it was released, etc. Your article is like a guidebook to the software. Hope that makes sense. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• 75.99.148.6 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Fife Contemporary Art & Craft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

• David V. Edgeworth (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Arnolds Mazitis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

On a general point, I first looked up some of his contemporaries and their Wiki entries, and the tone differed quite considerably. His mentor, Professor Valdemars Tone, has a French language Wiki page and his chess partner and friend Anslavs Eglitis has a Latvian Wiki page (even though he lived most of his adult life in California). The approach of the contributors who created those pages differ from each other in so many ways. It was hard to gauge what was acceptable. (David V. Edgeworth (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)) David V. Edgeworth (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi David V. Edgeworth - Not only the editors, but each individual Wiki has its own style and notability guidelines. English Wiki, being the largest and oldest, has the most developed guidelines. You'll find articles on other Wikis which we might have accepted 10 years ago, but won't anymore. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

Hey, Thank you for reviewing my draft for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Garcia_Gensel I made some edits to neutralize the tone after reading through the instructions attached to the "submission declination". There was a comment about using reliable independent references- all 14 references noted are of such sort. I have now added hypelinks to the original articles, rather that the annotation. I would like to improve this article so it can be submitted, and was hoping you could provide me with more specific "pointers" following the applied changes.

Thank you for the effort, Billie בילי (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by בילי (talk • contribs) 17:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC) 

• Zackholden (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:MassRoots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

Hi Zackholden - because it reads like a promotional piece (or a fan's blog) for the company, rather than an article about the company. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Onel5969:

Ms. Cooley has been an "artist in resident" in a multitude of colleges, museums and galleries nationally and internationally. She has, as well, received coveted awards. There is a large amount of this material, and I was hesitant about citing so much, that I guess I'm guilty of understating. She has numerous recordings to her name as well. So, I will fill the article out with the awards, honors and residencies. Thank you for your constructive advice.

Slachutm (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi

WP:OVERCITE, but currently the article has not a single reference. As you add facts, they should be cited from independent sources (unless it's an uncontroversial thing, like parents, or date of birth, etc. - those can come from sites affiliated with the artist). To show notability for this artist, you'll need to cite at least 3 in-depth articles about her from independent, reliable sources. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

21:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Ragovaid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rago vaid (talk • contribs) 13:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rago vaid - I see you've resubmitted, so someone else must have answered your questions. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969, Actually no one answered the question - I was looking forward to your reply. I had resubmitted a version trying to add citation superscripts on the description to the existing references only. I would appreciate if you could review it. Thanks, Ragovaid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rago vaid (talk • contribs) 20:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Onel5969,

I believe Steve Bresky to be quite a relevant figure as the President & CEO of a Fortune 500 and an American billionaire. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-03-15/hidden-billionaires-in-plain-sight-emerge-as-stocks-rise. Can you explain your decision here?

Thanks, Cubs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubswin002 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Draft:Anthony Charles Robinson

Hi, LazyLilac here regarding this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anthony_Charles_Robinson - I understand why it was rejected, it would be good to know if some of the article would be accepted so that the whole thing doesn't have to be rewritten. Were there sections which were ok? Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by LazyLilac (talk • contribs