For faster navigation, this Iframe is preloading the Wikiwand page for User talk:Vexations/Archive 7.

User talk:Vexations/Archive 7

Archive 1 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

14:33:20, 15 August 2016 review of submission by Dmulan123


Hello, Thank you for your review. I have answered the inquiry raised on my draft article. I see that the article was rejected on a lack of notability. "Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - But I have quoted many citations in leading publications (Wall Street Journal, NY Times, TechCrunch, Conde Nast, LA Times, etc), all of which are independent of the subject. Why does it still lack notability? Dmulan123 (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)Dmulan123

Hi Dmulan, I can see that my cookie-cutter reply may not be very helpful. Sorry about that. Notability is not just coverage in independent, reliable sources, but also has to be significant. The New York Times is sometimes considered our gold standard for coverage in a newspaper, but not everything the NYT publishes automatically confers notability on a subject. A restaurant review in the NYT for example, is probably not enough to make a restaurant notable. My concern with the sources that you have cited was that the coverage is not in-depth, and in some cases just repeats what the Suiteness website states, in a way a regurgitated press release. The purpose of reviewing articles at WP:AfC is to identify which submissions will be deleted and which won't. I think that the article, in its current state, and given the sources that exist, the article would likely be deleted at WP:AfD. There is, of course, the possibility that I am wrong, which is why I probably won't be reviewing (and rejecting) the article again, unless there is a significant improvement that prompts me to accept it. If you are interested in becoming a Wikipedia editor, I would recommend that you try improving other articles first, before writing a full article. If you enjoy writing about businesses you may find Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies of interest. If you are only interested in creating an article about your employer, you would be considered a Single-purpose account, and I would suggest that you abandon the effort. All the best, Mduvekot (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

21:01:11, 15 August 2016 review of submission by Mredmail


This page looks to be comparable in content to other figures in the classical music field like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Bernstein. What would you suggest is the primary issue to change on this article? Mredmail (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mredmail, when comparing articles it is important to note that other stuff exists. The Bernstein article is currently rated as B-class. For an example of what Wikipedia's editors consider our best work on composers, have a look at WP:WikiProject_Composers#Featured_articles. My assessment of the similarity between the Bernstein article and the one on Bayard is that they differ significantly in important ways. One important issue with Draft:Michael_Alden_Bayard is the tone. For example, "master drummer", is not neutral, "percussionist" is, so that should be used instead. "under the batons of numerous notable conductors" is peacock language; it offers no useful information, but makes him sound important. Other examples of promotional language are "legendary", "prolific", "numerous", "unprecedented", "groundbreaking", "ancient spiritual wisdom". That's just from the first four paragraphs, for which you provide one source, an article in the Sacramento Bee that is behind a paywall. In my view, the article is not written in a neutral tone, and poorly supported by independent, reliable sources.
I note that the article was created by a user, PureMotionMedia who has been blocked for spamming, and has tried to argue that he "chose PuremMotionmMedia as [his] username because [he] wanted to write posts with the purest facts in media and music" even though we notice that his username is the same as the label that Voice of the Wind was released on. I also notice that your first contributions were made on 14 June 2016, days after PureMotionMedia ‎ceased contributing on 3 June 2016, and that both you and PureMotionMedia have only ever significantly contributed to Draft:Michael Alden Bayard (yes, there are some edits to his collaborator Mary Youngblood where information about Bayard was added [1] , and an attempt to add a link to their website [2]). I think that this might be a good time to remind you that if you have a relationship to Bayard, you may have a conflict of interest, and I encourage you to review our guideline on conflict of interest editing. I also feel compelled to let you know that I consider it entirely possible, though not proven at this point, that you may have a relationship to PureMotionMedia, and you ought to be made aware of our policy on sock-puppetry. Mduvekot (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #222

Ron Murdock Draft

Hello Mduvekot, I saw that you reviewed the draft I wrote for an article on Ron Murdock. Thank you for the work! You notified that there was a dead link in the article. I didn’t see that, but just discovered there was a slash too many. I inserted the right url, which should work now. Also, I added some extra info. Could you please tell me whether this version can be approved? Thanks a lot, Johan Aanen —Preceding undated comment added 20:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello @J. Aanen:, my apologies for my delayed response, I have been travelling without internet access. Please note that I am not the only reviewer for this article. Feel free to resubmit (press the blue button) if you feel that it is ready to be reviewed again, and it will go back into the pool of articles to be reviewed. I would suggest that you may want to try to find more sources, add some wikilinks, and work on critical reception of Murdock's work. Has his book been reviewed, for example? There are still many unsourced statements, like his winning the CNR trophy, and the prize money at the New Glasgow Music Festival early in the article. All the best, Mduvekot (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello @Mduvekot::, No problem. I had a break as well, hence my late answer. Thanks a lot for letting me know what you think's still missing. I'll try to find more sources, or else remove some info from the article. The first three sources I refer to are reviews. I'll make this more explicit so that's clearer to the readers. Best regards! Johan

14:21:52, 17 August 2016 review of submission by Aftab hussain shahnawaz


Hi. I was hoping to get some clarification on the article that you declined, Mohammed Bawazir for Trading Co. Ltd. Is the entire article not written in a formal enough tone or is it the use or peacock terms that made you decline the article? I've gone through and removed phrases like the one you pointed out, or revised them to include fact rather than just be a statement. Please let me know if there is more than just peacock terms so that I can revise better. I was surprised that this article was flagged as informal since I had worked with an administrator previously (outside of writing an article in Draft) and revised the article to be more formal with him. I just want to make sure that I get this article right. Thank you for your time. Aftab hussain shahnawaz (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Aftab hussain shahnawaz: You removed the sentence I cited as an example of promotional language. Thank you for that. You did not edit the remainder of the article, however, and some non-neutral language remains. I think it is often difficult to see what other editors readily identify as promotional, especially if you have a relationship with the subject. Do you have a relationship to Mohammed Bawazir for Trading Co. Ltd.? If so, you may have a conflict of interest. Please see WP:COI. all the best, Mduvekot (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
@Mduvekot: I read the article that you gave me earlier and have revised again looking for additional non-neutral language. At this point, I am unsure if the tone is what the problem is or I am still using peacock or biased verbs. I've tried to keep it to simple facts, as if I was writing a college paper or Newspaper article (I've done both). Is it full sentences that are promotional or simple vocabulary terms that I'm missing during edits? Or do I just need to rewrite the entire thing again? And no, I am not associated with the company. I did, however, read up on the company website to find a full list of brands and subcompanies. Thanks again. Aftab hussain shahnawaz (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
@Aftab hussain shahnawaz: Thank you for the clarification of your (non) association with the company. I suggest that you resubmit the article for review so another reviewer can take a look at the article. Mduvekot (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
@Mduvekot: Thank you for your help!Aftab hussain shahnawaz (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Request on 18:11:00, 17 August 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Varsika


Hello,

I've seen you declined th article and you had two arguments. One was that the sources did not support the notability and you mentioned one reference as the best example in the whole article. It was quite hard to find sources, because first of all the article is about a Georgian man and most of the sources are in Georgian. Secondly Wikipedia does not accept references from very popular sources like IMDB for example or the sources which come from the companies linked to this person. I still managed to find some foreign articles. One reference was from the official website of Russian President. kremlin.ru is the official website of Russian President, you didn't like it and that's what actually surprises me the most. As if you were saying to me that the information on the website of White House is not enough to support the notability. That reference was saying that Avtandil Varsimashvili has been awarded with Russia's honorary medal. I think you agree with the fact, that if a foreign national is awarded with the honorary medal, he is notable. Like if a guy from Mexico is awarded by US President, that means he is notable.

As for trivial information, yes I agree there are some. For example I can remove all the info about family. Also I can remove the info about awards, most of them are unknown for the broad public. Tell me what esle do you think I should remove.

Best,

George

Varsika (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Varsika: The Order of Friendship is itself a notable award, and some the recipients are unquestionably notable. So that may very well contribute to his notability. I also don't question that the Kremlin has indeed award the honours if it says so. However, the citation that supports that claim, does not say very much about Varsimashvili. The factual claims in the article need to be supported by citations. Those citations need to be significant, and from independent, reliable sources. Note that citations don't have to be in English. If they are in Georgian or Russian, that would be acceptable. All the best, Mduvekot (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


Hello again. I see what you mean, but the citation actually says the reason A. Varsimashvili received the award. It says: "The theatre’s artistic director, Avtandil Varsimashvili, actress Irina Megvinetukhutsesi, actor Valery Kharyutchenko and general director Nikolai Sventitsky have all been awarded the decoration by decree of the Russian President for their great contribution to developing and strengthening cultural ties between Russia and Georgia." I think in this case the article confirms the fact and the reason the award was given. What esle should it say more? You also said that I could have articles in Russian and Georgian, but your previous colleague said exactly the opposite and I had to remove all the articles, which were in Georgian and Russian. Here is the Russian version of Kremlin's web page regarding Varsimashvili. Can I include it? http://special.kremlin.ru/acts/bank/24210
I removed some trivial info and with these new changes, I'll resubmit the article. If you have other suggestions, please don't hesitate to tell me.
Varsika
@Varsika: I don't see any of the reviewers telling you that you can't use Russian sources, buf you need clarification on the use of non-english sources, you can find it in a subsection of our verifiability policy, at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources Mduvekot (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

10:57:42, 21 August 2016 review of submission by CreativeCypher16


I am an independent contractor for Mr. Troy Pryor. I retrieved valid references to aid in his wikipedia entry page as a notable producer. I don't want to resubmit if the page still needs work after the changes I've made from the last declined submission. This is my first time formatting a Wikipedia page.

If you are being paid by the subject of the article, you have a conflict of interest. Please read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.Mduvekot (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


@Mduvekot: I am not being paid by the subject of the article. There is no conflict of interest involved in this case. CreativeCypher16 (talk) 11:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
@CreativeCypher16: Perhaps I misunderstood you. You just wrote that you are an independent contractor for Mr Pryor. Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships. Mduvekot (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

07:48:19, 23 August 2016 review of submission by Richard Ammer


Dear reviewer, I kindly ask for more in depth feedback on why the submission is being declined over and over again and how we can improve it so that it is published. There is a German Wikipedia entry about MEDICE on the German Wikipedia and basically the English version is a translation of this and gives even more information and contains more references. We are referring to third party sources (books, websites, articles) as requested, have not written an advertorial text, but still we always receive the feedback that the submission has been declined, but we are not given any detailed information, but always the same phrases - submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability - it reads more like an advertorial Thank you very much for your feedback.

Dear @Richard Ammer: I thought I was quite specific with my feedback. I gave an example of the kind of phrase that I thought was promotional and I mentioned that you might have a conflict of interest. Did you notice the comment section below the big box of standard wording? Mduvekot (talk) 10:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #223

Draft:American Vision Windows

Hey excuse me thanks for the constructive criticism, how can I help to improve the article so that nothing in it reads like an advertisement? I personally don't understand because I referred to the sources as objectively as possible; and the article talks about all sides of the story: an advertisement wouldn't talk about diffused divisions nor the decreasing and fluctuating revenue. I modified the article to correct any errors of tone and then it was said my work paid off. I just want to know what should be corrected and what I could do to help. Thank you. SWAloha (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey I just wanted to add that I completely understand why you guys delete so many company drafts - it's pretty bad. But I'm a serious editor, I am not an advertiser. I'm trying to make an article. SWAloha (talk) 08:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Michiel. I would be also interested in why you declined this draft- you said promotional language (without leaving a comment), but I don't know whether you saw or not, but I did leave a comment following up from my initial decline saying that I thought the promotional language evident from the first draft has been edited out. jcc (tea and biscuits) 10:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
@SWAloha and Jcc:I was too quick. After looking at the academic sources in depth, I'm much more inclined to accept the article. I'd recommend that you focus on those. Mduvekot (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay so I'm definately going to expand upon the academic sources as suggested. Then I will submit it again. SWAloha (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Academic sources has been elaborated upon SWAloha (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@Jcc and Mduvekot: Draft has been submitted SWAloha (talk)

Thanks for the pointer on Draft:Heartfulness meditation, I have removed the statement that lacked citation. Also I have removed your comment from the draft. Duty2love (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Duty2love: I wish you hadn't removed my comment. That comment wasn't just for you to deal with a specific quote, but pointed out to reviewers that the article contains statements that are not supported by the cited sources. I can make that clearer if you like, or decline the article on the grounds that the submission is improperly sourced. Many of the sources do not say what is paraphrased in the article. Sometimes that's a case of WP:SYNTH, sometimes it's inserting a POV. Anyway, I'd recommend that you review your sources and make sure you accurately paraphrase and attribute what they say. Mduvekot (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Cees Links page

Hi Michiel,

Ivm de draft page van Cees Links die u ge-reviewed hebt: ik ben echt "totally at loss". Cees Links' pagina heeft referenties de verifiable zijn (de meest erken industry magazines en video op Bloomberg, TwiTTV, etc). Uw vraag over "welk bedrijf" wordt uitgebreid aangekaart on het kopje "career".

Ik heb echt geen idee hoe ik dit verder kan optuigen, daar de referenties kegit zijn. Uw hulp zou zeer gewaardeerd zijn om Cees Links als nederlandse technologie pioneer een welverdiende plaatsop Wikipedia te geven.

Groeten,

Ellyschietse (talk) 08:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Elly SchietseEllyschietse (talk) 08:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ellyschietse: Als Links betrokken was bij de ontwikkeling van WaveLAN (en daarover zou de draft echt wel wat duidelijker kunnen zijn) dan moet aan bronnen worden gerefereerd, die dat bevestigen. Mduvekot (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #224

09:32:02, 30 August 2016 review of submission by 2.28.152.66


@Americasmostblunted and 2.28.152.66: I'll give you an example: You cite https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/seller-profile?id=39dcde3e-e442-4104-8d09-ae5f689907ee which says: "Our principal activities are the development and sale of Application Release Automation software and the provision of associated support and related services. We are a founder led, private business with a blue chip product pedigree combined with start-up agility, driving rapid innovation even relative to an emerging market. We are already achieving major global progress both in respect of our customer successes and our partnership successes." In no way is that an independent, reliable source. Mduvekot (talk) 10:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Americasmostblunted (talkcontribs) 10:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC) 
@Americasmostblunted: No, you should still not use primary sources, especially if they're your own marketing copy. But more importantly, now that you've mentioned it: If you refer to MidVision as "we", you have a conflict of interest. We strongly discourage writing article about yourself or your company. Mduvekot (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi! thanks for your comment on Sharon Christian

Hi Michiel,

thanks for chiming in on the Sharon Christian debate. I appreciate your input -- I'm finding the process of creating and editing this page to be much more stressful than I had thought it would be. It seems as if there is a deep ignorance about primary research among many of the editors: the notion that all evidence on someone would be "pretty easy" to find with simple internet searches is so frankly wrong, it's hard for me to trust a process that endows people who hold this position. If the Christian site is taken down I will be disappointed, mostly because I had thought that wikipedia was moving towards a more rigorous and deeper model of research. It sounds like you have more experience than most in terms of editing wiki pages. If you can help in any way, I'd be most appreciative.

Best wishes

Icareaboutart (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Icareaboutart, I'm not sure I agree that we "endow" people who hold that evidence is easy to find. Verifiability is a pillar of Wikipedia, and it's of the utmost importance that we get it right. I think we're quite open to all kinds of evidence, not just URLs to easy to verify factoids. Sources can be hard-to-find books in languages other than English, paywalled journal, etc. and we tend to assume good faith that those sources were cited correctly.
I've found that people who start writing, and then look for sources to back up statements they know to be true have a much harder time than people who start with the sources and leave out statements until they can source them. Sometimes it can be a real challenge to uncover a source, and for me, that's part of why I enjoy editing Wikipedia. Specialized libraries are fantastic resources. The AGO library in Toronto, where I live, has been incredibly helpful and supportive. They have "vertical files", where the collect pretty much anything that's published about Canadian artists. We've found old magazine reviews, letters, invitations, flyers, brochures that even the artists themselves didn't remember. They often have books and reference works that other libraries don't have, and they have archives of pretty much any art magazine ever published in Canada. Biographical references like the Benezit are very useful. Other sources that I often use are JStor and OneFile, that the Toronto Public Library gives free access to. I think I recall you saying you're in Vancouver. Have you considered contacting them to inquire about their artist files? [3]
all the best,Mduvekot (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Super helpful, and thanks so much for editing the article. I now live in Washington DC, and will check out the local edit-a-thons here. Cheers, 100.15.183.136 (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mduvekot: article has been edited to include only verifiable sources. Thanks for your work on the article: I hope it isn't deleted. Icareaboutart (talk) 02:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

{{bottomLinkPreText}} {{bottomLinkText}}
User talk:Vexations/Archive 7
Listen to this article

This browser is not supported by Wikiwand :(
Wikiwand requires a browser with modern capabilities in order to provide you with the best reading experience.
Please download and use one of the following browsers:

This article was just edited, click to reload
This article has been deleted on Wikipedia (Why?)

Back to homepage

Please click Add in the dialog above
Please click Allow in the top-left corner,
then click Install Now in the dialog
Please click Open in the download dialog,
then click Install
Please click the "Downloads" icon in the Safari toolbar, open the first download in the list,
then click Install
{{::$root.activation.text}}

Install Wikiwand

Install on Chrome Install on Firefox
Don't forget to rate us

Tell your friends about Wikiwand!

Gmail Facebook Twitter Link

Enjoying Wikiwand?

Tell your friends and spread the love:
Share on Gmail Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Buffer

Our magic isn't perfect

You can help our automatic cover photo selection by reporting an unsuitable photo.

This photo is visually disturbing This photo is not a good choice

Thank you for helping!


Your input will affect cover photo selection, along with input from other users.

X

Get ready for Wikiwand 2.0 ๐ŸŽ‰! the new version arrives on September 1st! Don't want to wait?