User talk:Wiae/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

Kinder Institute for Urban Research question

I am having trouble understanding why my page on the Kinder Institute for Urban Research was rejected. The feedback from the editor questions the independence and objectivity of the sources, but I exclusively used major media outlets. Are these not considered objective? Should I be using different types of sources? Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanholeywell (talk • contribs) 19:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ryanholeywell: Hello! After DGG's comment explaining that such institutes are generally not notable, there were two newly added references (1, 2). While you are certainly right that newspapers are generally great sources for articles, neither of those two references actually discusses the Kinder Institute. They may be valuable as general references to cite claims, but they don't demonstrate notability. My opinion is that the Institute is probably not notable "enough" for its own article, and that it should instead be discussed within Wikipedia's existing article on Rice University. However, I see that you have resubmitted the draft, so another reviewer will give you their thoughts on the matter in due time! Thanks, /wiae /tlk 19:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@Wiae: both of those articles discus a program of the Kinder Institute for Urban Research.

@Wiae: I also notice that many, many think tanks have Wikipedia pages. Is there a reason so many others are allowed to have pages, but this one in particular is not?

@Wiae: For example: Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research, National Institute of Urban Affairs, Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies, Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies, Centre for Eastern Studies, Razumkov Centre. Most of these have no outside citations, beyond their own websites, whereas the Kinder Institute's page has nearly two dozen, all of which are from objective media outlets. I don't understand why, despite their lack of notability citation, they are considered more notable. Please advise.

@Wiae: Additionally, many university think tanks are NOT forced to be housed within their university wikipedia page: Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute at Hunter College, James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program, Institute for Interdisciplinary Research on Conflict and Violence. It seems like this particular page is being treated arbitrarily, since many, many obscure think tanks (including plenty that are more obscure than this one) are allowed to be listed, regardless of whether they are within universities.

@Ryanholeywell: I think my issue with those references was more so the apparently tenuous connection between the discussion therein and Kinder itself. (For example, this source only says that HERC is "housed within the Kinder Institute for Urban Research", and I think there was another source that also repeated that "housed" language. What does it mean for something to be "housed"? Is Kinder running the program? Are they providing the square footage for offices?)
As for your question about other think tanks, those articles are (if I may be frank) in a rather sorry state. Four of the six are tagged with a requirement for additional sources, and the other two probably should be tagged as needing such. That's a problem resulting from the disproportionality between the 5 million articles on the English-language Wikipedia and the relative paucity of editors doing cleanup. In general, to demonstrate notability, a think tank must meet the organizational notability criteria. Each article should stand or fall as compared to that metric. It is entirely possible that some of those think tanks do not meet the notability threshold, or perhaps they do but the probative sourcing hasn't been included yet.
My impression is that the draft is borderline. Another reviewer may agree with me, or they may find that it passes the WP:ORG threshold and accept it. If there is more national coverage of the Institute, I think that would only help. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 20:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@Wiae: I understand what you're saying, but it seems like it's all just capricious and arbitrary. A bad article can exist, but a more objective better one can't, for .... unclear reasons. This also makes it very difficult to find examples to follow.

Regardless, is the threshold for notability international, national, regional, or local? I ask because I think I've demonstrated local/regional notability in this post, but probably not national. Yet there are plenty of pages for things that aren't nationally notable. For example, the Mayor of Clearwater, Florida has a page George Cretekos, as does this Texas convenience store (Buc-ee's) and this out-of-business Arena Football team (Houston Thunderbears). I don't think anyone could argue these things have national notability. Certainly, their citations don't make that case either. So must the page demonstrate national notability, or is local notability fine, as it is for so many other entries? Thanks for clarification.Ryanholeywell (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ryanholeywell: That is a good question. The short answer is that for organizations and corporations, at least one regional source is needed. (The policy shortcut for that is WP:AUD.) More Texas-wide or national sources discussing Kinder's work would help. The regional sources currently cited are a bit sparse on content specifically about Kinder Institute. (Next City and Texas Monthly have some discussion, but the Politico source only has a short paragraph about HERC/Rice's involvement.)
Different subjects have different notability requirements. Articles about politicians have a similar rule (WP:NPOL: local politicians are not automatically notable). Not all subjects need national coverage, but it definitely helps.
I don't want to talk your ear off here, so my suggestion is to see if there's more coverage from a broader perspective (regional or national). If you can find some such sources, drop me a line here and I'll take another look at the draft. As for your concerns about Wikipedia's capriciousness, I don't disagree. It is a very confusing place. The best articles to use as a guide would be featured articles about companies or organizations like London Necropolis Company or Cracker Barrel, for example. You don't need to replicate their length, but maybe their sourcing will help show how a solidly written article should be referenced. /wiae /tlk 20:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Bizarre behaviour by IPs active at Draft:Air New Zealand Flight 24 and Draft:Air New Zealand Boeing 747 hijack

G'day from Oz; I really don't know what to make of this, but there is some strange stuff associated with the IP user/s active at Draft:Air New Zealand Flight 24 and Draft:Air New Zealand Boeing 747 hijack. The IP responsible for this edit has also "awarded" a bunch of Barnstars to User:Gavinfu2016, three of which are clearly copied from my own User page, and some of which are purportedly from User:Inarafu2016, who claims to be Gavinfu's sister. Gavinfu has also copied the "user busy in real life" banner from your own Talk page (diff). Gavinfu, Inarafu and the IPs are all editing across each other on various draft articles of very poor quality. It might be worth opening a Sockpuppet investigation; what are your thoughts and suggestions? YSSYguy (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@YSSYguy: That is... odd. My decline of Draft:Air New Zealand Flight 24 was admittedly shoddy; if I had gone to the second page of Google results, I would have quickly discovered it wasn't a hoax. Embarrassing. (I think I might have mixed it up with Draft:Cathay Pacific Flight 418, which looks like it might not be a real thing.) Having said that, I'm not quite sure what these users are up to. (Although I am sort of flattered that someone found my corny recursive "real life" joke funny enough to use.) The geolocation of the two IP addresses active on Draft:Air New Zealand Flight 24 is certainly consistent with Gavinfu2016 and Inarafu2016. (There's also A single box.) I don't venture over to WP:SPI much but I'd say keep an eye on things and if there are any disruptive edits from those accounts, file an SPI. I'll watch out for disruption too. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 04:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
The Cathay draft is definitely a hoax; I G3 Speedied it but one of the IPs in question removed the tag. See what I posted on the draft's Talk page a few days ago. YSSYguy (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@YSSYguy: Looks like User:117.34.185.24, who geolocates to Xi'an, China, has been submitting a lot of content forks of existing articles at AfC. See Draft:History of Air Canada, Draft:History of Fiji Airways, Draft:History of Air Greenland, Draft:History of Air India and Draft:History of Air China for example. If these drafts continue to be resubmitted disruptively, I think an SPI might not be a bad idea. However, I believe CheckUsers don't publicly connect named accounts with IP addresses. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 14:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Draft:History of Timor Air too. /wiae /tlk 14:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
And weirdly enough, when the IP editor created the page, they put a fake comment attributed to you here. This might be worth raising at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation or Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines so those communities know what's up. /wiae /tlk 15:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

15:20:10, 18 April 2016 review of submission by MarcyCourt71


Hi. Thank you for reviewing my submission and for your feedback. Per the editors' suggestions, I have revised the language and content and I have cited references pertinent to the sections to which I've added them from reputable independent sources in the media, including:

- An article on the Huffington Post website explain how the OdinText software was used to analyze the texts of the Koran and Old and New Testaments. (This was included as an example of how the software has been applied to analyze large quantities of unstructured data.)

- An article from AdAge about how a major corporation used the OdinText platform through Anderson Analytics (the company that developed OdinText – noted under the history section) to analyze its franchisee customer satisfaction data. (This was included as media coverage of a use case by a major corporation that has applied the software.)

- An article from Forbes.com featuring OdinText CEO Tom Anderson and chief technology officer Chris Lehew that discusses how clients are using the software in ways that dispel widespread assumptions about the limitations of "Big Data". (This media coverage speaks to ways major companies are using OdinText to conduct advanced text analyses in a variety of marketing-related disciplines.)

I have also removed sections listing awards from industry trade associations and clients, respectively, because I feared they might be construed as promotional. What do you think?

I would deeply appreciate it if you would please re-review my submission and provide any feedback for further revisions or improvements to the article. Please let me know if you have questions or require further information or clarification.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration! This is my first Wikipedia submission and I'm excited about it!

MarcyCourt71 (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)MarcyCourt74

@MarcyCourt71: Hello, and thanks for stopping by! I took a quick look at the sources. I don't review articles twice in a row so as to ensure that the review process isn't biased (it's best to let other reviewers take a look to give their thoughts as well), but I'll give you my quick impressions here:
The general rule about including an article about a corporation in Wikipedia is that the references have to meet the following three criteria:
  • They have to be from reliable sources: sources with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking. Blogs generally aren't considered to be reliable sources;
  • they must be independent of the subject; and
  • they must offer significant, in-depth coverage of the subject. There's no hard and fast rule about how much content is substantive enough, but usually if a reference doesn't have at least a solid paragraph specifically about the subject, then it's not detailed enough.
Now I'll run through the references provided:
  • Patents are generally considered primary sources that lack independence from the subject. Keep in mind that anyone can file a patent for an invention and that the the claims in a patent specification may not always line up with how the technology works in reality. As such the patent isn't a good reference to rely on.
  • The Huffington Post article is a bit tricky, as the Huffington Post is sometimes considered a blog. Either way it is rather light on content about OdinText. The article is mostly about the Quran and the Bible and only name-drops OdinText once or twice. Now, to be clear, you could use this reference as a general one to support the claims you're making in the draft. But it doesn't help show that the corporation is notable. The Huffington Post piece doesn't show that the company passes that initial threshold.
  • I think there's a similar problem with the AdAge source—it's not really about OdinText, and even if Anderson did use OdinText to do the analysis, the article doesn't actually say that. In my opinion this is a weak source because it does not offer much substantive coverage of OdinText specifically.
  • The Forbes source is sort of in the same boat: Forbes Contributor articles are essentially blog posts (you'll note that the page reads "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own") that don't offer much in the way of reliability. Also, the Forbes piece is more about Anderson's opinions than it is about OdinText specifically.
My advice would be to do a search for coverage that is specifically about OdinText. For instance, if the New York Times ran a profile of OdinText, that would be a perfect source. Reputable magazines, journals, books or newspapers are in general a good place to start your search. You can use this tool to search for sources: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL.
Some awards are fine but only keep the important ones. Winning a minor award from a local or regional organization is probably not important in the grand scheme of things. You could mention the American Marketing Association award.
So, in a nutshell: the first threshold the draft must meet is the "notability" threshold per WP:CORP, and that requires showing the existence of multiple reliable, independent sources that discuss the subject in significant detail. So far I don't think the sources meet that threshold. If you can find better sources (sources that are specifically about OdinText, that aren't affiliated with the company, and that are from sources with editorial oversight), add those. Thanks, and let me know if you have any further questions. /wiae /tlk 15:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

22:00:34, 19 April 2016 review of submission by Jljohn27


What type of source is "On Target Living" missing that the article, "Wellness Corporate Solutions" has? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jljohn (talk • contribs) 22:00:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jljohn27: Hi, thanks for stopping by. That's a good question. Wellness Corporate Solutions is not in great shape right now. As you can see, it's been tagged as needing more sources. If those sources can't be found, the article may be nominated for deletion in the future. That's why it can be risky to write a draft by using another article as a template; not all the articles on Wikipedia are very well-written or -sourced. Instead, it's best to rely on the corporate inclusion criteria to guide the way. They require multiple references from reliable, independent sources that discuss the subject in significant detail. Reliable sources are ones with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking (in general, no blogs, forums or social media sites). At least one of the sources should be from a regional or national source, to show that the company has seen some coverage outside of its own locality. You might try using this search tool to look for more high-quality sources: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 14:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 08:23:40, 19 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Anikwue


please i need help in creating the page Draft:Vinvae. i have been trying but it keeps getting declined.

Anikwue (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) Hi Anikwue. I tried to find sources on Miss Vincentia Ifeyinwa, but there are very few and maybe none that are reliable. It is most probably too soon to try and create an article on a young singer who only had her first single out this February. Can we help you get started editing in other areas of the 'pedia? If you have any questions, you are also welcome to ask on my talk page. Happy editing. Sam Sailor Talk! 09:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC) Please leave me a {{talkback}} if you reply
@Anikwue: I agree with Sam Sailor. It looks like it's just too soon for an article on Vinvae. However, if there is another area of Wikipedia you might be interested in helping out in, we'd be happy to get you set up. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 13:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anikwue (talk • contribs) 15:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@Anikwue: I see that you have resubmitted the draft. I would suggest not resubmitting the draft at this time, as Vinvae is not ready for her own article on Wikipedia. /wiae /tlk 16:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

23:37:45, 20 April 2016 review of submission by 39.38.61.35

Hello, IP editor! Do you have a specific question about the draft? It does not contain any references to reliable sources discussing the subject, and it does not demonstrate that the subject meets the biographical inclusion criteria. I'm afraid that there are many doctors in the world, and while they do very important work, not all of them are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thanks, and let me know if you have any further questions. /wiae /tlk 23:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

02:13:56, 21 April 2016 review of submission by Dorothy Potter Snyder

Hi there. I see that my article on well-known Mexican author Mónica Lavín was rejected. This is the first time I've tried to submit an article, and clearly I don't understand that process or this article would not have been rejected. The reason given was that the article was blank, but it really was not. Can you help me out? This is an important author and she deserves a page on Wikipedia in English. She already exists in Wikipedia in Spanish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorothy Potter Snyder (talk • contribs) 02:13:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Dorothy Potter Snyder: Hi, thanks for stopping by! When I reviewed the draft, this is what it looked like. If you go to the draft and click on the "View history" button, you'll see that you added some content after I'd reviewed the draft. So in short, nobody has taken a look at the new text you've added. If you'd like the text to be looked at again by a reviewer, just click the Blue "resubmit" button and a reviewer will be along to take a look.
At first glance it seems like this author is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. However, I noticed there are no references to support the claims made in the draft. You can add the same sources used in the Spanish-language Wikipedia article if you'd like. Just make sure to add in-line citations so that readers know what source the important claims in the draft are coming from. Thanks, and let me know if you have any further questions. /wiae /tlk 02:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Wiae Many thanks. I am new in this space, so inexperienced. I've added some citations and links, as well as a photo of the author. I have resubmitted, and I thank you for your attention and patience. Dorothy Potter Snyder (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Submission declined April19th 2016, glen Ellyn bible Church

hey, i am fairly new to wikipedia, and i submitted all the information of glen ellyn bible church from it's own website which is http://gebible.org/ do i need any other references as well? please kindly help me. is this church part of any other organization that it got declined? thank you khanm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khanm169 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Khanm169: Hi, thanks for stopping by. The draft Draft:Glen Ellyn Bible Church was declined because it does not show whether the church meets the organizational inclusion criteria. Not all churches are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Generally, only those churches that have been discussed in significant detail by a variety of reliable sources (sources with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking like newspapers, books from reputable publishers, and the like) that are independent of the church are suitable to be included in the encyclopedia. I took a quick look online for referencing and did not find any such sources. So at this point it is unlikely that the church would be ready for its own Wikipedia article. You might try working on the church's Facebook page or setting up a church blog instead. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 15:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 16:58:44, 24 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Virtumanity


The review comments are excellent. We will follow the suggestion to upgrade the page of Spacetime Topology.

Virtumanity (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

AFC/R errors

Hi Wiae. I thought something like {{Afc redirect error}} could come in handy. Have a look, modify as needed, use it if you want to. Best regards, Sam Sailor Talk! 04:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: That's very helpful! I've just added it to my Twinkle prefs. Thanks! /wiae /tlk 15:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Runnr:Draft Clarification

Hi Wiae!

I saw your comments about the Runnr draft and I need help from you to resolve these issues. As its a page for the company I work for I have time restraints around getting it published. Please help me getting this live as I'm still new to wiki and will take some more time to familiarise myself with how it works!

Appreciate all the help! Thanks a ton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Safsinc (talk • contribs) 05:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Safsinc: Thanks for stopping by! The draft Draft:Runnr needs some reference cleanup so that the references aren't all dumped at the end of the draft. I see you have already used one inline citation after the text "February 2016"; you should be able to see a little [1] in a superscript that Wikipedia will produce automagically if you use <ref></ref> tags. To learn more about referencing, check out WP:REFB or watch the video on that page.
Another issue with the draft is that it is written somewhat promotionally. Things like " Simplicity is at the heart of the company and it prizes itself as a purely technology driven company that believes in a reliable and efficient delivery system" or "Runnr helps other businesses grow by providing on-demand delivery facilities in minutes" might be at home in a PR piece, but they do not belong in Wikipedia, as they violate the neutral point of view policy. A good rule of thumb is to avoid any subjective value judgments about the company, flowery language describing the company and its business, or peacock terms. Focus instead on discussing what the company has done, as described in the reliable sources.
This leads to my next point. Companies must meet the corporate inclusion criteria in order to have a Wikipedia article. To meet those criteria, they must have seen substantial media coverage from reliable sources that are unaffiliated with the company. That coverage should be substantive and in-depth. Some of the references in the draft are a good start (like the Times of India ones, for example), but some of the other sources (like Huntnews) I'm not so sure about. I think it might be best to just get rid of the Huntnews references and cite better coverage from newspapers and other sources with editorial oversight.
My last point concerns your involvement with the company. This means you have a conflict of interest. That's not a per se bad thing, but it means you will probably find it very difficult to write neutrally and objectively about the company. (We all have trouble being neutral about things we're closely affiliated with, after all.) As a result, there are some Wikipedia policies you should be aware of, as they will affect how you can contribute to the Wikipedia article should it be accepted. To read about these, please read this short Wikipedia page about conflicts of interest. Also, if you are receiving or expect to receive payment for your work on the draft, you must disclose "your employer, client, and affiliation per Wikipedia's terms of use. I know it all sounds a little confusing, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository for PR firms and companies to promote themselves, so Wikipedia takes this sort of thing rather seriously.
That's my two cents on the draft. You may also wish to inquire at the Teahouse if you have further questions about editing Wikipedia; they're very friendly and helpful there. Best, /wiae /tlk 15:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

RL Leaders Draft

Thank you for moving my article. I was very confused about the namespace/draftspace thing.Evaki1972 (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Evaki1972: No problem. I find that the mainspace/userspace/draftspace distinctions are somewhat unintuitive. In general, if you're writing an article but you're not sure if it's notable or if you think it may have some other defects, it's worth writing it in the userspace or the draft space and submitting it for review at Articles for Creation. (If you write it in the userspace and then submit it, a reviewer will just move it to the draft space for you, as I have.) Hope that's helpful. Let me know if you have any other questions and I'll try my best to help. /wiae /tlk 16:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Gianni Piacentino page

Hello - I submitted a page on artist, Gianni Piacentino, but it was declined due to copyright issues. I'm very new to Wikipedia so I'm still learning what the rules, my apologies. I now understand the copyright issue as much of my text was pulled from a press release. It happens to be a press release that I wrote, does this change the copyright issues that my page had? Or do I need to cite every instance I pulled text from the press release (even if I was the author)? Hribbens (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hribbens: Hi, thanks for dropping by! If you're the copyright-holder of the text in the press release, you can donate the copyrighted material to Wikipedia for use. However, taking a look at the source, I noticed that some of the text is written in a typical press release style; that is to say it's not written from the neutral point of view that Wikipedia requires its content to adopt. That's one reason why press releases don't make great references on Wikipedia. (For example, "these boundless objects are distillations of Piacentino’s lifelong disruption of the status quo" is too flowery for Wikipedia.) My advice in these sorts of situations is just to rephrase the content in your own words, essentially summarizing what the source says in a neutral, objective fashion. And of course, make sure to cite whatever sources the information is coming from, preferably using inline citations so it's very easy for a reader to find the source used to substantiate a particular claim.
I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any further questions about Draft:Gianni Piacentino or about Wikipedia in general. I've chopped out the parts that were copyrighted already. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 00:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello Wiae - thank you so much for your help, I've added citations to anything else I thought would be helpful. Is the page, Gianni Piacentino up to Wikipedia standards and ready to be published? Please let me know if I've missed anything! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hribbens (talk • contribs) 22:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Hribbens (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
@Hribbens: The copyright issue seems to be resolved. You can try resubmitting the draft for another reviewer to take a look. However, first I might suggest adding some more inline citations after substantive claims about the subject. For example, when the draft says "The transformation of Piacentino’s minimal sculptures into works such as "MARBLED (PURPLE-BROWN) VEHICLE" (1969-1970) coincided with a deepening interest in motorcycles and flight that continues to this day", how do we know this? According to whom did his interest deepen? This is why a source should be cited. I'd also suggest tightening up the language a bit so it's more objective and meets the neutral point of view requirement. Another example of something to fix is the use of "we" in the draft (like "we see this attention to detail"—who is "we"?) Thanks, /wiae /tlk 22:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

17:29:13, 27 April 2016 review of submission by 178.107.195.47


Dear sir I made a page of my village "kalas sher khan" just for the information of everyone but it was declined by the error of referencing. It contain some basic informtions collected by myself and some other fellows. I take full responsibility that these are correct at the time of publising. I will try to get some references as well but it is too difficult to hve such data of small villge. Hope you undersrand

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.107.195.47 (talk • contribs) 17:29:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it can sometimes be difficult to find references about subjects that are on the smaller side, like the village you're writing about. If the government has any documents that mention the village, those would be a good place to start looking for references. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 23:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Niall MacMahon meets notability criteria

Dear WIKI Reviewer

1. I have submitted a draft WIKI entry about musician Niall MacMahon. Here is a link Draft:Niall MacMahon 2. The last WIKI reviewer advised that the submission was not adequately supported by reliable sources. 3. However, Niall MacMahon has already been the subject of three published works in UK and Irish national music journals, namely NME & Folk Roots and Hot Press. Each published work was professionally written independent editorial critiquing his music. Fully documented references to these published works can be provided. In addition, each of the journals has its own WIKI entry should WIKI reviewers want to find out more about any one the publications. 4. Before I do any further work on the draft entry could a WIKI reviewer confirm, on the basis of the information set out in paragraph 3 above, that Niall MacMahon meets notability criteria, please?

Many thanks

Joe Neanor 01:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeneanor (talk • contribs)

@Joeneanor: I've done a little bit of formatting on Draft:Niall MacMahon for you. I've also done the first reference correctly (Hot Press, vol 2, no 15, Jan15 1980, page 21). You can use it as a model to fix the rest of the references in the draft. You have it almost right; you just need to move the <ref>text here</ref> parts up to where you want the footnotes to appear in the body of the text.
As for notability, I don't have access to most of the references (since they're presumably in print only) but if those articles contain substantial coverage of MacMahon, he may meet the musician notability requirements. Of course, this is only my own impression of the matter. I think the issue with the "reliable sources" decline is that many of the sources seem to be affiliated with MacMahon. For instance, Mosa Records put out two of his albums, so it's not an independent source. Similarly, Discogs is, I believe, a user-generated site, so it's not terribly reliable for encyclopedic writing. I'm familiar with NME and that should be a fine source. As for the other sources, the more information about them you can provide, the better. ARticle titles and author names are helpful.
Once you've cleaned up the formatting and worked on the references, you could try resubmitting the draft for another review. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 03:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

02:28:49, 28 April 2016 review of submission by 49.144.157.60


He's a notable man, why do we have someone to be notable when He's already dead? we don't want to be that way, He is a hero in the making. He's an inspiration for most middle life financial crisis self supporting student, He "survived" the holocaust and dehumanization problems of middle life college schooling here in the Philippines. Not to mention His high IQ and an ample "uninvestigated" works. If you need just the "references" well unfortunately I only have a few of them, because He's a very secretive guy. Most of His documents about what he has done were "printed in hard copies", some of it lost.

What do you recommend?

My advice is to find references that would meet the criteria set out in the biographical inclusion criteria. Any 23-year-old knight, seafarer, architect, accountant, inventor and composer should be attracting a lot of media coverage. /wiae /tlk 02:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia for a notable (people) person:
"worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2] – that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. So He is quite PASSED this. except the secondary element: "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary. -> "worthy of notice, remarkable, significant and an unusual "life story".
He belongs to a (not that) secret society of (modern) knights. He didn't want to be attracted by those media man, He preferred to go on with His career life unnoticed, and if there's so, in hard copies (printed) not on multimedia.
In order to be notable, the claims that would make him remarkable must themselves be verifiable. That means that they have to be supported by reliable published sources so people can find those sources in order to confirm the claims being made. If you scroll down the WP:BIO page a bit, you'll come to a part entitled "Basic criteria" which essentially says exactly that. That section also explains how Wikipedia assesses the notability of people: based on the existence of significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If there aren't any references out there confirming the claims in the draft, then that bars the draft from being accepted.
Have you considered writing about the subject on a blog or social media site? Some of those platforms don't have the same stringent referencing requirements that Wikipedia does, and so they might be a better forum. Something to consider. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 03:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

09:14:38, 28 April 2016 review of submission by Jayakumartvm


Please let me know what all are the reference documents should I submit for approving this page Draft:Cearsleg Regards Jayakumar K

@Jayakumartvm: Please see WP:CORP and WP:RS for a description of the types of references that are required. /wiae /tlk 11:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Yuri Borisov Draft

Thank you!!

I am new here and having problem in making tables and adding links to the pages I am writing content from. Rest everything looks fine. Still I like what I had made so far. Hopefully will do better in future and will keep improving this one. This article I am writing was a sample. I like to add some more articles about Himachal and my local places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueparticle (talk • contribs) 16:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 16:13:36, 28 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Andyht


You have disallowed a page we created for not for profit organisation IAAF, however I have come across this page for a private company which has very few external sources and is blatantly using you for SEO purposes – seems a little unfair!

Andyht (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Andyht: You will have to put a link to the Wikipedia page of this private company here, as I do not know which company you are referring to. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 16:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

20:28:10, 29 April 2016 review of submission by 73.225.121.14

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

How do I go about getting more references for this school when there are limited references available? Aside from the Yelp page, and local small businesses that have reviewed the school, the website is the main portal to information and is a very reliable source along with its Yelp page.

How can I get this school to meet the requirements of Wikipedia's citations? Your help would be hugely appreciated!

Thanks.

Hello, IP editor! If there are not many references about the school (which my quick search for references seems to confirm), then it is probably too soon for an article about the music school. On Wikipedia, a "reliable source" means a source with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking. Typically this includes newspapers, journals, books from reputable publishers and the like, but not blogs, web fora or reviews from social media sites or Yelp. That's one thing a good source must be—reliable. Another quality of a good source is that it should be independent of the subject it is discussing. The music school's own website is obviously affiliated with the school, so its usefulness as a reference will be necessarily limited.
My opinion is that the school is not "notable"; that is, not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, at this time. In that case, no amount of editing will make the article meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that is the standard that Wikipedia has chosen when it comes to including articles about organizations in the encyclopedia. You can read all about it by clicking on that last link. Thanks, and let me know if you have any further questions. /wiae /tlk 04:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

18:21:33, 30 April 2016 review of submission by Phoenix society


Hi, I totally understand your reasoning for not approving the article that we wrote. The thing is, there is no information out on the web regarding the Phoenix Society – and that's why we're writing this wikipedia article. I'm one of the members and we hoped that this could serve as a sort-of stub article that lets people know we exist without spilling too much information about the Society itself or who the members are. And foremost, we want to clearly express it's unaffiliated to Hult International Business School – so if students google us they know that while we recruit from the school we are not bound to or subject to the school in any way.

Would be great if you could help us with this, I know it's not exactly a normal request but I do hope you see where we are coming from.

Many thanks,

PH The Phoenix Society

@Atlor: Thanks for stopping by! You should know that you are not restricted to online sources; offline references are also permissible. (However, they must still be from reliable sources that are independent of the Society and that offer significant, in-depth coverage of the Society.) If there simply isn't much of this kind of coverage out there, then the Society isn't ready for its own Wikipedia article. That is the inclusion rule that Wikipedia has come up with for organizations: ones that have seen a good deal of media coverage from reputable sources are generally suitable for inclusion, but organizations that haven't really been covered in the media don't make the cut. I understand that it may be difficult to find good-quality independent referencing about a secret society, but that's just the way the cookie crumbles. However, if you can't find high-quality sources online or offline, you could always consider starting a blog, social media account, or website for the Society. That would be a way to "get the word out", so to speak, without having to worry about whether the Society meets Wikipedia's organizational inclusion criteria. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 17:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Also, I noticed you resubmitted the draft two more times. The draft won't be approved without those reliable sources. I apologize if I didn't make that clear in my review of the draft. Thanks, and let me know if you have further questions. /wiae /tlk 17:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Question about starting new article

Hi Wiae, how can I start creating a new page on Wikipedia? I don't know where or how to start. Please help me. Thanks! Simple2010 (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Simple2010: Hi! The easiest way to start a new article would be to make a draft with the Article Wizard. When you're happy with it, you can submit it for review and an experienced editor will have a look at it and give you feedback. You might also want to take a look at this guide to writing your first article; you can refer to it while you are writing your draft in the Article Wizard. Thanks! /wiae /tlk 01:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

07:40:56, 4 May 2016 review of submission by Khalaf Smoqi


Hey Wiae, Thanks for reviewing my article earlier that was declined (Draft:Yazda). The reason I'm writing this message is to request, if possible, a Re-review for the article because I believe I did the necessary changes that you requested, and I believe it is ready to be published. Thank you in advance

@Khalaf Smoqi: Hi, thanks for stopping by. Sorry for the late reply. I see that LaMona has reviewed the draft in the interim. I agree with her comments on the draft. You should use in-line citations so that the footnotes for references appear directly after the statements in the draft they are supporting. I also looked through a few of the references and noticed that some of them were not actually about Yazda specifically. Coverage that only name-checks Yazda once or twice is not particularly useful for showing that the organization belongs in Wikipedia. Media sources that focus on Yazda specifically are best. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 01:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Preparis Inc. question

Hello Wiae -

Thank you very much for reviewing the Preparis article. I would like to request that the Products & Services page be included back into the article. It explains facts in more detail about the company that are readily available from many 3rd party news sources. Also, in looking at other technology company articles, Oracle Corporation in particular, Products & Services are prominently mentioned as important supporting information. Anyway, I am grateful for your consideration in revisiting this for the Preparis article.

Thank you.

Respectfully, Armistead Whitney — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yetitree3340 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Yetitree3340: Thanks for stopping by. The short answer is that, since Wikipedia is meant to be written from a neutral point of view and should not act as a promotional vehicle for subjects, the text should not be included in the page. The list of products and services was full of corporate buzzwords that are out of place on Wikipedia. (For example, what exactly are "business continuity planning" or "penetration tests"?) If someone wants to learn what the company thinks its own products do, they can click on the link to the company's official website.
Also, it appears that you may have a conflict of interest due to affiliation with the company. If so, please take a look at WP:COISIMPLE to learn how this will affect your editing on Wikipedia in relation to Preparis. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 14:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Login is a word

There is no need to change login to "log in".

I have reverted the change again. If you do it again, I will simply take it to a larger forum to discuss. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Hi, thanks for dropping by! In the sentence "100 simulated users attempt to login with a single user ID and password", login is where the verb should be. The dictionary links you've provided state that login is only ever used as a noun (or possibly an adjective), and they say that log in is the correct phrasal verb form. I double-checked this before making any changes (see this for example), but I don't mind if we take it to a larger forum. I'm not sure what that would be—the MoS talk page? /wiae /tlk 11:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. I did not read the word in context. Login is a noun and it was being used as a verb. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
No problem. All the best! /wiae /tlk 14:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Response to speedy deletion of Vex Robotics Design System

Hi, i think i responded on my talk page, but i figured i should contact you instead. The article submitted was sent prematurely as i did not read about the rules you cited. I am rewriting the article now according to your advice but under a different title and topic. If you could delete the article for me, then i would be extremely grateful. Thank you and have a good evening! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcmind (talk • contribs) 01:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Arcmind: Hi! An administrator has deleted the old article and I see you've started work on a new version at Draft:Vex Robotics Design System. /wiae /tlk 11:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes i have, but it was rejected due to not enough reliable sources. Guess i have to fix. Anyhow, Thank you, and have good one ! Arcmind (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft Uglichin Vladimir

Hello and thank you very much! Could you give advice on how to improve my article? What should I do for faster transfer the article to the english Wiki main space? Thanks a lot Valettuzza (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Valettuzza: Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! My suggestion would be to look at the director inclusion criteria, the "rules" that a director should meet in order to have their own Wikipedia article. Basically, there should be a good deal of media coverage of the director from reliable sources of information, and that coverage should show that the director is:
  • seen as an important figure;
  • known for coming up with an important new concept, theory, or technique;
  • the creator of well-known works that have seen a good deal of coverage; or
  • the recipient of significant critical attention for their work.
I don't typically review articles about directors since it's not my area of expertise, but those are my suggestions. The more articles you can find about Uglichin in particular, the better. References that aren't about him very much aren't as useful. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 14:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Wiae! I would like to know maybe it will be better to write the article about the film because the the information about it is on the Casper Van Dien Wiki page? There is so few english links about the ::director (((Valettuzza (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
@Valettuzza: Hi again! References in other languages are fine to use, but usually it means that the review will take a bit longer, as not all of the AfC reviewers speak other languages. You could try writing about one of his films, but whether it will be accepted depends on whether it meets the film inclusion criteria. I'd suggest looking closely at those criteria before trying to write an article about a film—usually if a film hasn't been reviewed by independent critics in at least a few reliable sources, it doesn't really stand much chance of being accepted.
Another option would be to write about this director or his films in the Russian-language Wikipedia. I don't know what their content policies are like there, but it might well be easier to have the article accepted there. Just an idea. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 22:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

09:08:15, 11 May 2016 review of submission by LucaPost


Hello thank for reviewing the page, the texts that raised your concerns are taken from http://www.epos-ip.org/, the institutional Web site of the project, with which I am involved. The EU web site Cordis you refer to is the portal where reports from participating projects are collected, thus all content found there is not original,but replicated according to the participation agreements of the funded projects.

Hence I believe we have to refer to http://www.epos-ip.org/ and not http://cordis.europa.eu to further discuss copyright issues. I will re-publish the copyright page on the Web site since it is currently offline erroneously, and make sure it declares CC-BY-SA and GFDL as requested by Wikipedia.

I believe starting the page with a summary content taken from the site is a good thing, since it provides a verified explanation of the project organizational and operational structure, provided the above and the {{text:release}} template.

To allow Wikipedia reviewers to further verify the issue I will also send an email to permissions-en@wikipedia.org authorising the content usage. --LucaPost (talk) 09:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@LucaPost: Ah, my bad about identifying that it was from CORDIS instead of EPOS. A GDFL+CC-By-SA license will work, and the email to permissions is a good idea as well. Sounds like you know what you're doing! Thanks, /wiae /tlk 13:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
@LucaPost: By the way, after you send the email, please edit Draft talk:European Plate Observing System to put {{subst:OP}} at the top of that page. That will let others know that you've sent an email about permissions. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 14:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
@Wiae: Aside from the Copyright issues and permissions the current 'cleaned' version might suffice for us at the moment, do you think I can resubmit it as such ?
I will then take care of the rest so that future updates will not run into wikipedia infringements.

--LucaPost (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@LucaPost: Sure, that is an option too. Before resubmitting I would suggest tweaking some of the language to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view. For example, text like "pushes the boundaries of scientific excellence" strikes me as a bit too much like what you would find in a press release. I took a brief look at some of the references; some are better than others. The Metadata and Semantics Research source looks good at first glance, as does the ilsussidiario.net source. However, the interviews with people working on the project aren't as valuable as third-party coverage (from sources that are independent of the subject). Similarly, newspaper coverage is preferable to trade website coverage. You can still use interviews as citations for basic facts in the draft, of course, but they're just not terribly persuasive when it comes to showing the greater media coverage about EPOS. My general advice is to write the draft based on what the reliable third-party sources say, not what you yourself know about EPOS. That often helps lessen promotional tone problems.
Also, if you're not yet aware of it, Wikipedia has a policy about conflicts of interests. Please take a look at WP:COISIMPLE to learn how this policy will affect you. It doesn't prohibit you from editing or anything, but if you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia, you do have to disclose that. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 14:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Cis-Kuen Lun Tract

The Cis-Kuen Lun Tract is the same as the Trans-Karakoram Tract which I have edited extensively! You wanted sources. The Times Atlas link which shows the depiction of the northern border of Kashmir is the source! The map displays an enclosed area in northern Kashmir with the caption "Undefined Frontier area". The area encompassing the caption "Undefined Frontier area" is the Cis-Kuen Lun Tract. It is the same thing as the Trans-Karakoram Tract. The only difference is that the while the Trans-Karakoram Tract extends from the Karakoram Range northwards to the Kuen Lun Range, the Cis-Kuen Lun Tract extends from the Kuen Lun Range southwards towards the Karakoram range in central Kashmir. View the Times Atlas map of 1954 which depicts the northern border of Kashmir on the watershed of the Kuen Lun Range on the Taghdumbash Pamir, Mariom Pamir, and the Raskam range or ridge and depicts the caption "Undefined Frontier area" below it extending towards the Karakoram range and the Chhogori Peak K2 but not actually touching K2 as even the Times Atlas did not consider the K2 peak to be disputed. Nor did the Times Atlas consider the Shaksgam Valley disputed for that matter as can be seen in the 1954 map published by the Times Atlas.I am adding this because there is a concerted effort to restrict the Trans-Karakoram Tract to the Shaksgam Valley which is clearly erroneous and not borne out by records!Even the official map published by the The Government of Pakistan depicting the alignment of the northern Border of Kashmir in 1962, depicted much of the Cis-Kuen Lun Tract as part of Kashmir and the alignment published by the Government of Pakistan predominantly was similar to and coincided with the portrayal of the northern Border of Kashmir in 1954 by the Times Atlas which had predominantly depicted the Cis-Kuen Lun Tract as a part of Kashmir under the caption "Undefined Frontier area" though at places, the official position of the Government of

Map depicting the official alignment of the northern border of Kashmir in 1962 according to the Government of Pakistan

Pakistan deviated from the position of the Times Atlas and the Government of Pakistan even depicted areas as part of Kashmir which were to the north of the border of Kashmir as published in 1954 by the Times Atlas! Also for an idea of the extent of the Trans-Karakoram Tract or the Trans-Kuen Lun Tract, please view this map (C) from the Joe Schwartzberg's Historical Atlas of South Asia at DSAL in Chicagowith the caption, "The boundary of Kashmir with China as portrayed and proposed by Britain prior to 1947". The geographical and territorial extent of the Trans-Karakoram Tract or the Trans-Kuen Lun Tract is more or less the territory enclosed between the northern most line and the innermost lines! Also if one were to look for sources or references for the Trans-Karakoram Tract on the internet, the only references would be the articles on Wikipedia and no other. So there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.31.23 (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hence I request you to redirect Trans-Kuen Lun Tract to Trans-Karakoram Tract and then there will be no need for a separate article titled Cis-Kuen Lun Tract. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.31.23 (talk) 07:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, IP editor! I'm still a little confused. If the Cis-Kuen Lun Tract and the Trans-Karakoram Tract are one and the same, then how can there be a difference between them? Is one a subset of the other? Nonetheless, I'm happy to create a redirect from Cis-Kuen Lun Tract to Trans-Karakoram Tract if there are any reliable sources that mention the Cis-Kuen Lun Tract. I can't find any mention of it on the map (although maybe I'm not looking in the right place) and there aren't very many Google hits for it. Are there different English transliterations of "Cis-Kuen Lun" perhaps? Are there any offline sources (books, magazines, &c &c)? Those are fine too. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 15:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi wiae, Yes there is no difference between Trans-Karakoram Tract and Cis-Kuen Lun Tract. As I have explained previously, the only difference is that the while the Trans-Karakoram Tract extends from the Karakoram Range northwards to the Kuen Lun Range, the Cis-Kuen Lun Tract extends from the Kuen Lun Range southwards towards the Karakoram range in central Kashmir. One is not a subset of the other. But the reason why I created the Draft:Cis-Kuen Lun Tract article is because in the Trans-Karakoram Tract article there is a concerted attempt to restrict the extent of the Trans-Karakoram Tract to the Shaksgam Valley and not further northward till the Kuen Lun range which is not correct and is erroneous and not borne out by records! However I have edited the article Trans-Karakoram Tract extensively and if the edit there stays, then there is no need for a new article namely Cis-Kuen Lun Tract and the same can be redirected to Trans-Karakoram Tract. You wanted sources. I have already included sources in Draft:Cis-Kuen Lun Tract This draft has been resubmitted and is currently awaiting re-review. In the resubmitted draft, I have included the references. I have quoted from the book "India's Borderland Disputes: China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal" By Anna Orton, published by Epitome Books, 2010 where in the author states, It comprises[1] "the tract of territory between the Karakoram and Kuen Lun Mountains". I have also responded in the talk page of the Trans-Karakoram Tract Hence, can you accept the submitted article Draft:Cis-Kuen Lun Tract and redirect the same to Trans-Karakoram Tract? Moreover , for the Trans-Karakoram Tract Wikipedia article already existing, there are no reliable sources that mention the term Trans Karakoram tract. except those that are borrowed from Wikipedia.106.51.29.195 (talk) 04:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
If all that needs to be created is a redirect from Cis-Kuen Lun Tract (or however it is best transliterated) to Trans-Karakoram Tract, that is definitely doable. All we need first is a source that actually uses the title "Cis-Kuen Lun Tract". I checked the book and it talks about the region but doesn't seem to use that exact name for it. Do you know of any other sources calling it "Cis-Kuen Lun Tract" or "Cis-Kunlun Tract" or perhaps just "Kunlun Tract"? Apologies if I'm not terribly helpful here; I'm not particularly familiar with this geographical region. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 01:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi wiae, we are talking about a tract of land enclosed by the Kuen Lun range in the north and the Karakoram Range in the south in the Highlands of Kashmir. It is not necessary to take a rigid view and ask for a source that exactly actually uses the title "Cis-Kuen Lun Tract". It is just about the description of a tract of land and the northern and southern extremities of the aforesaid tract viz. the Karakoram range and the Kuen Lun range. There is no such thing as a legally recognised terminology to describe this tract of land in Kashmir bound in the north by the crests of the Kuen Lun range and in the south by the Karakoram Range. That is why I am not insisting for a separate article status for the Draft:Cis-Kuen Lun Tract but merely that both should be blended and fused and Cis-Kuen Lun Tract be redirected to Trans-Karakoram Tract to which you are agreeable. I have quoted from the book "India's Borderland Disputes: China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal" By Anna Orton, wherein the author precisely and unequivocally states, It comprises[2] "the tract of territory between the Karakoram and Kuen Lun Mountains". Anna Orton was writing a book on boundary disputes and she gives the information that the Secretary to State for India in Whitehall was of the opinion that if the aforesaid tract of land was in Chinese control, it would be advantageous to the British empire in India. That was because in Central Asia, there were two foreign Powers who had expanded their empires extensively. The Russians had traversed the Ural Range and occupied Siberia and West Turkistan and the Chinese under the alien Manchu rulers had expanded the empire and traversed the Great Wall of China in the extreme far north eastern Frontier of China and occupied Central Asia and East Turkistan and there was an eminent danger of East Turkistan itself being annexed by Russia. If that happened the Russian empire would border India at the Kuen Lun range and there was a threat to the British Empire in British India itself. The Chinese were least concerned about the alien tract of territory to the south of the Kuen Lun range since the Kuen Lun range was the southern frontier of East Turkistan and they were satisfied if they were able to maintain their precarious hold over their colonial possession of East Turkistan and were not unceremoniously kicked out and they maintained their border outpost at Bringja to the north of the Kuen Lun Range and were least concerned with the land which was to the south of the Kuen Lun range as the Kuen Lun range is the frontier of East Turkistan with India. We are talking about the extent of land which has been provisionally ceded by the Government of Pakistan to the Chinese and the map uploaded by me in your talk Page makes it obvious that even the Government of Pakistan which actually ceded the tract of territory regarded the northern border of Kashmir to be the Kuen Lun range. Besides the northern border of Kashmir as depicted by the Times Atlas in 1954 also portrays the northern border of Kashmir on the crests and watershed of the Kuen Lun Range ( Peruse the Link Provided to the Times Atlas map of Kashmir, 1954). Thus the official position of the Government of Pakistan prior to 1963 was that the northern border of Pakistan was on the Kuen Lun range and the territory ceded by the Government of Pakistan was not just restricted to the Shaksgam Valley but extended to the Kuen Lun range. Also for an idea of the extent of the Trans-Karakoram Tract or the Cis-Kuen Lun Tract, a view the map (C) from the Joe Schwartzberg's Historical Atlas of South Asia at DSAL in Chicagowith the caption, "The boundary of Kashmir with China as portrayed and proposed by Britain prior to 1947" would show that the geographical and territorial extent of the Trans-Karakoram Tract or the Cis-Kuen Lun Tract is more or less the territory enclosed between the northern most line and the innermost lines!
So since you are of the opinion that, "If all that needs to be created is a redirect from Cis-Kuen Lun Tract (or however it is best transliterated) to Trans-Karakoram Tract, that is definitely doable", please go ahead and do it!106.51.28.202 (talk) 10:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
All I need is one reference to a source that actually uses the three words "Cis-Kuen Lun Tract", or some other transliteration of it. I don't see that in your post. /wiae /tlk 13:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ India's Borderland Disputes: China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal By Anna Orton, published by Epitome Books, 2010
  2. ^ India's Borderland Disputes: China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal By Anna Orton, published by Epitome Books, 2010

06:10:29, 12 May 2016 review of submission by 180.151.86.226


This wikipedia page is about the cause of women & children development & is not a promotional post. We would like people to know more about & support the cause.

Hello, IP editor! Thank you for stopping by. First, I must ask—who is "we"? Wikipedia accounts should not be shared between people; rather, the general rule is "one person, one account". Also, since the goal of getting more people to know about and support the cause of this project is inherently promotional in nature, great care must be taken to adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Lastly, I would add that if you have a close relationship with the subject of the draft, then you have a conflict of interest, which often makes it very difficult to write neutrally and objectively about the subject. My suggestion is this: throw out everything you know personally about the Project. Instead, write only about what reliable sources that are independent of the Project have said. If enough such sources have discussed the Project, then it may be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Otherwise, chances are that it's not ready for its own article. Thanks, and let me know if you have further questions. /wiae /tlk 00:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

21:33:35, 12 May 2016 review of submission by 208.95.181.184


I am unsure as to why it was declined. Please explain 208.95.181.184 (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. I would advise you to look closely at WP:CORP, which explains the criteria a business must meet in order to be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. See also the comment I have left on the draft. If the only reliable sources that have discussed this store are local sources like Clarksville Magazine and the Leaf-Chronicle, then the store is not ready for its own Wikipedia article yet. Broader coverage (regional or national) is one of the requirements listed at WP:CORP. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 00:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Reviewer

How many article edits do I have currently? I saw that I had more than 500.Snowycats (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Snowycats: Hi! If you check this link, in the "Namespace Totals" section it breaks down your edits by space. At last count you had 217 edits to articles, although that page hasn't taken into account any edits you've made over the past 138 minutes, so it may be a few edits higher than 217. Let me know if you have any questions about anything! Thanks, /wiae /tlk 22:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
@Wiae: Thanks! Any suggestions on how to get there? Snowycats (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
@Snowycats: How to get to 500? My suggestion is to work with content as much as possible—add references to articles where they are missing, expand stubs, do some copyediting, or find a WikiProject that deals with a subject you're interested in. Familiarity wth the policies on reliable sources, independence of references and notability is also a definite asset. It seems you're off to a good start here, so keep up the good work, and don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions. /wiae /tlk 22:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

08:21:44, 14 May 2016 review of submission by 94.192.148.41


I don't understand why you declined it for being a joke. It doesn't contain false facts or anything stupid.

Hi, thanks for stopping by. I found some of the content (coming from a distant planet, being 231 years old) rather hard to take seriously. If order for an article about Spacelemones to "stick", the draft would have to show that he has been discussed by reliable sources of information that are unaffiliated with him or his own YouTube channel. (This is required so as to meet Wikipedia's biographical inclusion criteria.) I took a quick look for references and didn't find much that would work here. Have you considered starting a blog or social media fan page about Spacelemones instead of a Wikipedia article? That might be a better course of action. /wiae /tlk 14:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

my draft

I just wanted to ask you why was my draft was decline?Blink 98 (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Blink 98: The draft was declined because the subject it covered is already discussed in the Rise Against article. If you would like to contribute to the existing article, you are welcome to do so! /wiae /tlk 01:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Yazda question

Khalaf Smoqi (talk) 07:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yazda Hi Wiae, Can you please take Re-Reviewing this draft under your consideration? it has been declined by you 18 days ago, and it has been waiting for a review since then

@Khalaf Smoqi: Hi, I try not to review the same submission multiple times, as I think it's best that other reviewers take a look at the submission. But my quick impression is that quite a few of the references only have minimal coverage of the group. It's not just a matter of finding a lot of sources; rather, it's best to find a few good ones that discuss Yazda in depth. Of the 10 or so references I spot-checked just now, many only mentioned Yazda once or twice. Usually that kind of coverage doesn't really help show whether an organization is notable. Are there any full-length news stories specifically about Yazda that you can find and add? Those would be better than the sources with only minimal coverage. For example, the sentence about the report submitted to the ICC doesn't really need four references, especially given that they are all rather light on content specifically about Yazda. Those are my quick impressions. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 21:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Request on 21:04:35, 17 May 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Blink 98


I really think that they are standard punk rock and i believe that rise against should be named rise against is a Chicago based punk rock band Blink 98 (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Addressed by an indefinite block. /wiae /tlk 19:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

AFCH beta etc.

Thank you for your kindness!

I discovered that the beta version of Yet Another Articles for Creation Helper Script will do redirect requests and do category requests. If you already have Yet Another Articles for Creation Helper Script activated as a gadget, it needs to be disable: Preferences → Gadgets → Editing → uncheck Yet Another AFC Helper Script. Then install the beta version by adding the following to your common.js: {{subst:js|MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper-beta.js}}, save and refresh. If you are using the vector skin, the script is located in the drop-down menu More as Review.

Did you notice this proposal of moving Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories? Best, Sam Sailor Talk! 15:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: I'm of the opinion that behind-the-scenes work on Wikipedia is just as important as the flashy front-page stuff. I like to recognize quality work when I see it!
I've used the AFCH beta a few times, I believe. It's nice when you want to respond to multiple requests at once!
I'll leave my support at the AfC talk page discussion. Sounds like a good plan. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 19:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for relocation

Many thanks for your note on relocation (and the relocation) of my draft article on Allan Anderson (academic). 81.151.15.5 (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem. Your draft is in the queue and will be reviewed in the coming days. There's a bit of a backlog right now (last I checked, >500 articles) so it may take a little while, but we will get to it! Thanks, /wiae /tlk 00:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

23:22:52, 18 May 2016 review of submission by PedantJFH


Sorry I misinterpreted Wikipedia's instructions: I was trying to improve an existing article not create a new one. But I have since improved my amendments and will attempt to edit the Wikipedia article itself, not go via my sandbox.PedantJFH (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@PedantJFH: Hi, and thanks for stopping by! First, sorry for the late reply. I have not been as active here as I would like to be; things always seem to get busy when I least expect it. I fully agree that Wikipedia's instructions can be very confusing. Heck, I've been here a while and I am still far from having mastered them. No harm done in the end, however; just make your improvements to the existing article at Continuous function. Don't be afraid to drop by here with a question if you ever have one. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 00:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

13:28:55, 19 May 2016 review of submission by MehmetArslan123


Hi Dear Editor,

Actually this article is about a special flying program of Turkish Airlines just as so many pages of Lufthansa Airlines programs in wikipedia (such as Miles&more) and this article is already accepted in other languages (tr:Miles&Smiles de:Miles & Smiles)

So please be sure that this is not a cheap commercial but a descriptive program of an airline that flies to the biggest number of countries in the world) Kindly waiting for your response Thanks Mehmet Arslan, MSc

@MehmetArslan123: Thanks for stopping by. This subject could very well merit its own Wikipedia article. However, there are two problems so far:
  • the draft is written in a somewhat promotional way. For example, it gives a telephone number that one can call to seek membership. That might be something you'd find on the Miles&Smiles website, but it is not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia article.
  • there aren't any references in the draft. The basic inclusion criterion here is whether Miles&Smiles has been discussed in detail by any reliable sources of information that are unaffiliated with the program itself. Have any newspapers or magazines written about the program? Those would be good references to use. If you can find some such references (say, 3–5 good-quality sources), write the article based on what those sources say about Miles&Smiles. That will go a long way toward reducing any promotionalism.
Thanks, /wiae /tlk 00:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Changes to Draft:Logz.io Page

Hello! You had recommended some changes to this page before it could be approved:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Logz.io

As you'll see, I expanded on the overall significance in the first paragraph. Then, I provide all of the specific citations in the rest of the article. Noting the increase in major coverage and award nominations, I created a special section just for Awards, Recognition, and Press.

Just an FYI! If you have any questions, feel free to let me know. Thanks so much for taking the time to review this page now ad in the past. :)

Sjscott80 (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sjscott80: Hi! I try not to review pages twice so as to give other reviewers a shot. I see the draft is resubmitted for review so it shouldn't be too long before a reviewer gets to it. Best, /wiae /tlk 17:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

12:44:29, 25 May 2016 review of submission by Rupakhatun2006


Hi have added few more referencs can you please rereview my article

@Rupakhatun2006: Hello, I took a brief look at the draft. The problem is that none of the sources currently cited meet the requirements for sources about companies. Basically, in order to show that a company deserves its own Wikipedia article, the company must have been described in depth by a variety of reliable sources of information that are independent of the company itself. The references at Draft:MOLLA Services are mostly routine business directory-style links. While they confirm that the company exists, they don't really show whether it is "notable". Based on my own search of newspapers and other reliable sources, I couldn't find any real coverage of MOLLA Services, which means that it is likely not ready for its own Wikipedia article. Thanks, and let me know if you have any further questions. /wiae /tlk 02:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

NFG Consutling

Hey there, you declined a page which i put up not long ago regarding this company called NFG Consulting. I based this article of another consulting company called Spear Alliance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spear_Alliance). Could you help me understand what sets them apart and what allows them have an online page when NFG Company was declined ?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillaumelange (talk • contribs) 01:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Guillaumelange: Hello! I left a comment on Draft:NFG Consulting along with my decline—I wonder if you have seen it? There are some links in that comment that will probably prove helpful. Basically, per WP:CORP, the company has to have been discussed in significant detail by a variety of reliable sources that retain independence from the subject. The draft does not currently offer enough such sources.
The Spear Alliance article is not a great model to use, to be frank. As you can see at the top of that page, it has been tagged as reading like an advertisement and as lacking good-quality sources. That article will need to be improved by someone or it may face deletion. That's why it's best to craft a draft so that it complies with policy like WP:CORP, rather than basing a draft on an existing article, which may not really be up to Wikipedia's standards. That said, if you are interested in seeing a well-written article about a company, you could check out BAE Systems, for example. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 01:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
@Wiae: Hey there, if you want to start cleaning up consulting companies, on the bases of bad sourcing, you might want to also look at the following.
  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danaos_Management_Consultants
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramb%C3%B8ll_Management
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Stewart_%26_Co
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tefen
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Group

A local Chinese magazine company is currently writing an article about it. Would you consider this "reliable source". It really just depends on which side of the world you are on, to consider something reliable source.

@Guillaumelange: Thanks for the links. I'll have a look over the coming days. As for the magazine, that sounds like it might be considered a reliable source. Usually if a source has editorial oversight and a good reputation for fact-checking its work, then it should be good to go. Of course, it depends on the actual magazine. By the way, it's fine to use sources in other languages. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 14:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Editing here to postpone bot archival. Still have to look at these articles. /wiae /tlk 04:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done. /wiae /tlk 21:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Podokesauridae, Podokesaurinae

You have removed a number of substub of the author. Please see the two, I don't know the subject.Xx236 (talk) 06:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Xx236: Hello, I'm sorry but I'm not sure I quite understand the question. I have not edited either of those articles. Did you want me to look through the contributions of the IP editor? Thanks, /wiae /tlk 13:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

19:09:17, 2 June 2016 review of submission by Ndecubas


I have uploaded multiple reliable and non-press release articles but the page has been declined multiple times. What can I do to finally get approved? I have uploaded mostly all of the articles I can on the subject. Thank you.

@Ndecubas: Hi, thanks for stopping by! Sometimes references look like they come from reliable, independent sources but are actually press releases in disguise. For example, four of the five sources in Draft:Regenestem (http://markets.financialcontent.com/mng-lang.dailynews/news/read/31038219/Regenestem_and_The_Salerno_Center_Form_Educational_Partnership_to_Advance_Medical_Alternatives, http://investor.biospace.com/biospace/news/read/31038219/Regenestem_and_The_Salerno_Center_Form_Educational_Partnership_to_Advance_Medical_Alternatives http://finance.boston.com/boston/news/read/30889022/Regenestem_Now_Offers_Board_Certification_through_the_American_Academy_and_Board_of_Regenerative_Medicine and http://markets.financialcontent.com/startribune/news/read/30889022/Regenestem_Now_Offers_Board_Certification_through_the_American_Academy_and_Board_of_Regenerative_Medicine) have a byline that reads "By: PRWeb via PRWeb". PRWeb is a press release service, and so that means that those sources you've cited have basically republished the press release. (The fifth source—http://www.kltv.com/story/30357318/regenestem-now-offers-board-certification-through-the-american-academy-and-board-of-regenerative-medicine —I can't assess as it seems to lead to an "this content no longer exists" page.)
Here's a search tip you can use: try searching "regenestem" -prweb on Google and Google News; this would be one way to weed out sources from PRWeb. You'll want three to five references to reliable sources that are independent of the company, and that preferably have at least a paragraph of content specifically about Regenestem. If those sorts of sources aren't available from newspapers, magazines, books or other reputable sources of information, then the company doesn't meet Wikipedia's corporate notability criteria and likely isn't suitable for its own article. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 19:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

00:47:43, 5 June 2016 review of submission by 203.106.157.82


If Furious Slaughter 1972 can be published, I cannot see why this article cannot be published since it contains more references and more information than Furious Slaughter when it was first published. Compared to when it was first published , a lot of the new information were added by me. PLEASE GET THE REVIEWER OF furious Slaughter to re-review this article. I do not trust the competency and neutrality of the present two reviewers.

I have linked the relevant policies in the decline message and have provided some tools and ideas to find references that, if cited, would likely demonstrate the notability of the film. You are welcome to resubmit the draft once you have done so. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 01:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Deleted redirect request Dona Leon

Hello, my request for redirect was deleted by this blocked vandal, but was not restored. My question is should I restore it myself, will someone else do that, or schould I just forget the whole thing? 80.171.7.138 (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I've undone their edit and have restored your request and comment. Thanks! /wiae /tlk 13:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

07:16:49, 9 June 2016 review of submission by Araujcx.ai


Hi, I was wondering if you could help me with this article. If we indicated the source where the content had been taken from, would this suffice to have the content approved? What else should we do? it's been a while since we started submitting our content and we are not sure how we should proceed. Any support from your end would be much appreciated.

Thank you. Caroline Araujo

@Araujcx.ai: Hi, sorry for the delayed response. One of the key principles about articles on Wikipedia is that the subject they should discuss must meet what is known as the "notability" criteria. The various criteria differ slightly depending on the particular subject, but the basic rule is that subjects must have been discussed in significant detail by a variety of reliable sources of information that are independent of the subject. In your case, you're writing about a company, and so the formulation of those rules for companies can be found at WP:CORP.
You are definitely correct to say that you should always cite your sources, both as a convenience to readers and so as to comply with Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. However, it's not enough to just cite your sources: you also have to cite enough good-quality sources (reliable, independent, significant coverage). That's currently the issue with the Draft:Abbott Informatics draft. There's an SEC filing, which is certainly detailed but is written by the company itself. So you can use this source to confirm basic facts about the company, but as it's not an independent source it doesn't show whether the company is "notable". Likewise, the other two sources are to the company's website and to a press release which originated from Abbott.
The company is likely "notable"; all you need to do is show this by citing good-quality sources. I'd suggest searching Google News, Google Newspaper Archive or regional newspapers for content about Abbott. (I bet the Chicago Tribune would have at least a few articles worth checking out.) Cite those sources in your draft. If you can find at least five such sources, the draft would probably be accepted by another AfC reviewer. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 15:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
@Araujcx.ai: As an addendum, I just checked Highbeam and found a few useable sources. If you have Highbeam access, do check them out. If you don't, let me know and I can try to provide you with enough bibliographic information to track them down yourself. /wiae /tlk 15:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wiae/Archive_11&oldid=1005467419"