User talk:Sulfurboy/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 → Archive 15

01:59:06, 12 November 2017 review of submission by HugoHuertaMarin


Hello, I am Hugo Huerta Marin and wanted to know what information is missing or need to re write in order to have the page working online. Thank you.HugoHuertaMarin (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

We need to see reliable and substantial coverage of the subject to establish notability (Facebook for example is not a reliable source). You also need inline citations since this article is about a living person. I would recommend reviewing the links in the decline notice. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Request on 01:15:46, 12 November 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Blessingmuchuu


I have been doing exactly what you require but the article keeps been denied..........what kind of references are needed.. I used what i could find because the subject is not that much popular.


Blessingmuchuu (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Any subject needs to have established notability to be included in Wikipedia. If the subject is not popular, then it likely won't meet notability standards at this time. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

14:22:22, 11 November 2017 review of submission by Wikidocs


I have improved the sources to justify notability but would also draw parallels with the likes of many other businessmen and entrepreneurs who have become notable exclusively due to their businesses and brands, so I would refute that drawing upon notability from these entrepreneurial and business ventures is unsuitable for a Wikipedia page.

Subject has founded and leads high-profile public interest businesses (for example being head of a record label for music artists with large fan-bases), for which public often wish to learn about their founders (Richard Branson, Peter Jones, Alan Sugar etc are all examples of this at a high-level). Subject also has won awards for this on a personal level and is listed as one of the most influential entrepreneurs in the UK. Noted that this is a list of 100 people - but a small amount of research confirms that all those from the same list that I have reviewed, all have Wikipedia pages accordingly - so this adds to the rationale of notability (although not wishing to WP Compare)!

I would be grateful if you could re-review based on the above comments and improved citations. Wikidocs (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but whether or not another page has been created or not has no bearing on this article. We look at articles on an individual basis. The top 100 list is crowdsourced and it all around looks pretty fishy. We need to see secondary coverage of the subject, everything I see is primary or just local coverage. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
@Sulfurboy:I can't agree, it's source is a verified national publication, it does not appear to be "crowd sourced" it is clearly curated and even cited by Richard Branson in his Virgin Blog as a relevent source: https://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/age-not-barrier-success. Please confirm exactly how you feel this article could be improved to meet your requirements. It has national press/article coverage (not just local), from the likes of Lloyds Bank, the Daily Telegraph, Richtopia and is cited on other Wikipedia pages, as well as in national business articles - all of which are cited in the article since it was improved? I note you have deleted some edits which had these improvements on though? Wikidocs (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
@Sulfurboy: Secondary sources now added to support the Top 100 list, links from Richard Branson's Blog, BT and the Mirror, as well as a citation from Rise Global (the curating algorithm which determines list position). Hopefully this addresses your concerns now. Wikidocs (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Your missing the point, the point is whether or not the award is notable enough to even establish notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:ZipBooks

About your decline on Draft:ZipBooks.... I'm not familiar with this company, but I thought your reasoning wasn't quite right. You should probably know:

  • The coverage in pymnts.com aren't press releases. That publication does actual reporting, just in a niche field. My view is the article relies a bit too much on coverage from pymnts.com, although that doesn't detract from the notability of the topic.
  • The Wall Street Journal story should be legitimate but it's behind a paywall. As a long-time former subscriber, I don't recall the WSJ publishing press releases.
  • The PC Magazine review is legitimate and constitutes significant coverage. It isn't a glowing review, as it includes many cons as well as pros.

Just sayin'... you may want to reconsider. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The WSJ article doesn't even come up it says page unavailable. I disagree that the PC magazine review constitutes significant coverage, and instead is fairly routine, there is thousands of apps and products reviewed on that site, saying a review by them constitutes significant coverage is way too broad. I would also argue against the neutrality of the pymnts articles, it's very obviously seo oriented, quotes heavily from the company (borderline primary) and is overly glowing in nature. In my opinion this article is far from showing established notability. I am giving it a higher level of scrutiny since it is written by someone working for the company. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I apologize for the broken WSJ link. I've made that fix (among other edits). I added an Integrations section which I'm not sure about. I could remove that. I've also started a discussion about the reliability of PYMNTS.com. I added the author's name even though it wasn't included in the byline. I spoke with Hal Levey who wrote the story. I removed quite a few sources. I think I probably overdid it because I went into it knowing that there is a COI issue. ZB wiki (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Notability of albums

Hi Sulfurboy. Re the WP:N tag I added to On the Loose (Deuce album), yes the album charted, but the first paragraph of WP:NALBUM says "All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I take that to mean multiple reliable sources, per WP:GNG. I cannot find any further references to this album. Hence, it is of questionable notability, and others should be given the opportunity to improve the article if they know of other sources. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

That's a fair interpretation as well. However, in my experience, there's a myriad of articles like this that could be tagged with a notability guideline and that tag would be stagnant for years. On the other hand, it's super unlikely that the article would lose to an AfD or be properly considered for a redirect to the artist's main page. Long story short, in my experience if an album meets the national charts in a country (especially a larger market like the UK, America, India, etc.) it's just best to let it be. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Request on 17:28:56, 13 November 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Hagennos


Hi I would need some help in understanding why my submission was rejected stating that the references provided are insufficinet with your statement Comment: Sourcing is entirely primary, PRs or just routine mentions about the company

In the article I have tried not to use any primary source as references to notability, avoid any references to the company and concentrated on the product, which is one of the strong contenders for a free firewall, which has been built from a foundation of one of the pioneer implementations m0n0wall. m0n0wall when it was being actively developed and maintained was one of the common firewalls used by SMBs and is the primary source for many forks. Since monowall is no longer in development and the author and maintainer of the project has asked users to consider OPNSense as a possible alternative (End of Monowall Project), having a Wiki page for its potential successor is important and should be in line with Wikipedia's guidelines.

In the page that I had created I had tried to ensure that PRs and routine mentions are not extensively referenced. The references back to the product page is only to link to features, licensing models and other information which needs to be directly sourced. As this is an open source project many of the discussions / references are in UGC like in Blogs which I have avoided referring to based on my discussions with another Wikipedia administrator

To list the references I have used

Reference Source Description
https://m0n0.ch/wall/end_announcement.php External Announcement of end of m0n0wall project and designating successor
http://www.techradar.com/news/whats-the-best-linux-firewall-distro-of-2017 External Independent Review of the firewall by techradar a considered to be a reliable source
https://www.infoworld.com/article/3106865/networking/review-6-slick-open-source-routers.html External Independent Review of the firewall in by Infoworld another reliable source
https://cesmagazine.com/2017/03/6-best-free-linux-firewalls-of-2017/ External Independent Comparison of Firewalls including OPNSense by CES Magazine
https://twit.tv/shows/floss-weekly/episodes/361 External Foreign hosted site having weekly episodes on tech topics especially on OpenSource
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/17/02/04/0522249/opnsense-171-released-based-on-freebsd-11%7C External Independent Independent and reputable site coverage of the release of a new version of the firewall (Tertiary reference)
https://www.cio.com/article/3107989/networking/review-6-slick-open-source-routers.html External Independent Another comparison by an reputable source for Firewalls where OPNSense is one of the contenders
https://n0where.net/open-source-firewall-opnsense/ External Site article describing OPNSense firewall
https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=opnsense External Independent OPNSense page in Distrowatch which maintains info notable FOSS products
https://www.secfu.net/2017/04/16/opnsense-as-an-ipv6-firewall-testing-ipv6-security-devices-part-1/ Independent Feature Review Article on Tech site describing one of the advanced features (IPv6) of OPNSense not normally seen in many other similar products
http://opensourceforu.com/2016/07/opnsense-setting-basic-firewall/ External External site covering howto for the firewall for its users
https://hardenedbsd.org/article/shawn-webb/2015-05-08/hardenedbsd-teams-opnsense External Non-Independent Announcement by Hardened BSD on tieup with OPNSense (HardenedBSD is in part promoted by the

company behind OPNSense)

https://opnsense.org/about/about-opnsense/ Internal Description of the product in General
https://wiki.opnsense.org/fork/thefork.html# Internal Announcement on why the fork was created from PfSense
https://opnsense.org/about/road-map/ Internal List of past releases and project Roadmap to show project actively maintained and updated
https://opnsense.org/about/legal-notices Internal Official licensing information

Some of the articles already in existence in Wikipedia of products, similar to the page I am creating and also included in the firewall comparisons by sites like TechRadar has similar or fewer references. So I am respectably wondering why the entry bar seems so high?

Request you to review the submission again and move it to the article page if you feel I have addressed the requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia.


Hagennos (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

First off, the inclusion of other articles in wikipedia has no bearing on whether or not this article should be included. If you think there is issue with those articles, feel free to tag it. While some of the sources you included are credible sources, those websites doing a review of the subject, isn't enough to denote notability, as those websites do thousands of reviews. Admittedly, this page is borderline for me, so if you want to submit it again, I'll take a backseat and let another reviewer make a call on it.

Thank You for your help Hagennos (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Multiple editors have been trying to have a discussion on the proposed deletion of nearly the entire page on the talk page, but they gave no response, and the consensus at the deletion discussion was for keeping the article, not deleting it

Your comment indicates that you believe no one attempted a discussion on the talk page. Far from the truth. In fact, multiple editors asked this editor to discuss on the talk page what it was they felt was non-compliant, but there has been no response. There was also a large discussion at AfD, at which only 2 editors wanted to delete the article. The fact is 7 editors agreed the page should stay at AfD, the consensus was that the article should be kept, and they merely tried to subvert that consensus by deleting the entire page without discussion. They don't have the right to simply delete 2/3 of the page against the clear consensus at the deletion discussion. If you want to effectively delete an entire article during an active deletion discussion, you should get consensus for doing so. Overwhelming consensus was that the article should be kept. See the discussion at the talk page and at the deletion discussion. It's not "edit warring" or sanctionable to prevent an editor from deleting an entire page during an active discussion. Infamia (talk) 07:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Request on 16:07:09, 14 November 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Michaelgeorgieemma


    - I submitted an article for review yesterday, "Collegiate Robotic Football Conference," and you replied that you would publish if I was "okay with this just being an article about robotics football." I am ok with that and would to ask you to please publish the article. Thank you for your assistance.

Michaelgeorgieemma (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Michaelgeorgieemma

As a note, Draft:Collegiate Robotic Football Conference also exists. Primefac (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Draft:Valeria Vegh Weis

Dear User

I request your help to improve my rejected wikipedia input on ¨Valeria Vegh Weis¨: Draft:Valeria Vegh Weis I introduced changes and I tried to improve my submission on September 22, 2017. Unfortunately, I have not received any response yet. Best Regards Enzo Leone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.19.207.150 (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Request for assistance is at the AFCHD (permalink). Primefac (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

21:43:26, 13 November 2017 review of submission by James Royo


I don't understand why the article was rejected given that all the information contained in the article can be verified in the listed references. Please explain what else needs to be done. Thank you!

I would recommend visiting WP:REFB and WP:N. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I've already visited all those pages and it still doesn't make sense to me. I've provided multiple reliable references confirming what's written in the article, as well as got information from James Royo himself, such as how he got to where he is right now. It should be a super straight-forward biography, nothing else! — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Royo (talk • contribs) 20:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

C&M Corporation

Hello Sulfurboy,

I have noticed that you declined the article which I have submitted. I had included, as references, articles from yahoo finance, as well as circuit.com which is a wire and cable publications. None of these publications are affiliated with C&M (the writer do not work in-house at C&M), and further, the articles simply talked about the accomplishments of C&M (such as hiring talented engineers, getting supplier awards from Fortune 500 companies). I am a bit at a loss as to why these references would not work for Wikipedia. I look forward to your explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eli Dobrov (talk • contribs) 18:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You need to link to the article. Also, I'm confused as to who you are, as it looks like you created a new account just to make this comment?Sulfurboy (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

06:39:59, 15 November 2017 review of submission by PageMaster



PageMaster says: Thank you for reviewing my submission to update the info on "GcMAF" The current listing is misleading and out-of-date. GcMAF is far from dead. It is dead for now in the U.S. but not in other parts of the world. I'm assuming that you think that any mention of the Efranat Ltd website is a primary reference. If I delete Reference #17, not much changes. The original reference #15 ties Efranat Ltd to GcMAF, EF-022 and RPP. Original Reference # 16 shows that private funds were raised for the development of their product.

Reference #18 should be a creditable source since it is run by the United States National Library of Medicine at the NIH and shows that the clinical trial is a 2-part study. It describes what Part 1 is and what Part 2 is. It gives dates and shows the trial completed. It also shows that the final results for Part 2 have not been published. Since the trial is now completed this information is now factual. (A preview of the Part 2 results can be found at the Efranat Ltd company page on the Linkedin web site. But these have not been reported yet in a peer reviewed journal so I did not include these. 25% or 6 out of 24 terminal patients were stabilized by the end of the clinical trial.)

Reference #19 should be a creditable source since it is a peer reviewed journal and summarizes the result from part Part 1 only.

Reference #20 should be a creditable source since it is referencing Wikipedia.

But how can I improve the GcMAF entry in Wikipedia? As info, I just got an email from a researcher at the Belgium Anticancer Fund and she said that they are reviewing their position on GcMAF. I forwarded my Reference # 19 info to her in case they have not seen it yet. The Part 1 portion of this clinical trial has been published.

I don't care who updates GcMAF. But GcMAF is too promising to stigmatize. I just want to make this known and someone update the "GcMAF" listing. Do you want to take this over and I will drop out?

I would highly recommend reviewing WP:REFB Sulfurboy (talk) 07:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

17:27:40, 15 November 2017 review of submission by Actnoid


Hi there--can you please clarify why these sources were not considered credible? The publications clearly state and prove the facts in the article are true. Thank you!

We need to see substantial coverage of the subject himself, the articles are all either about projects he was a part of or just mention him in passing. We need to see actual direct coverage of the subject himself. I would recommend reviewing the links in the decline notice. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Thanks for your message. I saw the page had been submitted but declined as there were not enough resources... I recognized the name, and it's a person I know. So I added the information... but I see the references are not enough...so maybe I leave it to the person who started — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidasher (talk • contribs) 19:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The "Humanitarian Art Manifesto" which I had written back in 2004, was added by someone (I have absolutely no idea who) to the Art Manifetso' page many years ago... I am seeing in fact that reference is expired on that website... since then this manifesto has been published in many other places. Professor Alex Danchev, who was (passed away last year) notorious philosopher had just documented it for his new edition of "100 Art Manifestos"... So I thought to somehow 'jump in' and edit the article submission which had been done in October... ! What do you advice me please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidasher (talk • contribs) 20:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The person who submitted that draft is currently having a baby! So I assume it will take a while before she can get back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidasher (talk • contribs) 20:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, do you mean the references were not put in this sign [1]  ? Is that what I must do please for all the sources? Thanks for your patience! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidasher (talk • contribs) 20:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ freetext

Wikipedia abuse by OPNsense

Hi,

I've noticed you have declined the submission for OPNsense page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:OPNSense

I strongly agree with your decision however I feel I should warn you that Wikipedia has been under continuous abuse by OPNsense project developers, contributors and their sock accounts. This has been happening from January 2015, which is when the project started. OPNsense Wikipedia page has been removed for 7 times so far, check the history here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=OPNsense&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=

As you can see, OPNsense project is non-notable software however they continue to insert OPNsense to every possible section of Wikipedia. I've been playing catch with them for several years, they literally inserted OPNsense as "Significant BSD descendants" which is pure falsehood:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Berkeley_Software_Distribution&oldid=712811251

Wikipedia is under serial abuse by OPNsense and user who is submitting the latest OPNsense page for review is just another person instructed by OPNsense developers directly or even the developers themselves. Here are the project developers asking others to help them on their forums:

https://forum.opnsense.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=q89bonnhps2ppm8d3o6go1k6u6&topic=6189.msg26088#msg26088

They even asked publicly over their official Twitter account to get someone "more credible" to help them https://twitter.com/opnsense/status/695005601001267200

If you check my talk page history you can see many sock accounts attacking me for removing their propaganda. That includes the main OPNsense people like Joswp or netfitch.

The latest attempt by OPNsense is pure manipulation, they are trying to paint OPNsense as a m0n0wall successor. That is simply incorrect as there is no m0n0wall successor. Only more successful and surviving fork of M0n0wall is pfSense. In 2015 Deciso, the company behind OPNsense project purchased m0n0wall domains for undisclosed amount after the m0n0wall project ended. One could say they purchased their endorsement, however the main m0n0wall developer did not endorse OPNsense as they claim. OPNsense has zero connection with m0n0wall as OPNsense is actually a pfSense fork.

If you check whois for m0n0wall website m0n0.ch you will the owner of domain is Deciso, the behind OPNsense project. That proves the point that they tailored the "endorsement" to their liking. OPNsense is not a successor for m0n0wall. m0n0wall Wikipedia page was abused previously by OPNsense and their sock puppets so much that the page was locked from editing for non-logged users.

If you check pfSense or m0n0wall Wikipedia page you will see several years of abuse by OPNsense developers, contributors and sock accounts. This includes the latest OPNsense promoter who's draft you just declined. I would strongly suggest you do not fall for mainuplations by them. Let me know if you need more proof. If it's possible to elevate this to higher administrators, let me know.

Thank you.--Mr.hmm (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


Hopefully they won't mind too much, but I'm going to page DGG and Jimfbleak, they are two admins who I trust and have experience in this area, and would be best suited to give advice. As this situation is way over my head. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! I apologize for dragging you into this, I saw you were already discussing it on your talk page so I felt necessary to warn you. For the record, I already pinged NeilN on his talk page, he previously helped with removing of OPNsense sock accounts and abuse (I don't want to ping him yet again here). It's only been a day or two, so he didn't get to respond but the person inserting the OPNsense propaganda did on NeilN's page! See here. I hope we find a way to stop this continuous abuse for good. Thank you!--Mr.hmm (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The above post clearly shows that the User:Mr.hmm is actively stalking any mention of subjects /references in Wikipedia that he is not in agreement with and trying to influence reviewer's opinion on AfC. Not sure if this is a valid user behavior. Since you have already paged other editors I would wait for the response and further advice from them.

Hagennos (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

  • I was requested to comment. There is nothing in our policies that says if an article has been deleted once (or four times) that it can never have an article. Similarly, unless it is painfully clear that the company is a complete non-starter, there is nothing preventing someone from creating a Draft. On the other hand, tenditious editing often results in drafts being deleted and users blocked.
That being said, Mr.hmm, you make some rather ostentatious claims about the motivations behind the OPN folks. While your links and statements seem to jive reasonably well with the creation history of the page in question, a random AFC reviewer's talk page is not the place to make grand statements about preventing folks from editing Wikipedia. I notice you're actually canvassing opinions and have harassed other users in the past in order to get them shut down.
If you feel that the company is maliciously and wilfully breaking Wikipedia rules in order to attempt to get a page on Wikipedia, then you should go to WP:AN to make your case against a more permanent solution to the creation problem. However, do beware that when such reports are made the nominator is also scrutinized, so don't shoot yourself in the foot. Primefac (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not sure who requested you to comment as Sulfurboy requested input from other admins. The user you claim I harassed is one of many OPNsense sock accounts, this is his contribution history.. As you can see, that is a purposely created account to promote OPNsense. In fact, you can see other Wikipedia editors and admins have intervened on my talk page and removed repeated bogus warnings by OPNsense sock accounts. Your claims that I'm canvassing are also bogus as I was reporting OPNsense vandalism again to NeilN, something he previously helped with. Here is his talk page where I left a note. I would love to see why my claims are ostentatious, as I only provide context and evidence of Wikipedia abuse by OPNsense. Thanks--Mr.hmm (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I just saw your talk page and saw who asked you to comment, sorry I missed to see it right away. However, I feel my statements above still stand.--Mr.hmm (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Mr.hmm, I apologize for implying that you were canvassing, the content of the message you left was largely the same as here but I did not realize you had gone to them previously.
My main point was that bringing this to the attention of a non-admin simply for reviewing a draft (which they had already declined) is a rather pointless exercise, and that there are better venues (such as WP:AN or a previously-involved admin) in which to air this concern/grievance. Primefac (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Primefac, I apologize too, I've realized my response to you was a bit harsh (I've certainly overused the word obtuse). I understand your point about bringing this to non-admin, my intention was only to warn Sulfurboy as he reviewed the draft several times. I am still waiting for admin response (including NeilN) but I don't mind submitting to WP:AN if OPN folks gain traction. Thank you--Mr.hmm (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Primefac for your input. Mr.hmm, please do not ever comment anything along the lines of "not sure who welcomed you to comment" on my talk page. Wikipedia is an open community that anyone is welcome to contribute to. And on my talk page, I welcome anyone and everyone to comment on any subject. I have decided that I'm going to stay out of this situation, if you want to report it to the proper admins then go for it, otherwise I will just review the page as I normally would. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Sulfurboy, initial comment left by Primefac was not signed and I genuinely did not see it was an invite from you, as you've asked for input from two admins instead. I mistakenly assumed it's yet another sock account. I apologize that came out wrong, I issued correction when I realized it was an invite from you. Regarding the draft, it has issues with notability and contains many falsehoods so I advise caution and fact checking. That's the reason why I contacted you in the first place. Thank you for your time.--Mr.hmm (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Primefac and Sulfurboy for the inputs. As Primefac implied, when OPNSense was first introduced in 2015 as a fork of PfSense, it may not be a worthwhile inclusion as the future and direction was not clear. But by 2017 the product has undergone regular updates and major revisions which differentiates it from the original fork (PfSense), that is now considered a viable contender for Open source Firewall by many tech review sites. Only other point that I wanted to make was that Mr.hmm in his earlier comment had said without any substantiating proof : "the latest attempt by OPNsense is pure manipulation, they are trying to paint OPNsense as a m0n0wall successor. That is simply incorrect as there is no m0n0wall successor. Only more successful and surviving fork of M0n0wall is pfSense. In 2015 Deciso, the company behind OPNsense project purchased m0n0wall domains for undisclosed amount after the m0n0wall project ended. One could say they purchased their endorsement, however the main m0n0wall developer did not endorse OPNsense as they claim. OPNsense has zero connection with m0n0wall as OPNsense is actually a pfSense fork. If you check whois for m0n0wall website m0n0.ch you will the owner of domain is Deciso, the behind OPNsense project. That proves the point that they tailored the "endorsement" to their liking. ". When products change over to their successor it is natural that the domain ownership also changes. The best example of this is SNORT domain which is now owned by Cisco, and stating that endorsement was purchased without offering any proof is creating FUD to influence the opinion of Wikipedia reviewers. In fact Mr.hmm has already said that he had been trying to shut down any references to OPNSense for the past two years as his singular aim in Wikipedia which can be seen from his contributions (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Mr.hmm&offset=&limit=250&target=Mr.hmm). In fact the opposite is true as if you look a the Open mail given by Manuel Kasper when he announced the end of M0n0wall project it states otherwise. In my page I have tried to be as objective as possible without any apparent bias to a product which I feel should have is presence in Wikipedia and then the general community improve upon it or give dissenting opinion instead of a single user who could have a COI. Hagennos (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Hagennos continues with his manipulation and deception in order to appear legit. Claiming I might have a COI while at the same time submitting OPNsense draft (and having it rejected) for 5 times is ridiculous. Same is really with his edits, where he inserts OPNsense mentions on several pages. I would especially like to mention his malicious edit on pfSense page where he attempts to discredit valid and reputable sources just because his own draft was rejected due to no significant coverage and notability. His own link where Manuel Kasper announces end of m0n0wall project proves that OPNsense is not a successor because Manuel himself didn’t claim or suggest that. Rock solid proof that Deciso indeed purchased m0n0wall domains is page whois. Claiming that there was no purchase but “natural domain ownership change” is even more ridiculous (and Cisco purchased Snort, with money so your example is at best, invalid). What we have here is OPNsense propaganda at work, the reason why the purchased m0n0wall domains was to establish themselves as successor even though there’s no direct link between OPNsense and m0n0wall, apart from the financial one of course. There is *no* m0n0wall successor, there are only m0n0wall forks and the most famous one is pfSense. OPNsense is a pfSense fork, not a m0n0wall fork or successor. Lastly your own draft proves you have bias considering the scary number of falsehoods, from “influenced by” and “proceeded by” m0n0wall to the fact that your external links of “many major tech websites” are same authors on two websites, including the “major tech website” with a private or expired SSL certificate. I would strongly advise you stop with the deception and personal attacks, they will not help you make any progress.--Mr.hmm (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
This post by Mr.hmm again proves his singular agenda of trying to block all attempts of OPNSense mentioned in Wikipedia, along with strong views on a competing product. In my opinion that is a COI and whenever I mention it, the user likes to call it a personal attack. I have never implied that OPNSense is a m0n0wall fork and even it my draft it is said clearly that it is a PfSense fork. But denying history that it is not based on m0n0wall is like stating that Linux, BSD and even OSX does not have its origins from UNIX. There are two factors by which I consider OPNSense to be a successor of M0n0wall (discounting the domain ownership which Mr.hmm has without proof stated that is a financial transaction which by itself is not illegal, as is the case of SNORT and Cisco. Mr.hmm also mentions that I claimed there was no purchase which i never did and my only statement was that the user'e earlier statement that the endorsement was purchased was without any proof), the fact that m0n0wall project shut down a few months after the first release of OPNSense and the project termination notice from Manuel Kasper where he mentions "The newest offspring, OPNsense (https://opnsense.org), aims to continue the open source spirit of m0n0wall while updating the technology to be ready for the future. In my view, it is the perfect way to bring the m0n0wall idea into 2015, and I encourage all current m0n0wall users to check out OPNsense and contribute if they can.". I sincerely hope that Wikipedia reviewers don't fall for the FUD by Mr.hmm Hagennos (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I'd go easy with bold fonts, it's not giving the desired effect. I am amused by your selective replies, ignoring any points that don't fit your agenda. You first claim that there's no proof that Deciso, company behind OPNsense purchased m0n0wall domains (despite OWNING the m0n0.ch domains), then you claim you never said there was no purchase and that what really happened was a "change over to successor". I think you are confusing yourself here. The proof is there, all m0n0wall domains are owned by Deciso (speaking of Deciso, they too abused Wikipedia and got their page deleted... I wonder why, seems like a repetitive pattern with these people). I also don't see why would you consider Cisco's purchase of Snort illegal as you claim either.
Claiming OPNsense is a m0n0wall successor just because m0n0wall announced project termination around OPNsense first appearance is ridiculous. It's clear that m0n0wall did not shut down because of OPNsense nor did Manuel Kasper ever claim that. You're engaging in politics level of spin now.
What should be written in bold is this: OPNsense is abusing Wikipedia for many years. It's authors, developers and people they sent have been abusing Wikipedia in order for OPNsense to gain visibility and free promotion. Trying to portray me as someone with personal interest just because I prevent the abuse speaks volumes about your intentions. I'm not going to further engage in discussion with you as it's clear you're here to promote OPNsense in every possible way, even malicious ones.--Mr.hmm (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

review of submission my draft

First of all thank you very much for review my draft for "Tuna Beklevic". I have been updated with more reliable sources after your review. Can you please have a look? Thanks very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kutluxyz (talk • contribs) 05:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Please see rule two on the top of my talk page. It's in all caps for convenience. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

EON IT Park,Kharadi Review

Thanks Sulfurboy for your review of my article EON IT Park, Kharadi on 15 November. I restarted working on that article to improve it.In meantime, for further any help on this article please help me.

Thank you! BhushanWikipedian (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Link to article please. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

23:56:33, 16 November 2017 review of submission by Alvinglori



Are all our citations and references are rejected? or we simply did the citations incorrectly in form? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvinglori (talk • contribs) 23:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It was rejected for lack of inline citations. Please review the decline statement at the top of the subject page and follow the links given if you need help. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

13:00:16, 16 November 2017 review of submission by Davidivad1



I am not sure how this works but just wanted to ask you if you knew how many more sources etc I would need to get this page acknowledged? Is it one or two more or is it like 100s? Thanks Davidivad1 (talk) 13:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the amount of sources, that's irrelevant. It's quality over quantity, we need to see substantial third party coverage directly discussing or talking about the subject. See WP:GNG or the links provided in the decline box for help. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

04:10:00, 16 November 2017 review of submission by Kutluxyz


Hello, i added 10 more references from different countries == 04:13:27, 16 November 2017 review of submission by Kutluxyz ==

Glad to hear it, there are over 2000 articles waiting to be reviewed, it'll be reviewed again in time. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Trout

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.

I was surprised when someone mentioned your decline at Draft:OmiseGO. I know it was a while ago, hence the trout (as a reminder). Primefac (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Haha this is awesome Primefac, just what I needed in this sort of drama filled week. And yes I've broken that habit of declining for that reasons. Thanks for always being helpful though and keeping me on my toes. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Dezsö Magyar article

Hi! Here is my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dezs%C3%B6_Magyar

I removed the IMDB link and found better sources for what I've typed.

I found an article that provides extensive information about him. It's in Hungarian, but passages can obviously be translated easily using Internet tools. The article verifies the information about his early career.

http://en.mandadb.hu/common/file-servlet/document/529541/default/doc_url/fk_1987_3sz.pdf

Other Wikipedia articles either list his work or actually refer to him by name.

His subsequent academic career is documented by the institution's websites and American news articles.

Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Posters5 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, anything else you needed help with? Sulfurboy (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Request on 21:52:54, 17 November 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Slovo69

My submissions have been rejected due to lack of on line references I hope the new references at 15 and 16 will substantiate the article. Thankyou

CHRISTOPHER MCCAFFERTY. 

I have added two additional on line references at 15 and 16, I hope this will provide the required evidence. Thankyou.


Slovo69 (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Re-Submission

I resubmitted my article on Myers Jackson. Did a full blown top down overhaul. Hopefully it passes the minimum required for me to get this article started. I appreciate your time and value your input, please see the linked draft below. Thank you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Myers_Jackson Ralph.pugh (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Ralph.Pugh

01:31:41, 18 November 2017 review of submission by 2600:1700:82A0:7000:5956:9F5A:2DDA:BFB


I've already visited all those pages and it still doesn't make sense to me. I've provided multiple reliable references confirming what's written in the article, as well as got information from James Royo himself, such as how he got to where he is right now. It should be a super straight-forward biography, nothing else! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:82A0:7000:5956:9F5A:2DDA:BFB (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I would recommend reviewing those links again, because they would have told you that links like youtube and instagram are not considered reliable, and that BLPs like this one also need inline citations. And that we need to see substantial third party coverage, such as news articles about him or reviews of his work. For example right now, you have five links (which aren't even formatted correctly, see WP:REFB, two of them are from unreliable sources, one is just a list of his credits, the other is an interview (which is considered primary). Sorry, but that is nowhere near close to establishing notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Adding some references after your review

Hello, i added some references after your review on Draft: Tuna beklevic

Can you make a new review if possible?

Thanks a lot. Kutluxyz (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

My submission at Articles for creation: Francoism in Catalonia (October 24)

Hi Sulfurboy, I was surprised that my article was rejected, because it is not actually a new article. All I did was translate the existing Spanish Wikipedia article into English, so any stylistic criticism you might have is directly derived from the original source. Also I didn't find out how I could add the sources section to my submission - I would refer to the same sources as the original.

Is there any way we can improve the translation without deviating too much from the original?

Kind regards and thanks for the review, 

 David  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winter Bride (talk • contribs) 11:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

10:55:09, 23 November 2017 review of submission by PATRIZIA KinderHaus-Stiftung


Hello Surferboy, Hopefully I do not spam you with messages. I am not sure if my last message was sent? Concerning the declined submission, I unfortunately do not understand the problem anymore.

It is true that I was lacking independent sources in the beginning. But now there are 7 independent and reliable sources. Two of the are even governmental official sites.

I have added all available sources. Can you please give me advice how to proceed?

Best regards


Hello PATRIZIA_KinderHaus-Stiftung/sandbox, maybe I can help a little. Question: schreibst du von Deutschland aus? Do you write from Germany, Augsburg? At this time you have no ideas about the rules for references and etc. First you have to study the rules. Frage bist du bei der stiftung angestellt, wirst bezahlt? Hast du deine talk page einmal gelesen und verstanden was da steht? - Question: are you employed by the foundation? Are you paid? Did you read your talk page and understood what it says? We can communicat via your talk page in German or English, maybe I can help. Best.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
PS is the text a translation of the German wiki article? Best.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

My Submission

Hello, I have resubmitted my article, after adding to the reference page. Thank you for the "heads up" 15:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)15:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)15:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiChic (talk • contribs)

Review/help out with my article

You keep refusing approval for the article i published............can you please be more specific or help out cause i been doing exactly what you require but you keep refusing to approve EchoMusicBlog Please see what you can do.............I'M Confudsed and tired of retrying

Check out the article here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blessingmuchuu (talk • contribs) 02:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I would review WP:NM. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Lightricks / Moseron/sandbox - AfC you reviewed was main-spaced

See Lightricks (as well as Enlight Photofox and Enlight Videoleap) - I PRODed all three, however notifying due to your AfC review at User:Moseron/sandbox.Icewhiz (talk) 14:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Seems like you got a handle on it at all, if you need me to comment on something specifically let me know. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

22:29:19, 30 November 2017 review of submission by ComputerRick


I added some links to the Further Reading section of the page, not knowing how to better include them for review. I believe another user copied them into the references portion of the article as well. I posted multiple articles, but it seems that these articles are being summarily dismissed. The techradar article, coming from a top 1000 site globally, (366th per quantcase.com or 727th per Alexa) in the WORLD, reviewed it as one of the 6 best free Linux firewalls of 2017, giving it an 8 out of 10, 1 higher than PfSense and on par with IPCop, both of which have articles and are not at risk of removal. They stated "An excellent and security-minded fork of the original pfSense project that offers a huge array of features". This was not a mere press release and not by a hobbyist web site. That should make it notable and worthy of inclusion by itself.

Another point that I want to demonstrate, is that PfSense is malicious and was proven to be so in the WIPO Arbitration regarding the OPNSense.com fiasco. They registered the domain the SAME DAY that the OPNSense name was filed under EU Copyright, then managed to state on the website that they created that if you install OPNSense and "When your users start complaining, it’s probably the firewall! Tell those whiny b[ ] to shut it. You’re leading technology!". The decision was that the "Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith" by Rubicon Comms, dba Netgate of Austin, Tx, owners of PfSense.

Open Source software is not mainstream and should not have to compete with Microsoft for presence. It is a European endeavor and PfSense is an American one. It would be easy to see how an American publisher could game and manipulate the English Wikipedia site from including a European one, when their page is in German and so many relevant articles are in German, Swedish, Spanish, or French. I honestly expect that this should meet the criteria for WP:GNG with the additional articles that I've provided.

This originally stems from me attempting to include this listing in [[1]] as it states as the last sentence of the WP:GNG in another article. It has been removed and edited out because it was deemed that it must meet the WP:GNG to be discussed in another article, but that doesn't seem consistent. My only intent is for OPNSense to be included and for those who have attempted to add it to be cleared of accusations made about us being Vandals, Socks, SPAs, or having a COI.

Please review the additions of reviews from TechRadar and Infoworld, both independent pieces performing independent review of notable firewall projects and make another determination. I'm hoping that I've established notability, shown an attempt by a competitor to discredit and silence the OPNSense project, and improved WP overall. Thank you. ComputerRick (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Sulfurboy, ComputerRick has agreed to step back from this stuff for a while while the community sorts this out. Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I might have been a bit ambigious last time this was brought up on my talk page, but this isn't the place for it and I've decided to stay neutral on the matter. Posting about it here won't really do you any good. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Request on 18:55:09, 1 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Ceclark66


Hello again :) Sorry that I forgot mentioning the article draft you reviewed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gregory_Wanamaker

Much thanks,

Chris

Ceclark66 (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Provided a few sentences of introduction as requested

As requested, a few introductory sentences have been added to the text:

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

Morseds (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to improve it, that's much better. Approved. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Request on 18:52:07, 1 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Ceclark66


Hello and thank you for your review. I'm not exactly sure where I'm going wrong with sourcing. Am I misunderstanding "Verifiable"? I've looked at the docs and thought that linking to both an appendix entry and the included reference for a published guide book to standard literature would have been a shoo-in, if none of the linked magazine/blog articles or grant announcements would've sufficed. Can you give me a specific example of why a particular reference isn't sufficient? Much thanks for your assistance.

Kind Regards,

Chris Clark

Ceclark66 (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

We need to see actual third party coverage of the subject to establish notability. Please review WP:GNGSulfurboy (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sulfurboy/Archive_10&oldid=813776336"