Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

User talk:Primefac/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Abdulaziz bin Turki bin Talal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud

Hello. Would appreciate you taking a look at the Abdulaziz Bin Turki Bin Talal Al-Saud article, if you've got a moment, following your rejection of its draft version yesterday as "references do not adequately show the subject's notability". BLP isn't my strongest suit, and I'm not sure I'm confident enough to push it to an AfD.

The surrounding edits do seem a little suspicious; as well as posting the article despite the draft being rejected, User:Ibrahim.tabech has uploaded two other duplicate drafts and put a copy on their own userpage, and an IP blanked your rejected draft as soon as I mentioned it. --McGeddon (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

McGeddon, thanks for the heads up, I've redirected the other two drafts and am putting the Article for deletion. Primefac (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft:ObjectSecurity

Hi,

I came across the draft article about Object Security while doing some work on model-driven security. In fact I know of the company and was surprised not to find it on Wikipedia because it's been working in the field for years.

Could you be a bit more specific about the edit you recommend please? I could try to have a go a it.

Fabien — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabienpe (talk • contribs) 20:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Fabienpe, none of the sources in that draft discuss ObjectSecurity in any great detail, which is required for all Wikipedia articles. Primefac (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Nick Marsh?

Hi,

Can you take another look at the Nick Marsh page for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.228.134.59 (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi - the NIck Marsh feature was turned down on June 4th. Could you please take another look at it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.172.250 (talk) 13:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

In general, I don't re-review articles, so that other reviewers get a chance to see and review the page (minimizes bias). However, we are short on reviewers at the moment so I might see to it eventually. Primefac (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Request on 16:34:53, 29 June 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Mithilsoni200



Mithilsoni200 (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC) stupid you are why are declining me now i have done correctly please dont do this otherwise i will be do repeatedly

Mithilsoni200, please be CIVIL when dealing with other users. I am reverting your submissions because you are not actively working on improving it to the point where someone could even consider accepting the draft. Add some references, improve the text, and then we can reconsider submitting. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the quack.

I was about to revert those myself, but I see you caught the majority of it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

User talk page edits

Normally it is okay to remind user per NOFORUM or collapse comments, the first time i see a user go around deleting editor input. And i do not agree with this on very specific topics like LAMBDA, where discussion is valid to discuss edits or briefly point something out. prokaryotes (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Prokaryotes, fringe theories being pasted across a dozen talk pages by an SPA doesn't really count as a "discussion," though. The post was not relevant to any of the talk pages it was posted on, and so I removed them as spam. Additionally, Santilli has been thoroughly skewered by WP:PHYSICS and WP:AST, and the SPA wasn't showing themselves to be anything other than a trumpet for his thoroughly debunked theory. Primefac (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Wooohoo, i look at my watchlist and i only saw reverts of edits by contributors who done a lot of edits to those articles. Only briefly looked at a few edits and wasn't aware there was indeed some misues. Pardon my input then. prokaryotes (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting St. David's (Cardiff). I hadn't created the blockquote myself, so that made it more difficult to spot....thanks very much. SethWhales talk 23:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

15:19:50, 6 July 2015 review of submission by 2003:74:CF15:FC55:B923:3E43:CCF3:FD8F


How do I cite text from a comic book that was published in 1989, but has no web link, no ISBN numbers, no online PDF, not archived, nothing....but the physical comic book?

2003:74:CF15:FC55:B923:3E43:CCF3:FD8F (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I would use {{cite journal}}, {{cite book}}, or {{cite serial}} (they all have the same basic parameters). Personally, I'd use "cite journal". For example,
{{cite journal|title=The Curious Case of the Missing Onion|journal=Fred and Frank|date=3 June 2000}}
turns into
"The Curious Case of the Missing Onion". Fred and Frank. 3 June 2000.
You can either use the refToolbar (see WP:REFB) or type it in manually (click one of the "cite" links above to see the full instructions). Primefac (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Der Bunker (2015)

Thank you for your closure, and I'm sorry if you felt I singled you out, but I needed to undrrscore that we are not to judge a topic by how poorly an article may be written or sourced but rather, and per WP:NRVE notability is based upon the sources available even if not used. And WP:NF does not mandate big spreads in major media... only coverage that is independent and reliable, sources which you mentioned dismissively while inexplicably deciding somehow that NF was failed. Again, thank you and I am sorry. I do ask that you be might in the future be more careful, and remember WP:BEFORE. Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

MichaelQSchmidt, I'll be the first to admit that I make mistakes by putting articles to AfD that shouldn't, and your points are completely valid. I suppose I was just surprised by the tone of the response (it felt a little like an attack), but no harm no foul. Primefac (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Nasty P

Hi

Im sorry to bother you and I dont know if im in the right place, but someone has just reviewed my submission it was Surfboy well you previously declined it because of my wording, I fixed all of that and now he has declined it for some other reason ?

I just dont understand how this can be correct, if you first of all said it was only the wording,

Can you please help ?

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

Azura81 (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a minor edit

Ibid. (t) Josve05a (c) 16:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Notability

Hello Primefac,

Thanks for taking the time to review my article on Patrick Joseph. It seems it was declined for notability reasons. I'm curious as to whether his notability is in question, or whether I just haven't cited things properly....or both? I think it may just be me not submitting the article to meet the guidelines, but a brief rundown would help. I added a citation and updated a few things and resubmitted. Hopefully this is better, if not, please let me know what I could do, as I feel the subject deserves an article. Thank you, SC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparklingcoffee (talk • contribs) 10:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Sparklingcoffee, the answer is "both". You do not have enough sources to demonstrate notability, and you need more inline citations to verify the facts found in the draft. Primefac (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Request on 05:53:13, 21 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Amitazipar



amit (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Amitazipar, do you actually have a question for me? Primefac (talk) 07:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Example Request

2015‎(UTC)
Hi [[User:|]], while the format of your article is acceptable, your choice of emulation wasn't the best; the Zella Day page has now been nominated for deletion for lack of reliable sources. The crux of notability is The Golden Rule, which essentially states that a subject must have a large amount of detailed coverage to merit inclusion. There are also other policies such as WP:MUSICBIO, which describe some of the additional requirements for musicians. So if you can find some reliable sources that talk about Fayre (more than just a mention), you should be good. Unfortunately I cannot find any good references at the moment, but to be honest, sometime's it's just TOOSOON. If you have any more questions feel free to ask! Primefac (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

AFD msg

Hi , May i know on what basis u have put the AFD msg in the page of Nucleus Premium Properties Private ltd.,

LEts talk here , Nucleus Premium properties is a very prominent brand in construction field in Kerala. There are lot of news links available in their name in leading dailies . And it sounds strange to note some one has placed a quote like they didnt found relevant info about the brand in searching news etc.. Please respond to me asap.

Thanks and Best Regards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnabraham1 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 23 July 2015‎ (UTC)

Johnabraham1, as others have mentioned to you, I did not add the AfD message onto the page, I simply re-added it after you removed it. The page has been nominated for deletion, and until the discussion is closed the notice should not be removed. If you want to comment on the discussion, please do so at the AFD itself and not on random user's pages. I don't care one whit about the page, only that the proper procedures are followed. Primefac (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

A question for you

Hi Primefac. I've been thinking about something recently. I see that you've become one of the more prolific AfC patrollers out there, and dare I say one of the better ones. That leads to where I'm going next: have you considered running for adminship? I would be willing to nominate you if you would like to run. As an AfC patroller, you clearly have a need for the tools, both to process G13s and block obvious spammers who try to use the process solely for promotion. Your work at WPAST leads me to trust your judgment on admin-related matters as well, and gives you some content experience, which I personally feel is vital for adminship.

I must say, though, that RfA is a grueling process, and can take a lot out of a candidate. Believe me, I would know :). I cannot guarantee that you will pass, either; it's difficult to tell which way an RfA will fall beforehand. That's why I'm coming here. Would you be interested in such a nomination, or would you prefer to hold off either for some period of time or indefinitely? StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi StringTheory11. The thought of running for admin has been rolling around in my head as well recently, though I have not acted upon those thoughts for a variety of reasons, foremost being that I'm moving in a couple of days. However, the fact that you are willing to nominate me is great motivation to actually pursue such a course. I would ask, though, that you wait a week or so, so that I can ensure that everything (internet, food, etc) is up and running in my new place before the process starts. Thank you for your offer, and your confidence in me! Cheers, Primefac (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, just let me know when you're ready. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
StringTheory11, I'm pretty much settled in, might as well get it rolling. Again, thank you for your support. Primefac (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good! I should have a nom ready no later than early next week. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Here's what I've managed to come up with; how does it sound to you?

It is my pleasure to present to you Primefac as an adminship candidate. Primefac has had an account since 2010 and has been consistently active since late 2013, racking up over 12000 edits since then. Lately, he has mostly been active in the articles for creation process, where I have noticed him to be one of the most level-headed reviewers there. For AfC reviewers, the tools are a large help in order to process G13s, remove obvious spam, and other tasks. At AfC, he is helpful to the newbies who don’t know our policies, giving them sound advice and teaching them our policies. AfC and G13s are always backlogged, and we could do with more admins to help out.

But don’t be fooled into thinking that Primefac does not have content experience of his own; quite the opposite, in fact. He has taken the article astronomical spectroscopy from a terrible initial state into a strong B-class article that could probably pass a GA review in the state it’s currently in. He is also an active member of WikiProject Astronomy, where I have found him to demonstrate consistently good judgment and reason in scenarios on which he has commented. Even when consensus does not agree with him on an issue, his arguments are always logical, and I believe that he would make a wonderful addition to the admin crew.

StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
StringTheory11, it sounds good to me :) Primefac (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Ken LaZebnik

Hi Primefac. I have have submitted the article on Ken LaZebnik several times and been rejected on notability grounds twice. I have just edited the article again adding a link to a Columbia Daily Tribune newspaper article from 2005 in which Ken is the primary subject. Also included are many of the accomplishments I mention in the Wikipedia article. Is this the missing piece for notability? I appreciate your help.

Thanks, MikeBravo54 (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)MikeBravo54, July 24, 2015

MikeBravo54, the new reference you added is little more than an interview with the man, and while it's not a bad reference I think you still need one or two more to demonstrate notability. Primefac (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Esperança (non-profit)

Primefac please let me know if I corrected the issues that you noted in my earlier submission. I hope that the many references that were added will allow for the article to be posted. If not, any feedback would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtapscott (talk • contribs) 18:34, 27 July 2015‎ (UTC)

There are still a lot of references to the group's own website. I would try to find an independent source that verifies the information, and if you cannot find one then you should probably think about removing that text. I only checked a few of the new references, but do make sure that they are relevant to the article and clearly mention the information it is supposed to be supporting. Primefac (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe the issues mentioned have been addressed. Let me know if I should make additional changes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtapscott (talk • contribs) 22:20, 28 July 2015‎ (UTC)

deccan tv

Dear sir/ madam Telangana movement is 60 years fight for a separate state in India many people died in this fight Now Telangana is 29th state in India Deccan TV working for Telangana people's aspirations and for their culture In this regard we require Wikipedia support thank u...Soon I will try to present this article in the prescribed format thank you vamsi— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamsiglobal (talk • contribs) 21:11, 28 July 2015‎ (UTC)

Walking Men Worldwide and Maya Barkai pages

Hi Primefac, thanks for your help. I must mention that I am new to wikipedia. I am seeing that you have nominated my pages to be removed, and I am struggling to understand how the biographical text can be changed more that I already have.. Alonhadas (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Alonhadas, as I mentioned on Talk:Maya Barkai, you've not actually written these pages in your own words - you've copied them directly and then changed a few words so it wasn't exactly the same. That's still a copyright violation, and it's still not allowed. When writing an article, it needs to be in your own words. The best way to do this, I've found, is to not copy/paste anything from one source to another, and force yourself to write it out "by hand" as it were. Will it be the best prose in the world? Probably not, but that's what other editors are for. I cannot delete the two pages (and I won't remove the deletion tag), but if the two pages are deleted I highly suggest going through the Article Wizard (instead of requesting the pages be undeleted) to create a draft which will be reviewed by experienced editors. There, you can receive feedback if the drafts need improvement. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. I am going to re-write the text right now, and will make sure to keep you updated. Is there any reason why I should not do it in the original pages? Also, once the text is completely re-edited, would you consider removing the deletion tag? or is that something you are unable to do? Thanks again!Alonhadas (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
If you can make a major overhaul to the page before an admin sees/deletes the page, I have no issues removing the deletion tag. If you've made the changes and an admin sees the page, they'll probably remove it as well (and not delete it). Primefac (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Masato Sagawa

Dear Primefac:

I started a new article for a Japan Prize winner (2012) Dr. Masato Sagawa, which is declined due to "references do not adequately show the subject's notability" I am trying to figure out what I should put for the reference. I checked the Wiki page for another Japan Prize Winner (also in 2012): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Druker, which has only two references:

  1. Meyenburg Cancer Research Award
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9GJGGq08zo

And I have 7 references as shown below, including his original work (his first published work) in 1984:

  1. http://www.japanprize.jp/en/prize_prof_2012_sagawa.html
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Prize
  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=402DwbfYlRU
  4. M. Sagawa, S. Fujimura, N. Togawa, H. Yamamoto and Y. Matsuura, “New material for permanent magnets on a base of Nd and Fe” (invited), J. Applied Physics 55 2083 (1984)
  5. http://www.japanprize.jp/data/prize/2012/e_2_achievements.pdf
  6. http://www.mitsubishicorp.com/jp/en/mclibrary/business/vol1/page5.html
  7. O. Gutfleisch, J.P. Liu, M. Willard, E. Brück, C. Chen, S.G. Shankar, “Magnetic Materials and Devices for the 21st Century: Stronger, Lighter, and More Energy Efficient” (review), Adv. Mat. 23 (2011) 821-842

Please advise for what I should do to make the references are adequtely show the subject's notability?

Thank you, Christina— Preceding unsigned comment added by Christina.h.chen (talk • contribs) 21:41, 22 July 2015‎ (UTC)

Christina.h.chen, a number of improvements were needed , but the Japan Prize is indeed unquestionable proof of notability. since I work primarily on bios of academics, I fixed the problems, and accepted the article. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

RFA did not succeed

Hi Primefac,

How are you, I am sorry to hear about your adminiship. I supported you all the way. I wish you all the best in your time here on Wikipedia and please don't hesitate to talk to me on my talkpage, Regards --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 12:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, EurovisionNim, for your support. I was expecting a bit of flack for my AfD record but didn't expect it to be quite as bad, but they did make some valid points and (as they say) life goes on. Hopefully it'll go better next time Primefac (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I always tell my friends, you should always take risks and do your best --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 12:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Pi Lambda Sigma...

Three quick points.

  • If you don't think it rates as a stand alone article, a third choice would be merging the research on Pi Lambda Sigma into Theta Phi Alpha's article, but I think there is enough from RS...
  • I'm curious if you can find additional information, I had definite "You have reached the end of the internet" on this one, I had to break out the copies of Baird's that I own for dates of inactivity for of the chapters that didn't make the merger.
  • For article name, I don't think this is Primary, but the Honorary of the same name may not be as well. Presuming this gets created, please let me know your opinion on either dab or additional hatnotes.Naraht (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Naraht, while I can certainly appreciate the amount of work that's gone into the page, there really isn't much there that isn't already present in the ΘΦΑ article; I'm seeing the founding date, the list of chapters, and the symbols. The first can be easily added to the existing article, the latter two are less important. Obviously I'm only one voice, but I think (if you've reached the "end of the internet" as it were) it would be best improving the subsection at ΘΦΑ. Primefac (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
OK. I'll look into adding that as a section in Theta Phi Alpha. Unfortunately a lot of what I want to say about Pi Lambda Sigma falls into (blah blah Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and the current members of Category:Defunct_fraternities_and_sororities blah blah), so just assume I wrote that. :) At least it gets it into mainspace. What's the procedure for doing a proper merge from draftspace into Theta Phi Alpha? Also, I'll put a hatnote on the current Pi Lambda Sigma (which is actually shorter than this) And if later, there is a split proposal, well we'll deal with that. :) Naraht (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Naraht, I'm not sure that a "proper" merge is necessary, since you're pretty much the only contributor to the draft (that and most of the content will be about Theta Phi Alpha). As a side note, I do admit that this is a borderline case, if you can get enough support from WP:FRAT I would be okay with pushing the draft to article space. Primefac (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Can we leave it in Draftspace without a concern for someone else deleting it while I ask on WP:FRAT? (Yes, I know deletions can be undone...) Naraht (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Aye, Naraht, there's no reason why it would be deleted (unless you wait six months for it to be G13 eligible)Primefac (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
If I don't have someone comment over in WP:FRAT in a *month*, I'll copy the info to Theta Phi Alpha and G7 the Draftspace.. Naraht (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
What's next to be done, the merge in of the Honorary?Naraht (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Naraht, I am going to deal with the page this afternoon. Primefac (talk) 07:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanx. Still looking to get info from Boston University on the Alpha and Beta chapter.Naraht (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Warner/Chappell Production Music Article

Hi! The Warner/Chappell Production Music article can not be merged into the Warner/Chappell article because they are two seperate companies. Though Warner/Chappell does own Warner/Chappell Production Music, they do two completely seperate things. Warner/Chappell Production Music is a production music company that produces music for T.V. news, film trailers, advertisements, and video games. They are located in a completely different building than Warner/Chappell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Warner/Chappell_Production_Music

Ashleighann93 (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Ashleighann93, you keep saying that they are different companies but I have yet to see any convincing argument to that fact. On the main article it says it "united all the production companies under the name Warner/Chappell Production Music", which implies that it still is the same company, just with a different branding. Your argument that they are in different buildings is completely irrelevant: Tesco Extra, Tesco Express, and Tesco Metro are all different names, with different buildings, but they all belong to the Tesco franchise and one cannot reasonably argue that they are "seperate companies." As TimTrent and I both stated on the draft page - if you provide evidence that they are two fundamentally different companies, then this draft might be accepted. As it currently stands, however, the information on the page should be added as a subsection of the primary Article. Primefac (talk) 07:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at WP:Articles for creation. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. olowe2011 (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Olowe2011, I find it interesting that you're throwing policy at me when you yourself can't even subscribe to it. Follow WP:BRD and take it to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Primefac reported by User:Olowe2011 (Result: ). Thank you. olowe2011 (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

J.L. Richards Fixes

Thanks so much for a beautiful job reorganizing and cleaning up the James Lorin Richards article. I was obviously in way over my head and I really appreciate your work. Thanks again,

Jtlanghorne (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Jtlanghorne, you're welcome, always happy to help. There's still a lot of work to be done on that article, but if you want more help feel free to stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Cantier del Pardo

Dear Primefac: Thank you for the feedback on my (first ever) draft for an article on the Cantiere del Pardo shipyard - Draft:Cantiere_del_Pardo_S.p.A.

You have left to me comment: There need to be references that talk about the company (I assume Cantier del Pardo is a company) specifically. Please add additional independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail. Primefac (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I have changed my references links and I have add many other hyper links all around to reliable web site, could you please confirm me if I did well this time? if not what should I do next in order to have my article passed?

Thank you so much for your help, Kind regards; MayaMaybachcdp (talk) 12:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybachcdp, the key word in my comment on your draft was "independent." References should not be directly connected to the subject of the article, so using Cantiere del Pardo's own website or the Grand Soleil page are not usable for demonstrating notability. They are known as PRIMARY sources.
Additionally, you'll notice that I have removed all of the external links from the page; external links are really only to be used at the end of the page when someone wants to go to the official website or other not-quite-relevant pages that are connected to the subject. They should not be in the body of the text.
I suggest you visit WP:REFB to read about how to easily input references and inline citations. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your helpful help! Maybachcdp (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Guidance for WP:HOUNDING

@Primefac: I have noticed that you seem to be making a deliberate attempt to follow my edits and disrupt them since I opened a case for Edit warring against you on the administrators noticeboard. I recognize that you may be reverting my edits without consultation with me first in good faith however, at the same time it appears you may be deliberately following my contributions with an aim to disrupt them. This is against Wikipedia's clearly defined harassment policy. Given the fact I did open a case against you via the Administrators notice board it would be reasonable to assert that edits to contributions that I make are not maintaining a neutral point of view and may disrupt due process here on Wikipedia. I'd ask that you disengage from my further edits or contributions on Wikipedia and refer them onto a person with a NPOV on the subject matter. Thank you. olowe2011 (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Olowe2011, I would love to know how you came to that conclusion. I also find it incredibly amusing that you hate Wiki policies yet keep throwing them in my face. Primefac (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Primefac: You have made several reverts or contributions directed at reprimanding or engaging with me in discussions. The fact of the matter is that I do not wish to engage with you as a contributor and it's my right to request that you disengage from stalking my edits and either making contributions to discussions or other actions regarding what I do on Wikipedia. If you have a problem with an edit or contribution that I make and you are acting in good faith please refer it to a person with a NPOV on the issue at hand. Thank you again. (Re: Policy - I do not hate Wikipedia policies and I am not sure what has given you this impression. If there was a way to convey my issue with your edits through guidance rather than referencing Wikipedia policy, I would. However, I believe that what you're doing is an outright violation therefore needs to be addressed proportionately.) olowe2011 (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I still have no idea what you're talking about, Olowe2011. I made a helpful suggestion on your alt account. I have not reprimanded you or made "several reverts" (other than the original AfC business, obviously). Primefac (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Primefac: As previously mentioned I have no reason to assume that you are not acting in good faith however, this doesn't mean that you are right. The issue is that you have clearly observed my edits on Wikipedia to an extent that you're able to thereon make edits to them or discuss them. If you are de facto trying to help correct mistakes in my editing in good faith, I offer the suggestion that you communicate a rationale to me before removing or reverting my edits. You can do this using my talk page, your talk page or the talk page of the article in question. I would be more than happy to reach an agreement with you on the appropriate course of action for the issue at hand. If however, you're unwilling to communicate with me prior to taking actions against my edit, I'd urge you to refer the issue to a contributor who is uninvolved with previous disputes between us. Thanks again. olowe2011 (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Olowe2011, if this is about the alt account - I was watching your page to see if there were new comments made on the AfC discussion, and I saw your alt account make an edit. It's perfectly acceptable to watch someone's page when there might be relevant conversations happening. Primefac (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Primefac: The issue at hand is that you have made several contributions either in discussion or actions against my edits to Wikipedia in the past few days alone and out of the culmination of these edits no single one of them has retained a NPOV. They are either opposing or sanctioning edits that I have made without a clear and defined rationale for why you oppose them. If you are genuinely acting in good faith I would refer back to the previously mentioned opportunity, which is to engage with me in logical discussions about an edit or contribution that you might find a problem with and then we can work out an understanding whereby we would both be able to ensure the best contribution to the respective article is made. It also allows us to learn together and jointly make Wikipedia a better place edit by edit without taking an oppositional stance that may effect our judgements to make contributions with a NPOV. olowe2011 (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Olowe2011, that is exactly what I am trying to do. Ignoring the AfC editing (because that's already been discussed to death and was well before whatever stalking you're referring to could possibly have taken place), what opposing or sanctioning things have I done? Other than making vague statements, you have yet to tell me why I'm pissing you off so badly.Primefac (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

When making accusation against another user for HOUNDING, please provide specific diff-links and examples where the user may have been "making a deliberate attempt to follow my edits and disrupt them". Unleass such can be provided, no action, nor discussion, can be held about this issue, where there is no issue to take actions or discuss about. i hope you all understand that. Thanks. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  • @Josve05a: Yes that's a good idea thanks.
  • @Primefac: Discussed to death or not I would appreciate it if you did in fact consult me prior to making changes to my contributions. In reference to Josve05a's suggestions: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Again, if you don't wish to engage in amicable discussion with me prior to editing out contributions that I make or have a problem with one of my edits however find yourself being unable to provide a rationale as to why you have a problem with it I would suggest you refer the issue to an editor with a NPOV and whom had not been engaged in a complaint with me. olowe2011 (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Right... in order:
  1. I regularly browse through the AfDs, noticed this one was missing the AfD tag, and re-added it. It had nothing to do with you, and everything to do with a discussion missing its tags. A bot would have noticed it eventually, I just saved it the time.
  2. This is turning into a DEADHORSE.
  3. See my previous comment regarding watching your page.
  4. See my previous comment regarding my helpful advice.
  5. You brought me to the Admin board. You think I wouldn't respond?
Olowe2011, you have taken a molehill and turned it into a freaking mountain, and while I cannot guarantee that I will drop you a love note every time I come across your name in an edit that may or may not be contentious, I see no reason why our paths should continue crossing (unless, of course, you continue working toward AfC helper-status, in which case we shall see a lot of each other). Primefac (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Primefac: I appreciate your views and am glad we have reached some sort of amicable solution. When I do return seeking AfC status I'd hope that we may then engage with each other in a way that is ultimately productive. Thanks again. olowe2011 (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Section break

193.62.69.1 (talk) 08:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Hello Primefac, I just wanted to say thank you for reviewing and posting my article so quickly. I understand it needs some work and will look into that as well. Thanks again, Navaeeda Naeem 193.62.69.1 (talk) 08:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

15:10:52, 7 August 2015 review of submission by SyedAminul


Kindly delete this article. SyedAminul (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

SyedAminul, if you want to have the page deleted, you can place {{db-author}} at the top of the page. Alternatively, you can forget that it ever existed and it will be deleted in approximately six months. Primefac (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Wolfram_Wöß

Hi Primefac, We have been in contact before and I refer to my talk about Draft:Wolfram_Wöß with you in May: Archive_6#11:13:32.2C_16_April_2015_review_of_submission_by_Laoswikiedit

You wrote: The main thing your draft needs is two or three independent reliable sources that talk about Wöß, and I don't see any reason why the draft shouldn't be accepted. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

According to your suggestion, I added two reports from the Austrian television broadcasting service, two newspaper articles from different newspapers and a radio report, and added additional references of done research work, but apparently this is not enough. Now, as my article is declined again, I would like to ask you, which further steps do you suggest?

In addition, I don’t understand the claim that the page reads more like an advertisement, as the content is based on the information of a public University and not a private company website trying to attract possible customers.

Laoswikiedit (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll be honest, Laoswikiedit, DGG is one of the foremost authorities on WP:PROF drafts, and I will defer to them (and their comment on the draft) regarding its potential future. Having read through the draft again, I agree with their assessment. I apologize for giving you a false sense of hope, but to be fair I think DGG managed to find a good reason that makes for my exception clause. Primefac (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Janus Pannonius Grand Prize for Poetry

Hi Primefac,

Thanks for the comments on the draft of Janus Pannonius Grand Prize for Poetry. The article was indeed copied from an outside source but the user who copied it has the permission of the original author, Mr. Géza Szőcs, who sent an e-mail to permissions-en[at]wikimedia.org stating that he releases it under Creative Commons licence. Can you please help this article get approved? Thanks. – Alensha talk 16:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Alensha, the OTRS process is (unfortunately) even slower than the draft process, and I don't see any indication that the OTRS ticket has been processed. Of course, if the draft is written in your own words, then there is no issue with copyright infringement. Just as an observation, there are more paragraphs than references, and it's generally a good idea (especially when dealing with awards) to make sure that everything is referenced. If something can't be referenced, it should be removed. Otherwise, the draft looks okay (though I will not make any guarantees about its chances upon resubmission). Primefac (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Question about my recent submission.

Dear Primefac,

Thank you for your quick response to my latest submission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Roberta_Grossman

In reviewing another Wikipedia biography somewhat similar to Roberta Grossman's, I wondered why https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviva_Kempner is acceptable and published on Wikipedia when it seemingly has less references and filmography than Roberta Grossman?

The Aviva Kempner article also has a notice at the top:

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. (August 2008) This article is an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject. (August 2008) This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (August 2008)


Can you please help me understand? I appreciate your response and time.

Ahurvitz2 (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Ahurvitz2, first off I will say that Other stuff exists; the existence of one article does not allow or deny the existence of another. If you think the Kempner article isn't suitable for Wikipedia, feel free to nominate it for deletion. It definitely needs work, though. I should mention that her article is very old, and pre-dates AfC, which is exactly why the process was put into place.
If you have any questions regarding your draft and how you can further improve it past the suggestions I've made on the draft already, I'm happy to help out. Primefac (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


Request on 16:09:17, 5 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Blackburn cycle


I quite expected that some changes would be asked for, but I do not know what to change. Can you be more specific. Also I think it would help if I sent a drawing but I do not know how to do this. Any help would be appreciated as I have had no computer training and I am aged 77. The 'Blackburn Cycle' appears on most searches but no one seems to take much notice. If this technology is used it would go a long way to solve the worldwide Global Warming problem and I thought that this article might reach the academic world. Thank you Anthony Blackburn


Blackburn cycle (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


I think my article is ideal for Wikipedia and should be of huge public interest as it would lead to very large CO2 reductions. Details have been sent to the Car Makers several times but their Engineers cannot enter into any correspondence because correspondence in other instances have been cited as evidence that manufacturers have copied inventions. I should be able to answer any doubts about this technology without legal complications. I have drafted minor changes to my article which I will try to paste. I would also like to attach a drawing if you can advise how I might do this. Regards Anthony Blackburn


Anthony Blackburn (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Blackburn cycle, thanks for getting in touch. I've been a bit busy dealing with other matters (see below), but I will get to your questions as soon as possible. Primefac (talk) 07:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Blackburn cycle, in giving your page another read-through, I'm seeing two main issues. The first is a lack of references. Without independent reliable sources that talk about the cycle in detail, there is neither verification of facts nor an indication of notability. If you've been trying to get this viewed and approved by car manufactures, and they don't even care, then how is it notable on a grand scale? This is the reason why I flagged it as a SOAPBOX issue, because Wikipedia is not a means of promotion or "getting the word out." Notability and recognition comes first, and then a Wikipedia article. It sounds like this is simply a case of it being TOOSOON for your engine model to have a Wikipedia page. Primefac (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Primefac.

I think the challenge I face in writing Draft:Roberta Grossman is that the subject is not often the main feature of independent articles. Rather, her films are the main subjects.   So I have attempted to put in film reviews, such as one from "The Hollywood Reporter" for "Above and Beyond" which also mentions Roberta Grossman, the Director of the film.

"Interviews with pilots who flew these missions is one of the highlights of the film."<ref>{{cite web |last1=Scheck|first1=Frank|title=Above and Beyond: Film Review|url=http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/beyond-film-review-763585/|website=The Hollywood Reporter|publisher=The Hollywood Reporter|accessdate=1 January 2015}}</ref>

Unfortunately, I cannot figure out how to format this addition. It links to an external website which I know is a violation of your policies. Perhaps you can correct it if you have time.

Thank you again.

Ahurvitz2 (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Ahurvitz2, that reference is formatted (other than having the wrong </ref> tag, which I've fixed above). External links are perfectly acceptable in references (how else would someone go to the article and check it?). External links are only strongly discourage in the body of the text (since they are often either promotional or irrelevant). Primefac (talk) 07:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again Primefac.

After I learned how to insert citations with templates, I corrected the in-body external link that had temporarily appeared in the body of the text.

Ahurvitz2 (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Inanna Publications and Education Inc.

Dear Primefac,

Thanks so much for talking the time to review my draft and suggesting for reliable sources. Could you please let me know if "reliable sources" refer to a link(s) under Reference in particular? I'm working on it, but just want to be sure I understand the way of doing it.

Zoe 1001Bookworm (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your helpful suggestions and information, Primefac. I've done another revision and will resubmit it. Please point out any problems that I need to work on. Your time is really appreciated. 1001Bookworm (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 08:16:08, 10 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Blackburn cycle


Hello, Thanks for your reply and advice. If you feel my article is not suitable for Wiki then I would accept that. I thought my web page would have started testing and development but I cannot trace any benefit and the same may be true here. It is difficult and expensive to test the ‘Blackburn Cycle’ properly. A new cylinder head casting is needed which is beyond the ability of Universities. You would like external confirmation and while I have replies from academics and others no one has actually seen or tested this concept other than myself, so they are not much help. Experts say things like it is the same as, or should be combined with, cylinder de-activation or there will be more friction with 8 strokes in the cycle, which is simply not true. You question notability – wow – what else is there which can reduce the CO2 emissions from cars worldwide by 30-50%. You think it may be too soon. My first ‘Blackburn Cycle’ patent was in 1991, so you can see there has not been much progress. I have excluded figures for efficiency gains because you or others might see them as exaggerated but these were reliable and accurate results. Please feel free to edit or alter my article. Whatever you or anyone else does cannot be worse than zero, which is the present status of this concept. I plan to delete the previous copy and paste the new. Best regards


Anthony Blackburn (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

01:52:22, 11 August 2015 review of submission by 158.69.146.202


158.69.146.202 (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


Alright, we want to make sure whats the issue with Nethking's wikipedia? why is it getting declined tell us what we can do to make the article Valid?

Answered on IRC. Primefac (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 19:35:26, 12 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Nastradumas 2001


Sir, I believe that Detox need to get accepted because fans may have a hard time finding Detox. I did before, so this page is perfect for Detox. They can know why it was cancelled & what songs where released from the album. Fans can also find out why it was delayed so many times.


Nastradumas 2001 (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Nastradumas 2001, if you have reliable sources that say that Detox is the name of the album before it was Compton, then you should add it to the Compton page. If Detox really is a separate entity, then you shouldn't be claiming it is Dre's third and final album (because that's Compton). Primefac (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Detox was intended to be third album but he scraped it Compton. All of the information is on the Detox page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nastradumas 2001 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 14 August 2015‎ (UTC)}
Nastradumas 2001, my point is that he did release a third studio album, called Compton, which your draft says is called Detox. You can't claim one thing and have it be another. If you can rewrite the draft in a way that makes it abundantly clear that Detox is not Compton, then the draft stands a much better chance of being accepted. As a side note - please don't overwrite your old comments - add new ones to the bottom of the thread. Primefac (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 08:44:51, 15 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Blackburn cycle

I am sorry to say that I find your site complicated and difficult to use. Am I in the correct space here? You seem to have 2 concerns. First I can confirm that I have no business and I am selling nothing. I want to get this new technology known and I would even welcome unauthorised use of my patents initially and hope to get some Royalties later. If you do not like a link to my web page you can delete it, but this would stop easy access to more detailed information for anyone who is interested.

Secondly you seem concerned with notability. Although this technology has been known to me for many years it is still unknown and untested by the academic community. Opinions without tests are of little value. If you can encourage independent tests this would be most welcome. I think your users should know that there is a more fuel efficient and lower CO2 alternative to the usual 4 stroke Otto Cycle engine. Please advise if more information or changes are required. Regards Anthony Blackburn (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


Anthony Blackburn (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Blackburn cycle, your second comment is the most important, and the exact reason why it is highly unlikely that your draft will be excepted. The Golden Rule starts off with Articles generally require significant coverage... - if it's untested by the academic community and independent tests haven't been taken then there isn't any coverage, let alone significant coverage. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, and it is not a place to make "new technology known." It is a place to document and record the notable people, places, and things that have happened. As we often say on declined drafts, notability comes first, and THEN comes a Wikipedia article. Your cycle may be a revolution in the automotive industry, but that's not for Wikipedia to decide. I wish you the best, and if you ever have questions about Wikipedia feel free to drop me a note. Primefac (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia and personal attacks

Never mind. Another user answered my question.

Jfleach (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:International Youth Federation for Environmental Studies and Conservation

Thank you for your comments on my draft. I have added 6 published references at different positions in the text. I have also removed the unnecessary detail which you mentioned. I hope that the draft now meets the Wikipedia criteria. Davidwit (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC) DavidWit

Eduar Mafla Canizalez

I saw your review of the Draft:Eduar Canizalez BLP. See the previously created Eduar Mafla Canizalez, which I have prodded as it is un-sourced. Couldn't find much in the way of sources either. 220 of Borg 10:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, 220 of Borg, I think the Article will definitely be scrapped (I'd be tempted to put a CSD tag on it if there were a valid criteria), but I'll keep an eye on it nonetheless. Thanks for the heads-up. Primefac (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
No problemo. - 220 of Borg 10:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for your help with Begunahi article!! Begunahi (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

15:53:29, 18 August 2015 review of submission by Imasku


Imasku (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

There are no significant documents to prove the importance this band contributed to the blues music scene due to the time period. I am still trying to get access to pay per use information, finding third party resources is next to non - existent.. It is one reason the documentary film is being made. But this band is one of the fore runners to bringing the genre of blues music to Ontario.Imasku (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Imasku, I will agree that it's more difficult finding sources from the 80s, but keep in mind that offline sources such as physical newspapers and magazines are perfectly usable as references (not every source needs a URL). I would suggest going to a local library (if you're from the Toronto area) and seeing if you can find some old records. Primefac (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I have tried - I have spent days in archives. Its not there is what I am finding, even with Mr. Kendall's help trying to locate magazines. the time period just did not record what these fore runner bands did... they did not care. sadly Imasku (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 18:13:12, 18 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Nick Stevens


Hi, thanks for your feedback on my submission of the page Jean Stevens. I have made several changes and I hope the page now meets the requirements for submission. I have re-saved the changes. I have also added to my user page to state that I am the editor/webmaster of Jean Stevens' website - she is my mother.


Nick Stevens (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Nick Stevens, it's a good start, but most of the new sources look like they're directly connected to Jean (whether it is an interview or a personal website/letter). More articles like the Lancashire Telegraph would be best. Primefac (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 20:49:56, 18 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Ellacomm



Ellacomm (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


My article has been rejected and the reasons why do not make any sense. A lot of my work is in the middle east and is not documented on this site so it is difficult to reference it. The TV show I was on for over 2 years in Australia is also not listed as a reference so I could not attach it either. I have put the only show that was documented for reference on the wikipedia site.

Kindest regards Amira Celon

My article has been rejected and the reasons why do not make any sense. A lot of my work is in the middle east and is not documented on this site so it is difficult to reference it. The TV show I was on for over 2 years in Australia is also not listed as a reference so I could not reference it either. I have put the only show that was documented for reference on the wikipedia site. Kindly review it and see what is needed. It is also not a sales page - I have not selling anything there about myself - just documented the only reference I could find listed. Kindest regards Amira Celon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellacomm (talk • contribs) 20:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Ellacomm, if the only proof that you exist is on the Wikipedia page for the show you work for, then you do not qualify for an article on Wikipedia. All articles must meet The Golden Rule. In order for your draft to stand a chance of being accepted, you need to add independent reliable sources from places such as newspapers, magazines (which can be offline or online), etc. If you look at the pages for other TV personalities such as Billy Mays you'll see how articles are written (with sections, references, etc). Primefac (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

13:28:03, 18 August 2015 review of submission by IT Enthusiast


IT Enthusiast (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time and reviewing the article, and for directing my attention to the username policy. The name was chosen in a haste and it has since been changed.

Once again thank you for your input, and please let me know if this resolves all the issues or if there are other details that i should work on before resubmitting the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by IT Enthusiast (talk • contribs) 14:28, 18 August 2015‎ (UTC)

IT Enthusiast, your username issues were an entirely separate issue from the draft itself. I left a note on the draft page with some improvements to be made; if you have any questions about them feel free to ask me here. As a side note, please make sure that you sign all talk page comments with ~~~~ so that people know who it was that made the comment. Primefac (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you again Primefac, both for the notes and signing practice, will work on the notes you left, and ask for further clarifications if needed. IT Enthusiast (talk) 08:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

22:00:11, 17 August 2015 review of submission by Pmf29


Dear Primefac

I refer to your review of my submission of the Draft:Oom Gielie se Dipbak. Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. I have sought to rectify the draft according to your recommendations and await your re-review of the draft. In particular, I have attempted to change the draft's layout and tone away from sounding and looking like an advertisement towards a more neutral encyclopedic statement and layout whilst trying not to dilute the subject content too much. Please feel free to advise me further on this. I have also reduced the draft's reliance on references to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed, again not trying to dilute the content and quality too much and I have also added one more independant source. I appreciate any comment in this regard. Please also advise if you feel that the draft article needs to be shortened even further in its entirety.

Kind Regards Pmf29 (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Pmf29, it's looking better, though the "Competitors" section may be unnecessary (so don't be surprised if the next reviewer says something about it). Primefac (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Sumaira Abdulali

Kindly suggest if any further changes needed @ Draft:Sumaira Abdulali-- . Shlok talk . 08:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Sachinvenga, my main concern with the draft is the extreme depths of detail that you have given. Every single action by Abdulali has been chronicled. Let's take an example, from the "Sand mining" subsection, the paragraph after the second quote that starts with "On March 24, 2010..." This entire paragraph should be four (maybe 5) sentences long:
  1. Abdulali goes to the creek to document the illegal mining.
  2. Abdulali is confronted, chased, and crashes car.
  3. Police called, complaint filed.
  4. Gov't says there was no prior request for police, (and this is where it could be split) and the Justice is angered.
Wikipedia pages should be a summary of events. If someone wants to read more about a topic, they should go to the references and read more. Your draft could (and probably should) be 1/4 of its current size and still give all of the important information about her life. The tiny details aren't necessary, such as "Some how Sumaira and team manage to escape from the situation" from the above mentioned paragraph; she obviously got away, otherwise there wouldn't be anything else.
As a suggestion, in case you are seriously struggling with cutting down the draft, it might be worthwhile to start from scratch with a bare outline of Abdulali and her life, and fill it in from there, giving only the most important details for each bullet point as you turn it into paragraphs. Primefac (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Help request

Hi Primefac

I have had my PA look at the formula to submit the article and I have tried to understand it myself. Neither of us can actually do it or understand anything. I need help other than - read the instructions - because we can't do it after reading everything. It is a limitation of our intelligence or the fact that we don't have a phd in Wikipedia matter. Kindly refer me to some who I can actually hire to submit my article in the correct way.

Many thanks Amira — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.189.116 (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Ellacomm, I will leave a message on your talk page at some point today (since my talk page isn't the place for that). Hopefully I can help you make some sense out of this process. Primefac (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Begunahi new article

I'm working on an article for a foundation of which I'm a board member, and I have that relationship disclosed on my user page. Do you think I should continue, or rather hand it off to a seasoned editor like you? I need advice - THANKS! Article is -- Draft: Begunahi Foundation USA Wenderfully (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Truly sorry, but I was editing my own post that someone had added to about their own issue. Never happen again. Wenderfully (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Empowered Women

Hi - I've deleted the submission under EWWDC and left the one under Selinaw53. These are two different versions of the draft and the one under Selina53 is the most recent. Please review that one instead. Thanks! ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selinaw53 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Selinaw53, the two pages are identical (minus one added reference which I've now moved over), and in order to preserve copyright and edit attribution you should be editing the original Draft. It doesn't matter who started the draft or who has edited it, it is the original version and should be the one updated. I should also mention that if you are indeed using both the Selinaw53 and the EWWDC accounts, you will have to explicitly state so on your userpage or risk being blocked for sock puppetry. Primefac (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Storm United suggestions

Hello, I am particularly new to Wikipedia stuff, just started making some pages. I need to know what CAN be reliable sources instead of STEAM? Review pages? Official Game pages? Please reply. Thanks anyways — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raibatsu (talk • contribs) 11:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Raibatsu, there is (conveniently) a rather comprehensive list of what is and isn't considered a reliable source, which can be found at WP:VGRS. Rather than regurgitate some of it and have you miss parts, I'm going to just navigate you there. If you have any other questions, though, feel free to ask me. Primefac (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 09:53:56, 21 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Mrinal Razdan



Mrinal Razdan (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Mrinal Razdan, do you have a question? Primefac (talk) 10:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

VBS.tv Wired Article Link Correction...

Primefac: Your explanation was very clear and accurate. I had to muddle through the page to find the location you indicated and it worked! The link has now been corrected to the Tanz/Wired article referenced in the wiki article.

Thank you for my edification on the procedure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiSnickety (talk • contribs) 20:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

WikiSnickety, glad I could help! Primefac (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

13:46:05, 21 August 2015 review of submission by Miamicd11


Good Morning,

In it's current 'edited' state, our page is missing the links to all local schools, institutions, and transit options. It is also missing all the images we uploaded. Can you please revert this back to its original state so that we can make the appropriate changes? Thank you in advance.

Miamicd11 (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Miamicd11, per WP:ELNO there should not be lists of external links. Wikipedia is not a place to simply list every library, school, bus, and train station in an area. The point of an article about an area such as West End should be to summarize what has been said about the community. You should be able to take the information currently in the draft, find independent reliable sources that corroborate that information, and make a good article out of it. If people want to find the bus stations or local library they can follow the external links given at the end of the page.
Additional note 1: I have re-added the images to the page, feel free to move/remove them as you wish.
Additional note 2: From the wording of your message here I am going to assume that there are multiple people using the account. This is strictly forbidden, and every person who edits Wikipedia should have their own account.
Please let me know if there is anything else you need clarifying or assistance with, and I will do my best to advise you further. Primefac (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Sumaira Abdulali

You are invited to join the discussion at Draft:Sumaira Abdulali. Thanks. . Shlok talk . 14:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Sachinvenga, what discussion? Primefac (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I am suggesting you to review the article.-- . Shlok talk . 14:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah. Generally, Sachinvenga, I prefer to let other reviewers take a second look. The main reason I do this is so that my own biases from the previous decline will not unduly influence my decision to decline/accept the draft. A quick skim through the draft and I still think it's too long, but I shall leave that for another reviewer to officially decide. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Jørn Martin Steenhold

Hi Primefac - can you please give me an example how to correct what ever is wrong with this article? Is it not allowed to have links to a website ourside or wiki?

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottcla (talk • contribs) 13:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Ottcla, you've removed the external links (good), you've added some inline citations (good), but there are still huge parts of the text that are not referenced. Because Steenhold is still alive everything contentious must be referenced, particularly the "Background and education" section. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Primefac
Thank you very much for the feedback.
The challenge is that Steenhold is over 70 years old which means that it is very hard to reference the facts back to a place he have work at, or education places, since theese places in many cases are called something else or simply dont exist anymore.
If he have been working a place in 1971 or 1992 or similar - how is it possible to reference to any place that he have worked there at a point?
Most companies only shows current employees and rarely people who have worked there.
Please give me some directions on this.
Thank you for the comments on inline citiation and footnotes - I also think it is going in the right direction.
Thanks
Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottcla (talk • contribs) 16:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


Draft:Field Effect Transistor

Regarding your decline of this draft, there is actually a worse problem than the "unsourced" aspect you mentioned in the decline. It's a duplicate of the topic (and some is actually just cut'n'paste) of the existing Field-effect transistor article. Not sure what the AfC workflow is for this situation. But there's no point in leading the editor on in thinking the draft can become viable, but also to invite that editor to work on the existing article. DMacks (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

DMacks, thanks for the heads-up, I probably missed it because of the capitalization differences. Generally if something like this happens the draft is declined as "already exists", but since it's not actually submitted (and is copyvio of a fair number of other places) I've just G12'd it. Primefac (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the double-checking. I deleted it. DMacks (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Primefac. You have new messages at Sachinvenga's talk page.
Message added 07:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

. Shlok talk . 07:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

To Primefac

I want to forgive me, but not worth it, you are annoying me I understand. If you give me one last chance, I will be grateful, and maybe I can presume good faith, I have to go to the chapel or cathedral has been praying.

However, I have a reason to give:

I want you to forgive me.

Postscript

I can not go back to Wikipedia for more than 20 weeks, until I refleccione

Sincerely

--Mikelief Artsymaine (Talk) 20:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikelief Artsymaine (talk • contribs) 20:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC) }

--Mikelief Artsymaine (Talk) 20:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry

Thank you SineBot --Mikelief Artsymaine (Talk) 20:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

¡Un gatito para ti!

Primefac, You're a great person

Mikelief Artsymaine 21:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Michigan Heritage Park

I've addressed your concerns. It should be accepted. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

To Primefac

if you agree and want to come back fine, but I must go

if you agree and want to come back fine, but I must go, God bless you, but you can not deny that I made some contributions

--Mikelief Artsymaine (Talk) 19:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikelief Artsymaine (talk • contribs)

SineBot

Thank you

--Mikelief Artsymaine (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Consultation Primefac

I want to learn how to create my very firm, to avoid problems when go to any library.

Mikelief Artsymaine (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

05:06:31, 25 August 2015 review of submission by 121.223.187.37


Hi, thanks for the feedback and overview Primefac. I removed, changed and added more independent sources as requested, as well as the addition of non-primary sources. I wasn't sure how many resubmissions are allowed which is why I'm writing through here, or shall I just hit the resubmit button?

121.223.187.37 (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It definitely looks better from a quick glance. There isn't a hard limit to how many resubmissions a draft is allowed (assuming that real progress can be seen), however if it becomes obvious that the subject will never be notable and/or the author has a serious conflict of interest drafts may be deleted. Primefac (talk) 07:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

21:57:01, 21 August 2015 review of submission by Octaviosamaniego


Primefac - I made the modifications you suggested (adding independent reliable sources) and resubmit the article, I hope that's enough to provide indication of notability. Quick question, since there is another article with the same name, what would be the process to define whether a disambiguation page is needed? and if now, what article takes priority?

OS (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Octaviosamaniego, to answer your question, when a draft with the same name as an existing article is accepted, the reviewer who accepted the draft will choose the most appropriate disambiguated title. In this case, though, it looks like a reviewer has done that already. The page looks better, good luck! Primefac (talk) 08:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

21:13:26, 21 August 2015 review of submission by GregorGuy


I request a re-review of the list as your reason why this list is unnecessary is that List of PC games is "more than satisfactory for someone looking for highly-ranked games". I find that page un-satisfactory as I would need to go through each alphabetized page to see all of the games AND sort each list by it's MetaScore. This seems like too much hassle and it is much easier for acclaimed PC games to be stored in one page rather than twenty-seven. GregorGuy (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

GregorGuy, you received some good feedback on the draft's talk page, I suggest you read it and make some changes. My personal opinion is not going to change on the issue, but you are welcome to re-submit and get feedback from other reviewers (I tend to recuse myself from re-reviews). Primefac (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Primefac friend

primefac you decide you want to re-edit wikipedia or better I hope that everything is resolved. If I must be presumed good faith by Obias reasons.

Well, so, no problem

--Mikelief Artsymaine (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

¡Una barnstar para ti!

El Barnstar original
Primefac, you starred really you, congratulations, leave good comments are quite valid

Mikelief Artsymaine 20:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

Hello, Primefac. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time.

Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 09:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 09:22:14, 27 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Legacy2015


this is my first article i even don't know how to write the wiki article in proper way kindly do help me & edit anything you want cite the source accordingly..please do not delete the page

Legacy2015 (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Legacy2015, if this is your first time working with Wikipedia I highly suggest reading through the TUTORIAL and Your first article. YFA will tell you everything you need to know about writing an article, and the tutorial will help with formatting, layout, etc. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

09:41:24, 27 August 2015 review of submission by CamEngTeacher


There are many additional secondary sources establishing notability, which I could potentially provide, but it seemed awkward to force reference to them into the article? Please let me know what you think needs to be added and how. Thanks. --CamEngTeacher (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

CamEngTeacher (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

CamEngTeacher, you don't have to force your references into the article, use the secondary sources instead of those from cambridgeenglishteacher.org. If they don't fit in the text as an inline citation, you can still list them in the references section itself (just don't use the <ref> tags). Primefac (talk) 10:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Rejection clarification

Hi there,

You mentioned in your comment that wiki page has to be about what others also say about the company. When I had put that, the other reviewers rejected it saying that it looked like an ad. For eg., based on the below link (one such media that carried Dalal Times story) I had written 'Dalal Times is being recognized as a knowledge platform for investors' However, this also got rejected on the grounds that it looks like an ad. So is it okay to use other media quotes and put on wiki page? Should i change it back? http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/dalal-times-a-platform-to-spread-knowledge-among-investors_1368590.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonalkumbhat (talk • contribs) 09:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Sonalkumbhat, the reason it's been declined as an advert is not because of what other people have said, but the language being used in the draft itself. There are a lot of jargon words being used (e.g. "media house" or an "independent research house"), which make it read like a company profile as opposed to a neutral article about the company. Use simple language supported by good references and the draft will be much better off. Primefac (talk) 10:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Submission declined on 27 August 2015 by Primefac

Draft:Twist with the Ventures - This is my first article submitted; I have added some additional references as requested. I am going to re-submit it. If it is inadequate, please assist and be specific. I have read the "referencing" page before and again today. I am wary of over-referencing such a short article. Frankzappatwin (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Frankzappatwin, please do not resubmit it yet, as it will be declined again. The most important thing to look for in a reference is that it is not directly connected to the subject, and talks about it in detail. In other words, The Ventures' own website giving a one-line mention of the album does not count! Independent reliable sources will be things like newspaper/magazine/online articles (which generally have editorial oversight). Unfortunately the majority of their other album's wiki pages are pretty bad as well, but Wild Things! has some good sourcing to model off of. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Ooops! I already re-submitted it earlier today. Please comment.Frankzappatwin (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
No worries, Frankzappatwin, you can still edit the page! Primefac (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
As I see it, you are suggesting that I remove the references to the Ventures site and substitute others?Frankzappatwin (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Frankzappatwin, yes, if at all possible. Primefac (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I have removed those links and substituted other ones as well as adding one that I missed earlier. Thank you very much for the help. Do I need to do anything else or are the edits I just made now reflected in the re-submittal? Again, This is my first article and I hope to do many others.Frankzappatwin (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Potentially. I generally don't re-review drafts (and I dislike reviewing album pages in particular), so we'll see what another reviewer says. Primefac (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean for you to re-review, I was questioning whether or not I had to do something else to re-submit. I also noticed that you took out two references..."circular refs". Are references to other Wikipedia pages frowned on? I don't mean to be a pest, I am just trying to learn.Frankzappatwin (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Frankzappatwin, Wikipedia can't be used as a reference, because it's user-generated content. You've properly resubmitted the draft, though. You're not a pest, you're learning, there's a difference! Primefac (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

(Y) TheGarvitGupta (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I really just want to sincerely apologize

I was editing the page from one window and hadn't opened up another Wikipedia window between when I started doing that and when you posted on the talk page. You absolutely can change the maps back if you'd like. I feel pretty bad about the whole thing. Immortal Z (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Immortal Z, it's okay. You did a lot of good work on the page, and I suppose I was just slightly miffed that I was not contacted prior to a new map being created. Of course, I then realised you might not have known who made them, and I can understand not wanting to wade through hundreds of edits to find said editor. The new maps look a lot nicer anyway.
Out of curiosity, are you a Sinfonian? Just haven't seen anyone else as interested in this info. Primefac (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I would absolutely love the idea of someone not in a Greek organization just spending huge amounts of time on one of their articles, but unfortunately that's not the case. I'm an alumni from the Gamma Xi chapter. I miss being active, but as it's said, once a Sinfonian, always a Sinfonian. Long live Sinfonia.
Do you think it would be a useful addition to include province numbers? Immortal Z (talk) 02:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Immortal Z, glad to hear it; Gamma Epsilon myself. I do not think it would be useful to add the province numbers, as they're really only relevant to the chapters themselves. I'll have to check through the common convention at WP:FRAT but I don't think chapter number is generally included either. I'm not 100% sure, though, so I'll leave 'em for now. Primefac (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
There's definitely a danger of me including too much fancruft. My primary reasons for including the chapter numbers was to help express the chapter designation shenanigans and also to give some sort of ability to sort by Greek alphabet. Some other orgs list chapter numbers, but it's a minority. I'm planning to rewrite the section about chapter naming soon (because it's currently poorly explained), and the chapter numbers would help, but I think it could be done without them. Immortal Z (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Solar System Research

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Solar System Research requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. noq (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Noq, you're a little quick on the draw. Not only is the page half an hour old, it should also be clear that it's being actively worked on (hence {{under construction}}. Thanks for jumping the gun, though. Primefac (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
If you actually put some content to show there might be some notability when you create it it would not have been tagged. I note that you removed the tag yourself which is bad form in itself (I would have removed it myself after you had actually got round to making a claim to notability). Try using a sandbox to create a draft into a minimum state before rushing in to create a new article. noq (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

23:04:31, 7 September 2015 review of submission by Yongsheng Gao


Yongsheng Gao (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for revising my page. I have improved that page according to your comments. Could you please have a look that is Okay or not. Thanks for valuable time and looking forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards.

Yongsheng.

Feedback on Shoppertainment

Thanks for the feedback on my Shoppertainment post.

I think I can wrangle enough independent references to show that Shoppertainment is now a "term of art" ...

What is the ebst way to supply these references to you?

Willg2763 (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Willg2763, you should be placing them in the draft as references. Primefac (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for comment. Will delete extra prior to review

Hi, and thanks for the comment Primefac. You are quite right, and indeed I will delete the extra information. I only keep it in the draft, for the time being, as an example to help me build the article (I am still learning). When finished with the draft (first 4 chapters), I will delete the example article. Thanks for the heads up. Cheers Celdomi (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC) prefix:User talk:Primefac/

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for your help Primefac....I would not have known how to handle my situation without your help. InterestedCanadian (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

16:31:11, 28 August 2015 review of submission by ClanIrving


Hi,

These two Wikipedia entries are on two different subjects. The Clan Irvine entry is focused on the Irvines of Drum, David Irvine of Drum is 26th Baron, who are the Irvines in the Highlands. Clan Irving are in the Borders and the Wikipedia entry has a paragraph clearly stating the differences between the two. This is also reflected in the Clan Irvine entry. Can you please re-review the article with these differences in mind?

Many Thanks


ClanIrving (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

ClanIrving, apologies for the delay in responding. A few things regarding your draft.
  • The existing Clan Irvine article does not go into any detail about the differences between these clans.
  • The evidence of the above in your draft (which has been moved to Draft:Clan Irving) is from the clan members themselves, which constitutes a PRIMARY source which is discouraged.
  • There is a fair amount of information in your draft that doesn't actually pertain to the Irvings (primarily in the first two sections), so even if you can find reliable sources to show they are different, the page would be declined for lack of suitable writing.
In summary, you need more information (particularly proof they are different clans), more sources (for verification purposes), and a rewrite to remove any unrelated text.
As a side note, you will need to go to WP:CHUS and request a change in username, since your current name implies shared usage (which is not allowed). Primefac (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

10:32:15, 3 September 2015 review of submission by Davidmaslo


This article was denied because of what were judged as inadequate references. I would like to discuss this decision as I believe that all references used in this article are supporting:

1. The notability of Richard Wilcox in his field of activity. In this regard, it is important to realize that the there is limited distinction between Richard Wilcox and its projects for food security such as African Risk Capacity.

2. Statements are made in the articles in terms of past, present and future activities link to Richard Wilcox. These references are especially relevant since there is, for example, no wikipage on African Risk Capacity. When such a page is created, it will be natural to reduce the amount of references on Richard Wilcox and simply refer to it.

Please re-review as the sourcing is not as general as described by Lamona, it is instead extremely relevant to the global understanding Mr Wilcox's activities that made him a notable diplomat.


Davidmaslo (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Davidmaslo, I have read through every reference provided in that draft, and of the 32 references there are two that are not simply "Mr. Wilcox said...", name-drops, "Wilcox, founder of...", or quotes from him. The two sources that do talk about him in detail are company bios (and as PRIMARY sources, they are discouraged).
This draft is not about Africa, it's not about the WFP, it's about Wilcox. Yes, his involvement in charitable activities should be included in the draft, but it should be referenced by sources that are talking about him, not simply mentioning him in passing. If you cannot find suitable references, then it must be concluded that Wilcox cannot have an article on Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

List of large sailing sloop

Hi Primefac and thanks for the replay. As already agreed with Sam my list could be considered as a WP:SALAT. You can find similar approach on List of large sailing vessels, List of schooners and List of clipper ships. Tell me what you think and if for you is ok to re-re-submit. Thanks!The Weatherman (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

03:22:24, 16 September 2015 review of submission by 74.136.225.42


Hello! I have addressed the concerns expressed by the reviewer, and have added citations to my submission.

74.136.225.42 (talk) 03:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

74.136.225.42 (talk) 03:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

11:05:21, 16 September 2015 review of submission by Dwj7738


There isn't much information available for this player other than the CFL.ca profile page, the Team player profile page and one article http://cfl.ca/roster/show/id/8305 http://ticats.ca/player/jay-langaDwj7738 (talk) 11:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC) http://thechronicleherald.ca/sports/1253896-jonathan-langa-locks-up-cis-honour

Dwj7738 (talk) 11:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Dwj7738, if the only information about Langa is from two stats tables and a single article, then he does not meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

References in countries of the "South" where publication is neither common nor cost-effective

Please discuss with your colleagues whether you're expecting too much from countries of the South, where newspaper articles show prominence and are all that can be reasonably expected in the case of many prominent people who would be covered more amply in the affluent North, where book publication is far more common and cost-effective. Jzsj (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Primefac/Archive_3&oldid=1143239976"