Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:43, 12 July 2013

Status: Offline

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Decline at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Grand Ocean, Saltdean

Hello, can you leave the originator a clearer explanation of what your concerns are? S/he's pretty close to being ready, don't want to discourage without offering suggestions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• I already leave a comment about my concerns. (chat) techatology 09:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Your review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Josh T. Ryan (2)

Could you please explain this review? While the draft certainly wasn't ready for the mainspace, I wouldn't say NPOV was the worst problem (as opposed to a lack of coverage in reliable sources), and even if it had been, that's not grounds for blanking and speedy deletion. Huon (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The article is too short and the name of the article is like a username.

The page name is a result of the fact that we already have a different draft at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Josh T. Ryan; it was chosen by the previous reviewer, not the author. Neither length nor article name are grounds for speedy deletion and page blanking, for all I can tell. Huon (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry my bad. (chat) techatology 09:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Islamic Azad University Khorasgan Branch Isfahan

Dear Techatology, Hello, Thanks alot for your comment on my article "Islamic Azad University Khorasgan Branch Isfahan". I made some changes on the article. please check and give me advices. (little by little I am getting into this belief that up to end of my life I should edit and Misplaced Pages Admins reject.) Thanks for your attention. Mehrnazar (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Mehrnazar

Your welcome, I'm just here to help. (chat) techatology 09:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Techatology, Hello, Thank you very much for your confirmation. I am too glad for this. I will continue improving it. Have a nice day (or may be night). Best Wishes, Mehrnazar (talk) 08:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Mehrnazar

Your welcome, I hope you continue improving the article, continue creating notable and reliable articles for wikipedia. Have a good day. (chat) techatology 09:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Academic Health Science Networks

Dear Techatology Hi, and thanks for the review of http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Academic_Health_Science_Networks. I'm just about to re-edit the article, but it would help if I knew which particular bits sound like an advertisement. These are new organisations so I do mention why they were set up, but am careful to say these are aims and a "stated purpose". The article on Obamacare describes its "aim to improve healthcare outcomes and streamline the delivery of health care" but the article on the National Health Service avoids mentioning that it aims to improve the nation's health. Should I remove any mention of why these organisations were set up or what they are expected to do?

Any pointers gratefully received, but it would really help if you could guide me to the offending sentences. Thanks Inscribe Inscribe (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The operation and activity section seems to me like an advertisement especially the bullet list. If you can change that into less advertisement like tone of writing, then I will gladly accept your article and approve it. (chat) techatology 13:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that was really useful and a very quick reply, thank you. I didn't respond in kind because I got suddenly distracted by Wimbledon.

1. I've toned down the Operation and Activity section and compressed the bullets. Enough?
2. I added a final para to the Background section.
3. I've added links to the See Also section; and
4. I have left the list of AHSNs hidden as a note in the text. Should I make them visible or leave as is?

Great feedback, many thanks Inscribe (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Your article looks like ready to be accepted. Thank you for fixing the issues that I cited. Leave the list of AHSNs hidden or better removed it. (chat) techatology 13:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help and for your patience. Delighted to have got it sorted Inscribe (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

My main source is a newspaper feature that was on the front page of FUTEBOL INTERIOR.

Thanks for taking the time to review my article and give me feedback. I'm new here and this is my first article. Many reviewers have said that the subject is not notable, but I think I have proven that the subject is, but your reason is a new one. You said:

"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources."

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:RS says:

"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process. Definition of a source

The word "source" when citing sources on Misplaced Pages has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book); the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people. Definition of published

The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet. Context matters

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article. If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it."

My main source is a newspaper feature that was on the front page of FUTEBOL INTERIOR which is one of the top sports news agencies in Brazil which are known to fact check and be authorities on the subject matter at hand. This is clearly a reliable source. How can it not be?

It's the 1st reference. Did you miss this because its in the Portuguese language?

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jordan_Older

------- The problem regarding your sources is some of them does not really verify what is written in your article. Please add more reliable sources. Sometimes the translator does a bad job translating your references, so it is better to add references that is written in english language. One last thing, please address all the issues cited by the previous reviewers and then resubmit your proposed article so it will not be rejected again. (chat) techatology 00:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC) -------

------- Thanks, I edited the article then provided the English translations then my article was deleted by someone. What should I do now. This is really becoming out of hand and a bit stupid. The information is 100% factual and supported by many references all within Misplaced Pages's guidelines. I now suspect I am victim of a wiki-gang and specific targeting by an attempted blacklist. What should I do now?

------- http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:RadioFan#notebility this person denied my article more than once and now his talk page is suddenly erased, very suspicious.

------- Maybe your article falls under the criteria for speedy deletion. Please contact the person who deleted your proposed article and ask him what is the reason for the deletion of your proposed article. (chat) techatology 00:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC) -------

Decline at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Bioscale

Disclosure: I have been paid to write the article (no surprise). Aside from the CEO's fellowship, which I have removed, where do you see it written as blatant advertising? Everything has an independent reliable source attached to it and is in a neutral tone. It has several strong sources and some weaker, though still acceptable, ones, which is more than I can say for at least a third of the entries in Category:Biotechnology companies (yes I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but still). 70.79.73.253 (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This part sounds like an advertising "It develops and manufactures products based on its proprietary technology, Acoustic Membrane MicroParticle, which uses "a combination of magnetic microparticles and acoustic membranes to capture and measure specific proteins by detecting frequency changes of a vibrating membrane", depending on acoustics, rather than optics." Please don't make it sound like an advertisement. After you solved the issues that I cited, you can submit it again and I will have no other problems with your work. (chat) techatology 12:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

How else can I describe what the company does? I used a quote because I'm no biotech expert. It doesn't even come from Bioscale, but from an Xconomy writer. The sentence is pretty dry and technical and not particularly promotional as far as I can see. (Hmmm ... I see I missed adding the url for that reference.) Besides, this can hardly be called advertising - their customers don't appear to be your average Misplaced Pages reader. P.S. I didn't resubmit it. It was my employer, jumping the gun a bit. 70.79.73.253 (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've replaced the quotes with a paraphrase. How does it look? 70.79.73.253 (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. (chat) techatology 23:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'm resubmitting it. 70.79.73.253 (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Modern Water plc

Just curious why this article was rejected. The sources are all properly cited and this article is about a publicly traded company. Could you please be more specific on the particular sections that are deemed unacceptable.

Many thanks,

Starsend Starsend (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Some parts in your submission sounds like an advertisement. (chat) techatology 14:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I have updated the page again, but I feel there is very little more that can be stripped out of this.Starsend (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Blank submission at AFC

Hello, you just declined my AFC submission for being blank. Where should the article be? It is associated with the talk page you marked at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Helen_Nelson. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Your submission does not contain anything. (chat) techatology 15:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I tried again. Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation/Helen Nelson. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for taking time to review Helen Ewing Nelson and for doing housekeeping related to my improper submission of this article to AFC. I appreciate your help. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Decline at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Hubert Benoit

Please could you indicate which specifically of the statements need better referencing. Thanks, Graham Rooth

Some of the references you used cannot be verified. (chat) techatology 12:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - but which ones? They are all obtainable from the original sources, which is how I got hold of them in the first place. I'll give you full details if you can specify which ones are giving problems. 10th July Please deal with my request. Failing that, please will you ask for a second opinion. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FGrahamR (talk • contribs) 14:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Decline at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Downsize Fitness

Hey, I made some changes to the class section. I got rid of offers and the word "over" since that seemed like an advertisement. Was there anything else you saw?

The whole classes section reads like an advertisement. There is no need to put that kind of information in a[REDACTED] article unless you are advertising which is not allowed here. (chat) techatology 8:02 am, Yesterday (UTC+8)

Hi, so I removed the class section. Sorry I didn't realize that the information was unnecessary. I figured that listing companies products was similar to say Pepsi but I obviously made a mistake. I am doing everything I can to be neutral. If there is anything else that needs to go, or be edited please let me know.

Questions for Downsize Fitness

Thanks so much for all you help! I saw you did a lot of great editing. I had a couple of questions that I wanted to ask you because I want to make sure they are strictly neutral.

First can I remove gym from the title, since its not in the official title and other gyms don't have it life Planet Fitness and Life Time Fitness?

Can I add a sentence in the intro "Downsize Fitness designs their individual training sessions and group fitness classes, including modifications to fitness standards such as Yoga or Pilates, for people in the heavier weight demographics?

I know you said nothing on classes, but I thought this might be something of interest because this is the gym's primary distinguisher.

Let me know what you think

Don't add an intro like that. It sounds reads like an advertisement, if you do that I will nominate your article for deletion. Another thing please don't remove anything from this talkpage. One last thing please don't forget to add timestamps by adding 4 tides after your comments. (chat) techatology 23:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that's why I asked you first. I thought it might, I won't add anything without talking to you first. Sorry about the deleted thing, won't happen again. Is there a way to include that information that isn't like an advertisement or is it just the content that cannot be on wikipedia? Also any word about removing Gym from the title? What is the way to add time stamp? 11:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Also what was wrong with "awards section." Does it need to be under press? I was just curious because I only added because another wiki user, MatthewVanitas, said that awards can be included. Let me know your thoughts. 12:24, 10 July 2013

The awards section reads like an advertisement to me. Look at the Planet Fitness and Life Time Fitness. Do they have awards section? (chat) techatology 23:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Decline at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/AVA.ai, LLC

Thanks for looking over my article. I can figure out which section doesn't sound encyclopedia like, there are "peacock" terms in one section but that is a quote from the source that references it . I can put quotes around that part. I guess if you could be a little more specific that would be great. All but one or two of my sections have at least one source.

Decline of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Epiphany Eyewear

Hi.... You are the first to mention the article has any resemblance of an advertisement. So, PLEASE talk with me about how to go about fixing it so it does not appear in anyway to be an advertisement. It is very factual and to the point. Cites are all good and reworked from last edit. Would appreciate your input to help it get approved. Thank you, 301man (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

This parts reads like an advertisement to me :

"The glasses can be changed into sunglasses instantly and are a wearable computer designed to capture your life's experiences as they happen. The eyewear record video stored within the glasses' hardware for live-stream upload to a computer or social media website like Facebook or YouTube.

The glasses can be considered to be "smart" like smartphone technology because built into the head mounted display is a mobile computer and a high-definition digital video camera to merge man with machines."

I'm not the first one who see your submission as an advertisement. Your submission has a history of deletion due to unambiguous advertising. (chat) techatology 00:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I will rework those paragraphs now that I know what it is you are referring to. The old version you are referring to was only one or two paragraphs when I didn't know about the submission process. I already made changes to remove different items that may have been interpreted as advertising which were included in the template I used for the info box. Thanks for your input. 301man (talk) 01:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I think I got it this time. Please check it now to see if I made it more specific and less wordy. Thanks 301man (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

YEAH!!!!! THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR HELP!!!! 301man (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Decline of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Svetlana Kukić

Hello! I just want to know why you don't see Svetlana as a notable person? I added the page of her club where all her accomplishments are written. I don't know why a past Yugoslavian champion in fencing isn't notable... Also I added a link where she was mentioned by Vera Jeftimijades a very famous fencer and her big competitor. In the link she stated that Svetlana became a champion after winning her...

Provide more information about her life and her achievements. (chat) techatology 01:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. I will.

Epiphany Eyewear

I was surprised to see Epiphany Eyewear accepted in its current state. The "External references" section is concerning.--RadioFan (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I already removed the external references section because I think it is not needed. (chat) techatology 02:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For all the work you're doing at WP:AFC. You're just tearing through those submissions. Howicus (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Decline of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles_for_creation/Wise_Care_365

Hi , about the article of Wise Care 365, would you please view it again? It's not an ad and it has French version. I have edited and modified all the wordings which seem not neutral. Would you please tell me why? Thanks in advance. Transparent Eyeball (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Your submission reads like an advertisement. Please improve it and make it neutral. One last thing learn to add timestamp by adding 4 tides after your comments. (chat) techatology 11:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply! Could you please indicate which part makes it like an ad? I can modify the article accordingly. Transparent Eyeball (talk) 07:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Decline of Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation/Julia static analyzer

Hi, I can understand your concerns about the potential use of the page as adv but, since the references are all third-party (except the first which we can remove or refer only for the android part). I would appreciate if you could specify which part of the entry you are considering self-referential. Please note that I have been inspired by the other entries of the List of tools for static code analysis. Ths111180 (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The awards section reads like an advertisement to me promoting a product by citing its awards. (chat) techatology 14:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

commented in wrong section WilliamSherman (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Good thing that you remove that awards section. Add some useful information about your submission by writing it in a neutral way and by providing additional reliable references into it. (chat) techatology 15:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Decline of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Voalte, Inc.

Hi, You declined the Voalte, Inc. page twice this morning, and I wondered if you could provide feedback on how I can fix the page. I was inspired by http://en.wikipedia.org/Vocera_Communications and have since edited the Voalte page to fit the responses from the editors. You mentioned it read like an ad, so I tried to fix that. Thanks for your help!

The Voalte One and Voalte Connect sections reads like an advertisement to me. One last thing, please put timestamp in your comments by adding 4 tides. (chat) techatology 14:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Techatology-- thanks for that feedback. I removed those sections altogether. Do you think it can be accepted at this point? Cearly (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you must add more useful informations about your submission to make it more notable as a[REDACTED] article. (chat) techatology 14:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Techatology -- Thank you. I had quite a bit more information from secondary sources, but it was declined because it sounded too advertorial. How do I add information without it being declined? Cearly (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Make it more neutral. (chat) techatology 15:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have edited it and resubmitted. Please review when you can :) Thanks! Cearly (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Good morning -- I spoke with editor Huon yesterday and he instructed me to site as much information available on Voalte. I added info from news coverage in a neutral tone, so I do not understand why it's been declined again. Please help! :) Also, I've been using the Vocera page as a model, please tell me how they are different and why Vocera's page was accepted. http://en.wikipedia.org/Vocera_Communications Cearly (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Ben Kyle Submission

Hi, I am slightly confused in regards to the recent denial of the Ben Kyle article. I am supposed to cite secondary sources that are independent of the subject in question. These citations are supposed to indicate that Ben Kyle is a notable person. I believe that I have done so on both counts, hence my confusion. Could you please elaborate as to what more is needed? Ben Kyle is a nationally recognized musician. Do not the interviews from Huffington Post, Public Radio articles, Paste mag. awards, etc. not count?

I cannot particularly remember your submission, please add a wikilink to your submission here so I can address your concern properly. One last thing, please add timestamps by adding 4 tides at the end of your comments. (chat) techatology 15:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear I replied in a different discussion somehow. Which explains why this section remained blank. I fixed my error. Here is the link to my submission per your request. Thanks again for your time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:WilliamSherman/sandbox

WilliamSherman (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason I declined your submission is that you do not provide adequate information about the person to prove it that he is notable. Please add more useful information about him, along with additional reliable sources. (chat) techatology 15:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you please give a little bit of direction as to what else would provide an ample amount of proof indicating the subject's notability? Maybe I am misreading the[REDACTED] section on Notability, because I think that the sources that I have cited meet the posted requirements. I am by no means claiming to be right, only confused. I think that I have adequately met the general guidelines of significant coverage, reliability, sources, and independent of source... I guess I just need further clarification as to what more is needed or where I am lacking. Thanks again, Cheers! 24.131.147.115 (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Bother that last post was from me, but I wasn't logged in for some reason WilliamSherman (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It lacks info about the person your talking about. Add additional useful info about the person you are writing that will make him notable. (chat) techatology 22:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Decline at: Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation/Traffic Motor Truck Corporation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Thread closed per WP:WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DISCUSSION FORUM.

Hi - you have cited there being no reliable sources? I realise some are direct quotes from advertisements simply because data on vehicles usually is only available from the manufacturer, but regarding the company the New York Times and the Southeast Missourian both meet WP:RS. Granite, Marble and Bronze is an old magazine, but valid in this context. The Centenial History of Missouri is also a reliable source for the company officers. So what do you mean? You have left me puzzled. NealeFamily (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Please add a wikilink here about your submission that I declined so I can address your concern properly. (chat) techatology 02:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Linked NealeFamily (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Where's the wikilink to your submission? (chat) techatology 02:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The heading of this section takes you back to it - unless you mean something else. NealeFamily (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I did not see that you already changed the heading into a wikilink. The problem in your article is that the reference you

put cannot be verified. Add more verifiable references (chat) techatology 03:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You say the reference - there are eight references -

• Information from the Centenial History of Missouri
• Advertisement, Saturday Evening Post, date unknown, 1921, page 95
• 1919 Traffic Truck Motor Corporation advertisement, source not stated
• Advertisement, Saturday Evening Post, Oct 25, 1919, page 84
• Traffic Truck is helping railroads, The SouthEast Missourian, 21 October 1919, page 2
• Motor Truck in the Monument Business - What Retail Monument Dealers Think of the Efficiency of Motor Transportation for Memorial Work, Granite Marble & Bronze, Vol. XXXI, No. 1, January 1921, pages 32-33
• E R Paston, Sales Department, Traffic Motor Truck Corporation letter dated 17 June 1922 to Rydzy Garage Co, Michigan
• $80,000,000 merger of auto companies, The New York Times, 2 July 1922

Are you saying all 8 or some? I'd accept the third and seventh would be difficult to obtain, but they are not critical to the main content. NealeFamily (talk) 11:15 am, Today (UTC+8)

Your references are not verifiable. Please find online references to support your submission's verifiability. (chat) techatology 03:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

So you are saying, for instance, that the New York Times is not verifiable? If so then what do you mean by verifiable? If you conclude that only online references are verifiable then that is an incorrect interpretation of Wiki's rules. What is necessary is a reliable Source, not a verifiable online reference (although that is useful). I refer you to WP:RS which sets out what sources are appropriate. NealeFamily (talk) 05:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not saying that New York Times is not verifiable. What I want to say is that your submission cannot be verified by books or newspaper articles only. You also need to add some online references along with it. (chat) techatology 11:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Then I would like you to point to the Wiki rule the supports you also need to add some online references. I do not believe that is correct. NealeFamily (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

What's your problem with adding online references? Your just making a problem for yourself. The rule that supports it is common sense. Find a[REDACTED] article that is purely based on offline references. If you could find a[REDACTED] article that doesn't have an online reference, then I will accept your submission. Goodluck (chat) techatology 23:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You asked do I have a problem with adding online references. No I don't. You suggest I am making a problem for myself. Sorry, but I think the problem is your requirement that all Wiki articles must have online references. In this I mean, it is your requirement that all articles must have online refetences and not Wiki's. As an editor you need to apply Wiki's rules correctly, not what you or I like or think.

So can I therefore suggest, since you have not come forward with a Wiki rule about online references (and I am unaware of any such rule existing) that we put the matter up for discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and see what the community says. NealeFamily (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

No need, because your problem is too simple. Your just making it complicated. You're just angry because your submission was declined. (chat) techatology 00:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not that petty. If you are blocking articles in Wiki on the basis of no online references then I believe it would be significance to the wider community. What I suggested was aimed at taking any personality issues out of the equation and letting those with a more neutral stance look at the issue.

Also, just to answer your earlier challenge Thomas Charles Atkinson Hislop doesn't have online references and there are others. NealeFamily (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The article was created 6 years ago. Misplaced Pages is more improved now and much stricter too. I'm not blocking articles I'm just declining it because it does not meet[REDACTED] standards. Find somebody else to talk to, poor one. (chat) techatology 00:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

So I guess what you are saying is you have no reasonable argument other than calling me names? You say Wiki is stricter, thereby requiring online references, but cite no evidence. You imply Misplaced Pages has standards requiring online references, but again cite no evidence. You suggest I talk to someone else, yet you are the one who declined the article and should at least give an argument that is backed by Wiki's own rules/standards. I believe it is both fair and reasonable to expect you, as an advanced Misplaced Pages editor, to be able to do so.

You challanged me to find a[REDACTED] article that doesn't have an online reference, then I will accept your submission and I have done so, whether you liked the article or not. Personally I don't believe that would be a good reason to accept the article, so please do not do so on that basis. What I remain concerned about is the online reference requirement you personally have. It is this policy issue I am interested in as it has fairly wide ranging ramifications for all editors. The article is very much secondary to that as finding online references has not been all that difficult. NealeFamily (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Ending conv. same args. (chat) techatology 01:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Your Decline : Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Al Schema

I am not understanding you comment (This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified) I have 18 reliable sources for this article. They either cite News or cite Web.

Please add a wikilink here about your submission that I declined so I can address your concern properly. Another thing please add timestamps in your comments by adding 4 tides at the end of each comments. (chat) techatology 02:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Al_Schema 9:36pm CT, 09 July 2013

You used youtube as a reference (ref. nos. 7 & 8) in your submission which is not acceptable to be a reference. (chat) techatology 02:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

~Thanks for pointing that out. So even if it is the official Fox 11 WLUK News YouTube video channel does not work here? https://www.youtube.com/user/wluk?feature=watch 9:47pm CT, 09 July 2013

No, it not serves as a valid reference. (chat) techatology 02:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

~ Ok, Thanks for clearing that up, will change those two references from YouTube to Fox 11 News actual news web site. The rest of the cite news and cite web are ok them I take it. Any other concerns? 9:54 pm CT, 09 July 2013.

I have no other concerns. (chat) techatology 03:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

~ I resubmitted with the removal of all YouTube links replaced with actual cite news links. 11:12am CT, 10 July 2013.

~ Is LinkedIn a creditable source of info on Misplaced Pages or not? 9:50am CT, 11 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PArnold (talk • contribs) 14:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC) ~ took care of previous question. 1:08pm CT, 11 July 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PArnold (talk • contribs) 18:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Article Rejection - Financial Reporting Model Audit Rule 205 - Follow Up

Please note - I am new to this side of Misplaced Pages - please go easy!)

Hello. Thank you for reviewing my article on the Model Audit rule.

Link - https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Model_Audit_Rule_205#

Can you please help me understand why it was rejected?

I understand your comment says that its not written in an encyclopedic tone. If there is any way you could help me understand this, because I modelled the tone after similar[REDACTED] articles. If I made an error here, can you please help me correct it.

I would like to make any changes necessary so that you are comfortable with this material.

Thank You,
Pondering Scribe

Pondering Scribe (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Your submission was rejected because it doesn't read like an article for wikipedia. It reads more like an instruction manual. Another thing I see that some parts of your submission looks like copied from its reference especially the examples you put. You don't need to put that at wikipedia. (chat) techatology 02:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok i understand. Please note that this is in no way an instruction manual, you can see a similar article on Sarbanes Oxley

Its very much more robust due to years of community updating, however the base and style of writing are descriptive and neutral. This is what the Model Audsit Rule is updated after.

As for the quoted examples, this is to illustrate the regulation. The equivalent of posting a picture of the hoover dam to illustrate an article on hydro-power.

Please let me know if this makes sense? Thank you for your time.

Pondering Scribe (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Listen I know you have many of these to look through and on so many different topics. I appreciate the time you are taking to review my article and follow up with me.

Pondering Scribe (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, One lasting please arrange all the references in your article and cite them properly where they belong. (chat) techatology 02:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I spoke with the editors at online-chat, they say it was a bot that removed the comments on those references. They updated the article so that the correct references now are showing.

Is this what you had in mind?

Thanks,
Pondering Scribe (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

yes (chat) techatology 03:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't tell you how much it means to me that you reviewed this and worked with me to complete it. This means so much to me, I trully hope that this will help people in need of information on the rapidly evolving insurance industry regulation.

Please forgive me for being redundant, but thank you so much!

Pondering Scribe (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Your welcome (chat) techatology 11:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Article on Praj_Industries

Hi I have created article for Praj Industries. Can you tell if any sections I should drop so my article will get approved. Also can you tell me if content for any section needs to be improved.

115.240.88.93 (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Please add a wikilink here about your submission that I declined so that I can address your concern properly. (chat) techatology 11:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

EidosMedia article review

Hello,

Thank you for your review of my EidosMedia article.

I was a little puzzled by the suggestion that the article reads like an advertisement because this wasn't mentioned in the earlier review and there was no change in the text, only additional references.

I am at a bit of a loss as to what to change now. The language is as neutral as it could be. The importance of the subject seems to me to be amply testified by the references from international professional journals and newspapers. The Seybold article referenced in the external links describes the fundamental dilemma for the news and media sectors, to which this company's products have provided an important response.

On my talk page I have included some background information about the subject; perhaps I should include some of this in the article.

I'd be grateful for any suggestions you can make as to what to change or add.

Thanks for your help.

DSeeB (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The product and customer sections reads like an advertisement. (chat) techatology 11:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if you could point me to an article describing a technology company which you feel does not read like an advertisement. I will then use use that as a model.

The customer section reads like an advertisement to me. Last thing add timestamps to your comments by adding 4 tides. (chat) techatology 22:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. 82.90.84.192 (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you don't seem to have replied to my last post. ( BTW, I did sign it, but you inserted your post above my signature!)

82.90.84.192 (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Draft Declined : http://en.wikipedia.org/User:AnandAutomotive/sandbox

Hi Techatology,

URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:AnandAutomotive/sandbox

As my draft has been declined by you, I have updated the content draft. So can you please review it and let me know, what is the problem on this page.

Please advise,

Waiting for your reply,

Thanks in advance,

AnandAutomotive (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Add more useful information about the company. (chat) techatology 11:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Draft Declined : Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation/Maciej Tarnogrodzki

Hi Techatology,

my article http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Maciej_Tarnogrodzki was accepted couple of days ago and the moved back to article for creation by you. I added national newspaper references to the article as it was suggested before by reviewers and accepted by Pratyya Ghosh.

Thank you bartar

The problem with your submission is that it lacks enough information to make it a notable biography of an athlete. It will be a big help if you add more information about his career, life, and achievements. Last thing, please add timestamps in your comments by adding 4 tides. (chat) techatology 10:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Techatology for your comments. I added some context for this article and made paragraphs as well. Hopefully this time looks better.

Regards, bartar

Add inline citations in the new sections. (chat) techatology 13:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Techatology. I added now inline citation in the article.

Regards, bartar

13:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Techatology,

I made changes as you suggested and submitted again. It was reviewed again by someone else who came with different comments for change. This article was accepted then it was moved back. Every time someone else is reviewing coming back with different comments. This article was based on articles on the same topic and references were accepted. I don't know what to do now. Is it possible that you can review it.

Thanks, bartar

15:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It was mistakenly accepted by some reviewer. Add more information along with reliable references into it. (chat) techatology 22:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Techatology Hi,

We have updated the content with reliable external source as a reference in this draft.

Can you please advise, in which reason this article was declined?

We are ready to do updates as per your suggestion.

Please advise.

Waiting for your reply

Thanks

AnandAutomotive (talk) 05:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Declined Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/David Haberfeld

Could you please be so kind as to offer some more specific advice or guidance as to why the article is declined and why the references are considered not reliable. Most references cited are from major Australian newspapers and media outlets. Earlier this year we removed a large number of non-reliable sources according to wikipedia. Thanking you

Some of your references doesn't support what it cited. Some are are expired links that only generates error. Please add timestamps in your comments by adding 4 tides. (chat) techatology 13:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick feedback - that's strange, all links seem to be working fine here. Which references don't support what is cited? And what is "4 tides" (sorry I'm new to this). Thanks again

The number 1 reference does not support what it cited. Please change it into a online reference so I can verify it. 4 tides is used to create timestamp. You can found it at the bottom of the page as 4 wavy lines. (chat) techatology 13:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Have done some more work in relation to your requests - rearranged some references and added access dates. If you could please give me a little more feedback. ThanksGlenboatright (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Declined article: Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/PROMOTIC SCADA system

Dear Techatology,

I am currently trying to understand, why my article (PROMOTIC SCADA system) has been rejected. I would be very grateful if you could help me improve the article in order to pass the entry review. I have searched in multiple WIKI language versions and found many articles where SCADA systems are being described. So I used these as a templetes for my article.

Please check out: ] ] ] ] ] ]

These are just few examples of similar articles that can be found also in many other WIKI language versions. Could you please be so kind and give me some pointers how to proceed in order to add my article among these? Thank you in advance for your assistance

David 62.129.54.130 (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I rejected it because it sounds like an advertisement especially the awards section. (chat) techatology 13:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Article http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Jagdisha/Praj_Industries declined

Hi Techatology, The article on Praj Industries was initial rejected because it wasn't supported by reliable sources, but now, you have rejected it because it reads like an advertisement. That is definitely not our intention. Could yo please point out any one sentence and how you would like it to read, so that I can then write the whole article in a similar vein. Your help would be greatly appreciated.

Jagdisha (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The awards and recognition section reads like an advertisement to me. (chat) techatology 22:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted almost all the entries under Awards and Recognition, except 3, which I think read in a neutral tone. There are no superlatives any more. I have also changed the title from Awards and Recognition to Milestones. Please have a look and let me know if it is acceptable now. Jagdisha (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

AIV report

Just in case you don't see it before it's removed from the page: . JamesBWatson (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Rivka_Bertisch_Meir -- adding references

Hi, I've been adding references to the section of the article on Academic Positions but I don't have enough knowledge of Hebrew or Spanish to be able to find references for these positions so I am wondering what you recommend - Would I be able to add a 'citation needed' thing to those particular listings? For the most part, though, I've been able to add references for the positions in the USA that occurred in the recent past. Please let me know. Thanks! Neurosciency (talk) 10 July 2013

Article Declined: https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Winvite/sandbox

Hi Tech,

I received the declined article stating the articles are not proving notability. Could you be more specific as to why? I read the notability rules and there's almost 10 different sources proving the article is notable.

Any and all help is much appreciated. Thanks, Winvite (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It does not provide sufficient information about the company you are writing about to prove it that its notable. (chat) techatology 22:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to the information in the articles or the articles themself not being reliable? Please be more specific. Winvite (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Resubmitted Article still rejected- please help

Hello Techatology, I spent a while on the live chat with Huon today and he advised me in the changes I need to make to prove the article (Lana Z Caplan) can be checked by reliable sources. After following all of his advice I resubmitted.

Can you please tell me what it is about this article that you did not feel was reliable so that I can edit to your specifications?

thank you Anagram1001 (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Anagram1001

Please add a wikilink here about your submission so that I can address your concern properly. (chat) techatology 00:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Lana_Z_Caplan

thank you for your help Anagram1001 (talk) 07:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Anagram1001

PLEASE ADVISE???? Anagram1001 (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Anagram1001

Add more information regarding her life and achievements. (chat) techatology 20:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Your feedback on my article: Penguin General Cemetery

Thanks for your feedback. Can you be more specific please re verifiable citations? And yes, I have read what Wiki says.

All of my citations are housed in the State Library of Tasmania, three of which are archival materials from > a century ago. Two are local publications from the Penguin History Group (one just a list of all the burials). Three are in recognized genealogy magazines. The ninth is my published research over seven years on the cemetery (which includes the three genealogy publications). And the content of my piece is straightforward, raising no ethical or contentious issues. Nor is it an opinion piece, but factual.

I just don't know what else I can do to meet the editorial requirement. I really appreciate your further assistance. Maybe, under Wiki's policy, there is really no scoop to upload my piece? What do you think.

So far I have spent something like 10 hrs on trying to get it through, largely because of my ludditeness with the complexity of the website. But hey I am learning. Thanks again.

Baruinga — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baruinga (talk • contribs) 02:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Please add a wikilnk here regarding your submission so I can address it properly. (chat) techatology 02:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation/Traffic Motor Truck Corporation

Ok so where's the problem this time? (I'm not angry as I know you are doing your job) I added the links you wanted (although I still disagree with your premice) and resubmitted the article. I note another editor approved it, which I thought was strange (no I didn't ask for anyone else to do so, just in case you thought that). Your tag says you want more references? I'd like to know which area's you think might be lacking sufficient reference as everything I have in there is based on the references provided. NealeFamily (talk) 04:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The articles been moved again - I didn't do it. It's now back at Traffic Motor Truck Corporation. Anyway, I would still like to know what references you would like me to add.

Also, I posted a question at the village pump about your contention that articles need to have links. The more polite said you are incorrect and that it is a common misconception - see Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Are online references mandatory for new articles?. I have suggested a change to WP:RS to make it clearer. However, you may wish to put forward your argument in favour of online referencing, as I think there is merit in discussing it further, even if we disgree.NealeFamily (talk) 06:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a note to take a look at WP:V as well.NealeFamily (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the only one. Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/QualitySolicitors Fisher Jones Greenwood. I hope next time that you will put an online reference in case someone wants to verify your input. (chat) techatology 11:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the QualitySolicitors decline. The reason for decline was that the author did not cite the date and page in the paper. It had nothing to do with online references.

WP:V#Accessibility states among other things: "Other people should in principle be able to check that material in a Misplaced Pages article has been published by a reliable source. This implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may only be available in university libraries, or in off-line sources. Nonetheless, difficult to obtain reliable sources may still serve as sources for articles, and should not be rejected solely on the basis that it is difficult or costly to obtain them. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to help obtain source material."

There is no requirement, either under WP:V or WP:RS for an online source to be included in any article. That rule is outside Wiki's guidelines and only your personal opinion at this stage. As I said earlier, I invite you to participate in the discussion of the matter if you think it should be otherwise. Remember this is a community and its rules are set by consensus, which means I would be happy to bow to your rule should it become the consensus, but as it stands it is not.

Please, if you are going to approve articles, do so within the current consensus. NealeFamily (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw the discussion at WP:VPP. NealeFamily is correct. WP:SOURCEACCESS has been policy for years, and it has been defined almost as long in WP:Notability as an irrelevant factor. Writing with 100% offline sources is acceptable.

If you see any other AFC people making this mistake (it is impossible for every single editor to know every single rule in this complicated project), then please correct them. You might also want to read Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Cost, Misplaced Pages:Offline sources, and WP:PAYWALL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Martinho Moniz - Macau

Dear Techatology, Thank you for taking the time to review the article on Chef Martinho Moniz. I can see why you would think that notoriety needs to be proven; I would have said the same. Martinho Moniz is definitively a celebrity here in Macau and is also quite notorious in Hong Kong. He is widely acknowledged as an artist, often mentioned in the Press and TV interviews.

Macau has one of the highest tourist numbers in the world. Gambling is the main attraction and food comes second. Food is very important for the Chinese culture. And for all tourists. Most tourist in the world are not oblivious to what they are served when abroad. The gastronomic offer in Macau ranges from Cantonese, Asian to western. And within western cuisine, Portuguese takes a very prominent place, given Macau's history and culture. This is why there are so many TV programs on Martinho Moniz, more than any other cook in Macau. He is constantly on TV. People recognize him on the street and approach him for autographs.

A friend on mine is a reporter and was commissioned to do an article on him. She was amazed he wasn't on wikipedia.

Best regards, Isabel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.175.43.178 (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Brett King (business person).

Hello. Please can you be clearer in terms of what you require for more "context"? I believe this is a solid entry for someone with a public profile (BBC, Sunday Times, TED, published author etc.) I was previously asked to remove references to his company and its products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisWoolford1980 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It means that add more information about his life, career, achievement and other things that would make him more remarkable, so that when people read about his[REDACTED] article they will know him better. (chat) techatology 23:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)