Revision as of 09:37, 1 July 2017 view sourceDrStrauss (talk | contribs)35,676 edits →04:07:22, 1 July 2017 review of submission by Yujinkimang: duplicate← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:10, 1 July 2017 view source Oddjob84 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,060 edits →Wakayama Marina City: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 492: | Line 492: | ||
could you please provide the exact points to reject also please suggest me to improve my article... | could you please provide the exact points to reject also please suggest me to improve my article... | ||
== Wakayama Marina City == | |||
DrStrauss: When you reviewed the draft article, did you read the Draft:Talk page behind it? ] (]) 12:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:10, 1 July 2017
If you're a new user, please look at this page before posting as your question may already have been answered. |
Template:Usertalksuperwitharchives
|
Has this user made a silly mistake? Click on the trout to notify them! |
Correct edits?
You have reverted my edit to the kerry county football championship page. Namely removing 2010 Championship section. It is entirely appropriate to remove 2010 championship especially seeing as it is now 2017 and the championships from 2011 to 2017 are not included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickiwookie (talk • contribs) 22:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi you have reverted a number of my edits which are factually correct and also this page is very outdated:
- Yorkshire Post Tower has been approved
- Bridge House (Wellington St) has been approved
- The former British Gas building has been approved
- Millgarth Tower and Manor Point have both been cancelled
Do you want me to provide citations to prove what I am updating? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyscraper777 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Skyscraper777: yes, generally citations are required. Please see WP:V and WP:RS. DrStrauss talk 13:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
AFD notice removal on Kendra Timmins
The actress meets the criteria of notoriety. I've added reliable sources of newspapers and magazines, So i do not consider it fair to delete the page. I ask you to remove the AFD requests on the page. Thanks! Mitofire (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Mitofire Mitofire (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Mitofire, unfortunately I can't remove it because AfD is a community discussion forum and once it's been taken to that stage we must work on WP:CONSENSUS. Feel free to voice your opinion at the article's AfD entry. Don't be offended or disheartened by your page getting deleted, if it does, ask the deleting admin for a copy so you can improve it. Thanks! DrStrauss talk 15:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Protection of your talk page
Hi there. I protected your talk page because of your request but Mifter pointed out correctly that good-faith anon and new users now cannot use this talk page as well. Per WP:PP#User talk pages, you are encouraged to create a subpage for those users to contact you. Unless you create such a way for users to contact you with legitimate concerns, I'll have to reconsider the decision to protect this talk page. Regards SoWhy 21:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hi SoWhy, I've responded to Mifter's concerns on your talk page and User:DrStrauss/temptalk is the subpage which IPs and new users can edit. They are directed there by my editnotice. Thanks! DrStrauss talk 21:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, that was a bit of an overlap. Glad this has been resolved. Regards SoWhy 21:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- I encourage you to also link to it from the top of your user talk page until protection expires. Note that IPs no longer see an "Edit" button when they're on your page, just "View source". Many will not know what that is and may not click it. The edit notice only appears if they happen to click on that button and read well past the prominent notice at the top saying they're unable to edit the page. Pinging SoWhy so they're aware as well. ~ Rob13 22:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: done. DrStrauss talk 23:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks! ~ Rob13 00:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: done. DrStrauss talk 23:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- I encourage you to also link to it from the top of your user talk page until protection expires. Note that IPs no longer see an "Edit" button when they're on your page, just "View source". Many will not know what that is and may not click it. The edit notice only appears if they happen to click on that button and read well past the prominent notice at the top saying they're unable to edit the page. Pinging SoWhy so they're aware as well. ~ Rob13 22:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, that was a bit of an overlap. Glad this has been resolved. Regards SoWhy 21:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Image without license
Unspecified source/license for File:3a-band-logo.svg
Thanks for uploading File:3a-band-logo.svg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Misplaced Pages can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
(to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot 12:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Unspecified source/license for File:Hm39422 created.svg
Thanks for uploading File:Hm39422 created.svg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Misplaced Pages can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
(to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot 12:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- NB: for the record, I just incorrectly templated SVG conversions that I did to reduce the backlog. DrStrauss talk 17:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Culture
Why added this tag to the article, while other articles such as Lemonade (Beyoncé album), Unorthodox Jukebox and Joanne (album) that had the critical reception section as long or longer than this article, but not tagged. And the tag doesn't make sense either, these are reviews for the album, not anything else. It doesn't need to be split to other articles. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hi TheAmazingPeanuts!
- In response to your first concern: of the just over 15kB prose in total on Culture just under 9kB is on critical reception - that's 60%. Lemonade's just under 70kB total prose includes just over 11kB on critical reception - that's 15%. There is no hard-and-fast guideline on how much of an article on an album should be dedicated however it stands to reason that having more content on the response to something than the thing itself changes the topic of the article.
- There must be something to be critically received for it to receive critical reception, if that makes sense? I think you would find WP:LENGTH helpful for future reference when considering the proportional size of sections of an article.
- As for your second concern, the template I placed on the page said
consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding or removing subheadings
. Note that it does not explicitly say that its content should be split into separate articles as that would be silly as you say. It offers the alternative of splitting it up with subheadings or condensing it, either of which would be fine endeavours for the article's creator or major contributors considering its pitfalls. - I hope this answers your questions, if not, let me know. Thanks! DrStrauss talk 20:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- No offense, but that was a unsatisfied answer. Joanne (album) has a longer critical reception section of that of Culture and that wasn't tagged at all, don't make any sense to me. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- @TheAmazingPeanuts: it's all to do with proportionality. For example, if we divide Culture up into 10 peanuts, 6 of them will be on critical reception which leaves many of the other sections with little content. However, if we divide Joanne up into 10 peanuts, only 1 of them will be on critical reception. Sorry, I had to do that considering the username :D Did you read WP:LENGTH by the way? DrStrauss talk 21:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Okay I look at the guidelines, but I still disagree that tag should be in that section of the article, because there are some other album related articles that have the critical reception as long then Culture and nobody have no problem with it before. I have talked to Ss112 about this problem before talking to you about it, and he too disagree with some of your edits also and have reverted them. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- @TheAmazingPeanuts: it's not about the length itself it's to do with the length in proportion to the rest of the article. Looking at my curation log, I can see that most of the issues I have raised on Ss112's articles have not been reverted, the most pressing issues are the NPOV ones and Ss112 is an experienced editor whose ability to rectify these issues I do not doubt. DrStrauss talk 21:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Edit: in fact I can't see any edits of mine that have been reverted by Ss112. Even though the comment about nobody before this having taken exception to the length of critical acclaim sections is irrelevant as it's not to do with the length in itself, on a general point just because nobody has raised an issue before doesn't in anyway detract from its validity. DrStrauss talk 21:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, I think I get what you're saying now, if I removed some of the reviews in the article, it will cut down to size? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Edit: I have made this edit in the article, what do you think of it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- @TheAmazingPeanuts: looks good. DrStrauss talk 08:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Okay now it look good, can the tag be removed? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Done DrStrauss talk 08:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Good to have this problem solved. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Done DrStrauss talk 08:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Okay now it look good, can the tag be removed? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- @TheAmazingPeanuts: looks good. DrStrauss talk 08:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Okay I look at the guidelines, but I still disagree that tag should be in that section of the article, because there are some other album related articles that have the critical reception as long then Culture and nobody have no problem with it before. I have talked to Ss112 about this problem before talking to you about it, and he too disagree with some of your edits also and have reverted them. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- @TheAmazingPeanuts: it's all to do with proportionality. For example, if we divide Culture up into 10 peanuts, 6 of them will be on critical reception which leaves many of the other sections with little content. However, if we divide Joanne up into 10 peanuts, only 1 of them will be on critical reception. Sorry, I had to do that considering the username :D Did you read WP:LENGTH by the way? DrStrauss talk 21:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- No offense, but that was a unsatisfied answer. Joanne (album) has a longer critical reception section of that of Culture and that wasn't tagged at all, don't make any sense to me. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Self-requested block
Per this confirmation I have blocked you until 3rd July 2017 (00:00) as requested. The fact this was a self-requested block has been noted in the log, and I hope it gives you the break you require. I've left your ability to send emails unaffected, so please feel free to contact me at any time. -- There'sNoTime 12:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
About your declination of my Thaitone article
I wonder about your comment to my references. Why it's not reliable since the PDF. file reference one is belong to the ministry of culture of Thailand about the study of Thaitone. And another one that is the tv program came from NOW26 which is the news agency in Thailand. According to these two references, are they still unreliable? Nattanich Eng (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hello Nattanich Eng, Thaitone has now been moved to the article namespace as further improvements have been made since I was away. Congratulations on the successful article! Thanks, DrStrauss talk 17:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Odysseas Papadimitriou Draft
Thanks a lot for taking a look at my draft. And just to be clear, I'm not questioning the abilities of SwisterTwister. It just seemed like they were providing the same rationale repeatedly and not really addressing what I think are valid reasons that rationale did not apply. Having said that, is your main issue with the draft use of the word "expert"? I used that because it was commonly used in news coverage of the subject, but I have no qualms with removing such phrasing. Thanks again for taking the time to consider this! Surfjk (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hello Surfjk, that’s absolutely fine, thank you for clarifying that. The issue with words like “expert” is that they often lead to an unencyclopedic tone in an article. Please see Misplaced Pages’s “words to watch” guide for more info and don’t hesitate to ask me for further help or info. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 17:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Khurmal District
Khurmal is a small city in north Iraq , you can see in the google map Kurdistantolive (talk) 05:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hello Kurdistantolive, the template I left on Khurmal District didn't contest the location's existence, it merely flagged up the citation style used which is a bit strange. Please see WP:CITESTYLE for tips. Once the issues are fixed, feel free to remove the tag. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 17:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
11:42:16, 22 March 2017 review of submission by Kofiguy233
- Kofiguy233 (talk · contribs)
Hello please I've made the necessary changes that needs to be made, would be glad if you check back on the article /draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kofiguy233 (talk • contribs)
- Hello Kofiguy233, it appears that another reviewer (TheSandDoctor) has declined it again, a decision with which I agree. The article has improved but it needs a copy-edit to comply with the manual of style and also to establish a more neutral tone. If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 17:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- The draft has been deleted and they are a blocked user Strauss. (Thanks for the tag) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Page mover granted
Hello, DrStrauss. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).
Please take a moment to review Misplaced Pages:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect
is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.
Useful links:
- Misplaced Pages:Requested moves
- Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.
If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! -- There'sNoTime 17:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
20:34:01, 27 June 2017 review of submission by NatalieMartin82
Hi, can you please give me some pointers as to what I can do for this article to be approved? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatalieMartin82 (talk • contribs)
- @NatalieMartin82: sure! A copyedit is probably in order to make the tone less promotional - try avoiding weasel words. The introduction contains too many external links which need cutting. Once you've done this, feel free to resubmit it. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 20:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Changes to my Immortality edits
Dear Dr Strauss,
I recently added a section to the 'Immortality' page, beginning to document some philosophical arguments for the immortality of the soul. You indicate that you did not judge my changes to be constructive. Since the entry lacked (and now, thanks to you, still lacks) a discussion of the history of arguments for immortality, it seems to me that an addition of such a discussion would be highly constructive. What are your qualifications for judging the non-constructiveness of my work, and what was the basis of your judgment?
respectfully,
Dr JS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.37.145.218 (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hi 100.37.145.218, while your edits may have been correct, content on Misplaced Pages requires reliable sources for verification purposes. Feel free to add sources to your edits, the diff can be found here. Thank you for contributing! I used the wrong template on your talk page in error, for that I apologise. DrStrauss talk 21:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Good to see you back
Very good to see you back. As an FYI since you started the conversation at the village pump about page creation restrictions in Feb if I have recalled, a lot has happened since then. You might want to check out WT:NPPAFC :) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hi TonyBallioni, thank you for your kind message. That page looks very encouraging at first glance but I'll read it properly in the morning. Thanks again :) DrStrauss talk 21:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you
@DrStrauss: Hello sir, Yes now the article is appearing but with a small error on top of it saying copy editing error. Can you please help me in improving it. Thank you once again. Jayanagas (talk) 08:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Jayanagas, I reviewed Karunakara Mardi Reddy once it went into the mainspace and added the copyedit tag because it needs a rewrite for style and tone (WP:COPYEDIT). I'll give it a go myself in a couple of hours. Thanks! DrStrauss talk 08:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC) Note: discussion carried forward from here and here pertaining to Karunakara Mardi Reddy.
2017 Men's Euro Winners Cup
Hi! Just wondering why you decided to close the requested move discussion for this page, the 2017 Men's Euro Winners Cup? I know that it has been going on for a while, however the discussion had just finally sparked some activity the last few days and I was having an ongoing conversation with another user in which I only replied to less than 12 hours ago. That active discussion has now been cut off because you closed the move as no consensus. This user, who was originally against moving, was clearly open to having their mind changed if I could provide evidence to a certain subject matter of our conversation which I had just provided but you've now closed the discussion before giving them a chance to reply. If they were to change their mind the discussion would be 3 for and 1 against the move (the sole vote against being the user who originally moved the page to the current controversial title). I appreciate your time on this, thanks. TurboGUY (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC) TurboGUY (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hi TurboGUY, apologies, I should have looked at the most recent comment. I've re-opened it. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 09:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Okay I see, no worries. Thanks for reopening it! TurboGUY (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
15:27:24, 28 June 2017 review of submission by Tobiastan
Dear DrStrauss, Mr. Endresen is the Norwegian ambassador to Singapore, a diplomat, and has held various international positions. He is also listed in the largest Norwegian encyclopedia. Please let me know what else you need for him to be seen as notable enough. I see a number of similar diplomats on Misplaced Pages, so I need to understand why you rejected him. (See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/Henry_F._Grady which has no references and does not seem to have had any other senior positions). Thanks a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobiastan (talk • contribs) 06:44, Saturday, January 11, 2025 (UTC) (UTC)
- Hi Tobiastan, Mr Endresen may indeed be notable but the draft you submitted did not adequately indicate it. Misplaced Pages articles require independent, reliable sources are needed which give article subjects in-depth coverage. You may find WP:42, WP:RS, WP:POLITICIAN and WP:DIPLOMAT helpful. With regards to the other article, I've tagged it for improvement. Let me know if you require anything else, DrStrauss talk 19:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Draft:Model-based enterprise
Regarding notability: I had thought that my cites were sufficient -- particularly for an article defining a term of art that's not in any way a commercial product.
In any event, I've added more and diverse citations, one of which notes that MBE was developed under the auspices of the Secretary of Defense, Army Research Laboratory, Armament Research Development Engineering Center, Army ManTech, NIST, NIST Manufacturing Extension Partnership, General Dynamics, Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, Elysium, Adobe, EOS, ITI TranscenData, Vistagy, PTC, Dassault Systemes Delmia, Boeing, and BAE Systems.
Let me know if I need more. Cinteotl (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Cinteotl, I see you've re-submitted it so either myself or another reviewer will have a look at it in due course. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 19:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
17:50:10, 28 June 2017 review of submission by IdahoPolitics
Hey DrStauss thank you for reviewing a page that I have been working on Draft:Tommy_Ahlquist. I was wondering what references that you have issues with? They are from local news organizations/newspapers. Once again thank you for your review and future help! IdahoPolitics (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hi IdahoPolitics, thank you for your message. While some of the sources were indeed suitable, some of the affiliated sources were unnecessary and could be cut out. Let me know if you need anything else, DrStrauss talk 19:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you DrStauss for getting back to me so quickly. I cleaned up the page more and got rid of CITE:KILL issues. Please look over it again and if there are still issues, let me know specifics of what I need to do to get this page "live" so to speak.IdahoPolitics (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Copyvio
There have now been 2 instances of copyvio reviewed but not tagged for deletion, including G11. Please keep a careful eye for this. SwisterTwister talk 18:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hi SwisterTwister, thank you for your message. I'll bear that in mind in future and Earwig all the drafts I review, they should have been G11-ed but as they were declines it wasn't catastrophic as they didn't reach the mainspace. DrStrauss talk 19:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Two new examples of G11: Draft:Ryder Industries and Draft:PhotoConcierge. Advertising not being in mainspace is not covered by WP:What Misplaced Pages is not. SwisterTwister talk 16:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @SwisterTwister: those aren't copyvios so they're not the most urgent of things, and I wouldn't say either of them are promotional to they extent they need deletion. G11-ing promotional drafts is in my experience counterproductive because they're made in good faith and will just need editing, so it's better to decline with on adv grounds than speedy. I'm well aware of WP:NOT and they're not in the mainspace, they're in the draftspace. Although they'll have been deleted now, please can you point me to the two copyvios I missed yesterday? Thank you. DrStrauss talk 16:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- There are some instances where promotionalism can be improved or removed but not when it's entirely, which would mean it's fundamentally G11 ("where unambiguous advertising would need a rewrite"). Especially in cases where either a company-named account started it therefore violating WP:Paid. 2 copyvios are Draft:Fab Lab Tulsa and Draft:SharingXchange. Also nowhere in WP:NOT is it suggesting userspace or Draftsace is exempt from speedy tagging.
- SwisterTwister talk 16:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @SwisterTwister: no, but your argument specifically mentioned the mainspace so I was just pointing that out. The draftspace is a holding pen, so it doesn't matter if its contents aren't perfect, just so long as we don't move attack pages and copyvios into the mainspace we should be fine. DrStrauss talk 17:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @SwisterTwister: those aren't copyvios so they're not the most urgent of things, and I wouldn't say either of them are promotional to they extent they need deletion. G11-ing promotional drafts is in my experience counterproductive because they're made in good faith and will just need editing, so it's better to decline with on adv grounds than speedy. I'm well aware of WP:NOT and they're not in the mainspace, they're in the draftspace. Although they'll have been deleted now, please can you point me to the two copyvios I missed yesterday? Thank you. DrStrauss talk 16:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Two new examples of G11: Draft:Ryder Industries and Draft:PhotoConcierge. Advertising not being in mainspace is not covered by WP:What Misplaced Pages is not. SwisterTwister talk 16:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Another example, Draft:Hicare contains clear policy violations, 1, "Our trained technicians use only the latest technology and techniques" and 2, a paid employee. We have no policy to keeping in Draftspace without deletion as WP:G11 actually is clear it applies to all areas. The user is now banned for unconfessed paid contributions so the page is therefore qualified for as by Foundation Terms of Use, without exceptions. SwisterTwister talk 17:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
21:00:25, 28 June 2017 review of submission by Phanosphilippou
what am i doing wrong? :( please advice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phanosphilippou (talk • contribs) 06:44, Saturday, January 11, 2025 (UTC) (UTC)
- Hello Phanosphilippou, thank you for your message. Your draft lacks independent, reliable sources which give its subject in-depth coverage which means we can't verify the claims you make nor the notability of the subject. See WP:42 for more. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 21:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
An area you might to help out in
Hi, it's great to see you back and helping tackle the backlog! You might like to help out at the AfC help desk where people whose drafts have been declined are directed, but currently there's only a handful of us helping answer queries so quite a few questions are being left unanswered. It'd be great if you could watchlist it and lend a hand! Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Jcc: I'll take a look :) Thanks, DrStrauss talk 07:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Request on 23:08:33, 28 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Canadianhistory
Hi DrStrauss
You recently declined my draft article on John Le Couteur (1760-1835) for failing to 'adequately show the subject's notability'.
The subject was a lieutenant-general in the British army, and served as governor of Curacao. This would appear to qualify him for inclusion in an encyclopedia.
Further, the basis for the article is partly an out of copyright Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry on Le Couteur, as well as a lengthy current ODNB biography updated in 2004. The ODNB is clearly a reliable source independent of the subject, as Misplaced Pages's guidelines demand.
In light of this clear evidence of notability, please approve the article or provide a further specific justification for declining the submission. Canadianhistory (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Canadianhistory (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Happening to look here, Canadianhistory, you're completely right, and I've accepted the article. ( it took me a while to find the correct article from your link -- it's at , print vol.32, p.336-337,)
- DrS, I assume you did not notice the reference to the DNB, for anyone with a full article in the DNB is always notable without exception. (this does not of course hold for people just mentioned there, but it probably does hold for those in an add-on article) This is the rule at ] point 3 -- it has always been interpreted that for a major national biography and especially the DNB, it alone is enough, regardless of any other factor. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- DGG,
- Thanks for approving the article. Sorry about the broken link, and thank you for mentioning this – the original DNB article is also on Wikisource https://en.wikisource.org/Le_Couteur,_John_(DNB00) but evidently I didn't format the DNB citation template properly when originally drafting the article.
- Cheers Canadianhistory (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hi DGG, you're right, I didn't notice the reference and I'll bear in mind the ANYBIO provision in future. Thanks for pointing it out! Canadianhistory: congratulations on a successful article! DrStrauss talk 07:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
00:14:54, 29 June 2017 review of submission by Deepakpuranik
Dear Dr Strauss,
Thank you for reviewing my article on Basavaraj Puranik. I wanted to understand the reason for declining the article so that it can help me improve the article
Please let me know
- Hi Deepakpuranik, your draft needs more independent, reliable sources that give Basavaraj Puranik significant, in-depth coverage so we can establish his notability. Sources 1 and 2 are good ones, more in that vein would be appreciated. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 07:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Dr Strauss, Mr Basavaraj Puranik began writing at a time when internet was not available ( 1970s, 1980s )so most of his works are in physical form. Also, because he wrote in Kannada, he has coverage in Kannada language media. Will that be a suitable reference. Some of these papers are available online and some are offline media. How do I reference that
Thanks
Deepak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepakpuranik (talk • contribs) 17:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
01:27:23, 29 June 2017 review of submission by Aashishji
Respected sir,
As you know in Nepal to get electronic coverage of news of person is difficult so i request you to go to the youtube link given in my draft's reference and view it thoroughly so that you can verify this person is real and you can visually see what he has done for the country.This person is very notable in Nepal almost 7/10 people in Nepal know him for his spiritual work. the only hinder is there is no electronic coverage.
CAN I SEND THE PICTURE OF NEWSPAPERs giving covergae of him??? and i can also send various pictures of him involving in notable works.
- @Aashishji: you don't need pictures of the newspapers, just reference them and mention title, volume, author, date, etc. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 07:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Move review for James Martin Hayes
An editor has asked for a Move review of James Martin Hayes. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @142.160.131.202: thanks for the heads up, I probably won't participate as I was merely judging the consensus and I'm fine with somebody coming to the opposite conclusion. DrStrauss talk 07:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Request on 07:36:59, 29 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Passionfruitvine
Hi DrStrauss,
This is my first time trying to get Misplaced Pages editors help and the third time my Joyce Stevens AM draft has been declined.
You wrote that the draft appears to read like an advertisement - I am working with a group of women and they and I don't understand why you think that about the entry. It is only a Stub and I would welcome others to add or improve the content.
I thought about deleting the introduction paragraph that outlines Stevens's work and also deleting the two paragraphs from Steven's book "Healing Women: a history of Leichhardt Women's Community Health Centre" (1995) that end the 'Work' section. Would this improve the article ?
In the meantime I will read more Misplaced Pages entries.
Hoping to hear from you,
Passionfruitvine. Passionfruitvine (talk) 07:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Passionfruitvine (talk) 07:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Passionfruitvine, yes, I think that would be a good idea. Have a look at WP:WEASEL and tell me if you think there's anything you can change. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 11:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
11:40:57, 29 June 2017 review of submission by Archaeologysoldier
Please tell me how to improve my page so that i can submit it? Earlier the problem was that the username and the name of the page was same so I had to create a new account and still I don't know why I can't submit it. Please help
Archaeologysoldier (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Archaeologysoldier, you need to include reliable sources that give the topic significant coverage and are independent. Half of the sources are currently from allevents. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 11:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
The Sandford Open Championship
Hello,
Might I enquire as to how the tone of the article I have contributed needs to be addressed? I've endeavoured to compose said article in as neutral a tone as possible.
Kind regards,
Peter | pdobbin88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdobbin88 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Pdobbin88, phrases like
enjoyed widespread success
without references are POV. Please see WP:WEASEL. DrStrauss talk 14:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Request on 13:10, 29 June 2017, for assistance of submission by Japan808080
- Japan808080 (talk · contribs)
Dear Dr Strauss
Thank you for reviewing my article Draft:Kingmax. I would like to let you know why my submission was declined.
Kingmax is well known to offer SD cards, USB flash drives, Solid state drives, etc. all over the world, as I searched them on Amazon.com etc.
The business type and scale is same as ADATA, Silicon Power and Transcend Information, as I described.
So that is the reason why we need the article of Kingmax on Misplaced Pages English, we already had put the article of Kingmax on Misplaced Pages Japanese.
I think I used the reliable sources and data of Routers, Bloomberg, and Cnet, because I would like to observe the rule.
And more, I think I avoid the conflict of interest regarding Kingmax or others.
So please send a message to me here.
- Japan808080 (Talk) 02:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Japan808080: the sources you provided were inadequate for displaying notability. The sources from Bloomberg and Reuters are useless for establishing notability because they are merely stock entries. Similarly, the sources to Kingmax's own website cannot be used to prove the company is notable because they're affiliated. The CNET source is better but it still describes a product and not the company. We require, independent, reliable sources that give significant coverage to the company. DrStrauss talk 07:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Dear Dr Strauss
- Thank you for a message. I just edit the artcle again, using Taiwan Excellence and China Times sources (Chinese) , erasing Kingmax own sources, etc.
- However, I do not have the confidence whether its notability is enough.
- So I would like your assistance for completing the article.
- - Japan808080 (Talk) 13:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Japan808080, sure, I'll take a look at it in a bit. DrStrauss talk 14:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Dear Dr Strauss
My new article Traudl Wallbrecher
Hi DrStrauss,
you declined my article Traudl Wallbrecher. I worked on it according to your notes. Please have a look at it, I think it should be acceptable now.
Paddy Pillow (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Paddy Pillow, I'll have a look at it in due course. Nothing personal, but I don't review drafts on demand otherwise my talk page would be a flood of messages. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 19:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Request on 21:12:47, 29 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by C. Gelber
Hello Dr. Strauss, I am baffled regarding the "lack of notoriety" of this major figure in Japanese architecture, especially in light of the fact that there already exists a Japanese wiki page for the same person. I was merely doing the family a favor in offering to create the page into English because, as you have noted, he has not received much visibility in the English speaking world. I am certain I could obtain Japanese publications attesting to his notoriety but I would (as I presume you would) be unable to read them and not certain if they are even appropriate for an English Wiki page. While I agree that some of my rhetoric would benefit from Weasel editing, which I will do ASAP, I am not quite sure how to resolve the notoriety issue.
thank you, Christopher C. Gelber (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hi C. Gelber, I'll have another look once you've trimmed the weasel words, let me know when that's done. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 21:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hello and thank you for your prompt reply. I have removed the "weaselisms" and humbly ask for your reconsideration. Thank you. Christopher C. Gelber (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Bob Sweeney (actor and director)
I reverted your close at Talk:Bob Sweeney (actor and director). Requested moves shouldn't be processed until at least seven days has elapsed, and there's absolutely no reason that RM should be an exception (eg: WP:SNOW). Please be more careful in the future. -- Tavix 21:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Tavix, I'll only close ones which are elapsed and in the backlog in future. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 21:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Articles for deletion/Roy MacLeod
I'm afraid I may have done or said something at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#Editors_with_most_unreviewed_pages that has resulted in some backlash at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Roy MacLeod. Since I suggested that wholesale deletion of Envale's contributions was something I'd consider, I feel responsible for the work that may result from resolving that discussion. I will add my feedback later, but please do let me know if I can help in other ways. Mduvekot (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Mduvekot, don't worry, it was unlikely to succeed anyway. I'll ping you if there's anything else. :) DrStrauss talk 08:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
03:30:34, 30 June 2017 review of submission by Bluedreamer1
- Bluedreamer1 (talk · contribs)
Why are you asking for more references, why actually was this declined rather than a drive by snub the new wikipedia user
This is a list of actual published books, in the RPG area there are many such lists of book - which is why the all have ISBN's. What other proof do I need these are real books
I could link a review for every single book that is there but what is the point, the point of the article is to provide a list of books for pathfinder
Do you have any knowledge of the area or the subject? Or did you just pick a random article to review, did you check how other articles in this area were written?
- @Bluedreamer1: I have no doubt that they are real books. You just need to prove that they are notable with sources. ISBNs are given to all published books and infer no notability. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 08:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- @DrStrauss: So you have no knowledge of the area, and obviously you haven't looked. You are just declining a list of books because you didn't desire to address a single one of my questions. But, it seems that you can. Is that a correct assumption of your actions so far? Why does it have to be notable? I find this to be counterproductive to the purpose of wikipeida. So, please, define 'notable'. Is not the fact I created the page itself making them notable. Why is there resistance to creating a list of published books? Is not the page https://en.wikipedia.org/Pathfinder_Roleplaying_Game notable? Do I have to prove the 'notable' existence of every book? Did the person who created this page https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_rulebooks have to jump through these ridiculous hoops. The books exist, millions of people buy them and yet all you are doing is giving pathetic short 'nos' with no real explanation of how to avoid these comments.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedreamer1 (talk • contribs)
- @Bluedreamer1: my knowledge of the area is entirely irrelevant. We have specific policies about notability, it's not just me. You can find the general policy here and the policy for books here. Getting angry at me isn't going to solve anything, don't throw your toys out of the pram. Follow the advice that we, experienced reviewers, give you and your draft will be published. DrStrauss talk 14:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- @DrStrauss: So you have no knowledge of the area, and obviously you haven't looked. You are just declining a list of books because you didn't desire to address a single one of my questions. But, it seems that you can. Is that a correct assumption of your actions so far? Why does it have to be notable? I find this to be counterproductive to the purpose of wikipeida. So, please, define 'notable'. Is not the fact I created the page itself making them notable. Why is there resistance to creating a list of published books? Is not the page https://en.wikipedia.org/Pathfinder_Roleplaying_Game notable? Do I have to prove the 'notable' existence of every book? Did the person who created this page https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_rulebooks have to jump through these ridiculous hoops. The books exist, millions of people buy them and yet all you are doing is giving pathetic short 'nos' with no real explanation of how to avoid these comments.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedreamer1 (talk • contribs)
- @DrStrauss: So yet again you have said nothing about what is wrong - just throwing links at me. Tell me what exactly is different about the page I linked for D&D and the page I created for Pathfinder? I am angry because you are being obstructive and unhelpful, so much for the wikipedia community.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedreamer1 (talk • contribs)
- @Bluedreamer1: okay, sources 1, 2, 12, 15 are useless because Goodreads has no editorial oversight, same with the blog posts. The other references are okay, they're a bit crufty, the only real independent, major, reliable source is the Denver Post one. More like that and it'll be published in no time! DrStrauss talk 14:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- @DrStrauss: Thank you, that I can do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedreamer1 (talk • contribs)
Oleg Bezuglov for deletion
Dear DrStrauss,
Since you sometimes contribute to AfD discussions, and also review the new articles could you, please, take a look at the Oleg Bezuglov article and express your opinion in discussion on whether it should be deleted or not. It was nominated on suspicion of not passing the WP:MUSICBIO criterion. The discussion is currently dead in the water, and I'm afraid it might be relisted again because of that. Thanks in advance! Fiddler11 07:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Fidler11: I'll take a look. DrStrauss talk 08:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
08:10:37, 30 June 2017 review of submission by Carrymat
Dear Dr Strauss, I submitted the article on Vivomed due to their involvement for the 3rd time with the British & Irish Lions tour including links from the Lions tour Misplaced Pages page. They have also been involved in almost all the major sporting events in the UK and Ireland for the past 10 years including the Rugby World Cup, the Rugby League World Cup and the Olympics.
The article is similar in size and nature to other Lions suppliers who already have Misplaced Pages pages e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/Thomas_Pink
I was therefore wondering what else needed to be added to make it a viable listing considering it is similar in nature, content, relevance and references to Thomas Pink which was approved?
Thank you in advance for your help.
Carrymat
- Hi Carrymat, thanks for your message. That may be the case but we need independent, reliable references which give the company significant coverage to establish notability. It's nearly there though, keep it up! DrStrauss talk 14:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
10:48:01, 30 June 2017 review of submission by Dr.khatmando
- Dr.khatmando (talk · contribs)
Hi there. Thanks for looking over the Japan Pharmacuetical Association draft article. Could you tell me which of the English and Japanese references were the most fit for purpose and those which were not? Also did you look at the content translated from the Japanese article? What content needs to be translated from the Japanese content so that it will pass the review? Thanks for your assistance. Dr.khatmando (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Dr.khatmando, the affiliated sources can go for starters. Anything that confers notability is worth translating. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 14:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- The sources state that the Japan Pharmacuetical Association is the peak professional body for pharmacists in Japan. Therefore this should meet notability as it stands. The article as it is now is comparable to the scholarly rigour for the Japan Medical Association article when it was approved. I think it is best to accept it now so other editors can contribute as was the case with the JMA article. Thanks for your help Dr.khatmando (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
11:19:50, 30 June 2017 review of submission by Yuval Filmus
- Yuval Filmus (talk · contribs)
I looked at another random math article, https://en.wikipedia.org/Functional_analysis, and it also contains no explanation for the average reader. Unfortunately, I don't think that mathematical research areas typically lend themselves to such explanations.
- Hi Yuval Filmus, on reflection I'm starting to agree with you so I've accepted it. Congratulations! DrStrauss talk 11:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
13:52:32, 30 June 2017 review of submission by Msteckl
The request to remove references to Misplaced Pages makes complete sense. These have been removed and the article resubmitted. Thank you Msteckl (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Msteckl: thank you, I'll have a look at it in a bit! DrStrauss talk 14:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Request on 16:28:58, 30 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by PTSaputo
I have tried hard to write this article addressing the earlier reviewer comments. Could you help me by providing some examples of problems with the article. Your comments are identical to the comments from the first review. I do not mean to debate your judgment. Rather, I need help understanding.
You note that I need to summarize reliable secondary sources. I tried to do so with multiple references most to well-known recognizable theologians. What am I missing?
What suggests that it is not a NPOV? I thought it read neutral, assuming the reader wants to comprehend the Christian view of sovereignty. What do you see that is not neutral?
The article reads like an essay. I need some help understanding what provides that flavor. As an attorney, it is probably embedded in my legal writing style and I just don't see it.
Any help would be appreciated.
PTSaputo (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
PTSaputo (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- @PTSaputo: I'll take another look at your article and give you some in-depth feedback here later. DrStrauss talk 17:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you PTSaputo (talk) 03:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
16:43:24, 30 June 2017 review of submission by Duncan R2
Hello DrStrauss and thank you for reviewing my draft article on Contarini Fleming. I would appreciate a few more specifics on where the references aren't sufficient. I realise that the "synopsis" section is completely unreferenced, but that is not uncommon in Wiki pages on books. I think the other sections are mainly referenced OK (the Blake book is generally regarded as the definitive biography on Disraeli), although they do only draw on 2 sources, so is that the problem? On reflection, the "Quotes" section is a bit subjective (it basically comprises my favourite quotes in the book!) so should I just delete that? Anyway, any more specific guidance you could provide would be welcome. Regards Duncan R2
- Hello Duncan R2, it's a whole lot better than most drafts, see if you can squeeze out a couple more citations, ping me here, and I'll re-review. DrStrauss talk 17:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Request on 16:51:39, 30 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Abhishekyadav246
Abhishekyadav246 (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh not again
Can you please an example of signifant coverage because in India there is nothing bigger then times of india covering a person and my article has all of that
- @Abhishekyadav246: your article contains two Times of India references. One is just about Khanna getting married which isn't WP:SIGCOV as it's not a critique of her career and the other is about her going swimming. A "celebrity" going swimming confers no notability in an encyclopedia. DrStrauss talk 17:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
17:39:24, 30 June 2017 review of submission by Abhishekyadav246
Can you please give examples from this page ((Smriti Khanna)) the significant coverages in this page just to give me some idea it would be a great learning for me
Trouted
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
You have been trouted for: Your decline of the submission for creation of Draft:Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, on the grounds of "it is not adequately supported by reliable sources". This draft already has twice the number of citations for articles on comparable publications for the Canadian and UK governments, the Canada Gazette and the The London Gazette, although not quite as many as the US government's Federal Register. Once created, articles can always be improved. Bahudhara (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
04:05:56, 1 July 2017 review of submission by Yujinkimang
- Yujinkimang (talk · contribs)
Hi Dr Strauss,
Thank you for the review. I was wondering if you could possibly re-review my drafts because I think the sources that I used are pretty reliable. It includes Bloomberg and other media and if you google the company and owner, you will find a significant amount of information. Additionally, the contents are verifiable because there are from government documents. Could you please take a time to look at the sources again? Thank you very much for your time and consideration and I look forward to hearing your approval.
Best regards,
Yujin Kim
09:22:40, 1 July 2017 review of submission by Showka9001
- Showka9001 (talk · contribs)
could you please provide the exact points to reject also please suggest me to improve my article...
Wakayama Marina City
DrStrauss: When you reviewed the draft article, did you read the Draft:Talk page behind it? Oddjob84 (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Category: