User talk:Slywriter/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Slywriter. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Welcome to Wikipedia, Slywriter! Thank you for your contributions. I am EdisonLin27 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! EdisonLin27 ^{(Message Me! • 📜)} 05:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Your assertion that something is, in your term "weasel words" is your opinion and not a fact. The edit was made with the approval of CommanderWaterford with the only issue being a citation. A citation was given, and now you reverted it, in my assessment, due to your own personal beliefs in the wording. The quote and assertion made in my edit were cited and accurate

@Scheuerman2: Ironically is a weasel word. Plain and simple. Also, the content does not belong in the lede. So if you want it in the lede or you truly think ironically is not a weasel word, take it to the article talk page.

Slywriter (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

P.S. use ~~~~ to sign your posts and new discussions go at the bottom of talk page.

@Slywriter:

"Ironically is a weasel word. Plain and simple." That is your opinion and not a fact, and while you're tossing around judgments based on an article being worded properly, perhaps you yourself should not use terms like "weasel words" to sound more professional. You could have simply removed "ironically", as the statement and cited article were still true and accurate. So whatever, you're not worth arguing with, I'll just say "yessa massa" and let you enjoy your powertrip

P.S. Yes m'lord

scheuerman2 (talk) 14:57:20, 22 February 2021

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

So, when my properly sourced citations are deleted, you don't blink an eye. But, when I try to delete properly sourced citations, you add them back immeadiately? Why the unfair double-standard? Belledoll (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Belledoll: I was not following the article prior to your edit, it appeared on a recent edit list and came across as improper.

I will take a look at the article history but those edits were rejected by another editor.

While we are on the topic... Do you work for or otherwise have a relationship with the person named in the article?

Slywriter (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I am simply a follower of state politics. Belledoll (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Belledoll: edits are not neutral. You can not add information or extraordinary claims. Only paraphrase what is in the article you are citing. Slywriter (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Will you PLEASE respect WP:BRD & stop messing with the intro at President of the United States, until we can get a consensus for the changes you're proposing? Leave it as it was, before you raised your concerns. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Per policy, BRD is not mandatory and it does not explicitly require not making edits while the discussion is occurring. I have settled more than one debate by making an edit that is acceptable to all. You or another editor is free to revert. I will not edit war it in. Slywriter (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

You're being disruptive by trying to force your changes into that article's intro. Please note the 1RR rule that covers that article, thus preventing anyone 'reverting' the exact same edit more then once, within 24 hrs. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I posted on the Cenk Uygur talk page as well. My edit in the Political Views section doesn't violate any guidelines so there is no legitimate reason for it to be removed. Refer to WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPREMOVE. I'm happy to go into dispute resolution on the topic. Cacash refund (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Would you be willing to give your opinion on what's happening now on Cenk Uygur's talk page, as well as on wallyfromdilbert's talk page between me and them? They and I are still going on about an issue that started between you and me and I was hoping you'd let us know where you stand. If not, no worries. Cacash refund (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Please use the article's talk page rather than my talk page for discussions about article content. Cacash refund, the article's talk page allows discussions to be available to all interested editors. You should be responding to the comments there, rather than fragmenting the discussions across multiple talk pages and noticeboards. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Slywriter, I would like to take the time to sincerely apologise for my comments at the School bus talkpage as well as for the edit summary,
My heart was in the right place but I could've and should've been much calmer and a lot less confrontational - I simply felt like I wasn't being listened too and then to be told "Discuss it on the talkpage" was the icing on the cake for me,
Regardless of that I shouldn't of said what I did on the talkpage and again sincerely apologise for my comments,
I hope we can work together in the future and under much better circumstances too,
I wish you all the very best and hope you enjoy editing here :),
Take care, Thanks, Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 21:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC),

@Davey2010:No worries. I am generally in favor of BOLD, and IGNOREALLRULES edits, as Talk Pages are tedious affairs of wikilawyering and grammar police.

In this particular case, the talk page discussion is unfortunately neccessary because of the sheer number of other articles effected and the redirect needed to point to the 'wrong' article because the relevant information other articles are looking for is there.

I don't particularly care how the order shakes out in which is Primary and which are Forks, just that everything is edited accordingly so that a bigger mess isn't made.

Slywriter (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately I didn't read the edit summary just saw the talkpage bit and yeah sort of lost it, Absolutely agree the less mess made the better, Anyway happy editing, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Slywriter,

The current wiki page of Wuhan Institute of Virology is merely a propaganda of the institute.

As of Feb 2020, serious debates are on-going about the Institute's proper handling of its scientific work, as well as its respect for intellectual properties.

Wikipedia should allow for controversy, and reveal the fact that there is a balanced view about this institute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGeorge1977 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@DavidGeorge1977: Wikipedia operates on consensus. The talk page shows no Consensus for this information. Wikipedia does not tolerate those who are here on a mission to right great wrongs and doesn't operate on a deadline. No reputable source is covering this information so it fails numerous Wikipedia policies. You are welcome to go to the articles talk page and discuss with other editors why it should be included. You are not welcome to insist you are right and edit war your point into the article Slywriter (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Slywriter,

Zhengli Shi is a virologist in Wuhan Institute of Virology. Her lab in Wuhan is the only lab in China capturing bats and studying coronavirus derived from bats.

The 2019-2020 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan is now confirmed to root from bats.

There is a serious debate ongoing in China, about the potential involvement of Zhengli Shi's work in the 2019-2020 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak.

Currently, the wiki page of Zhengli Shi is merely a propaganda page for her personal fame, neglecting the serious debates.

Wikipedia should allow for a balanced view, reflecting the ongoing national controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGeorge1977 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@DavidGeorge1977:Same answer as above. You are welcome to start a discussion on the talk page of the article but unless you provide sources that Wikipedia already deems reliable or new sourcwes that others editors can check for reliability the information can not be added.

Adding this type of information without using the talk page will be next to impossible as current consensus is this is conspiracy not controversy.

Talk:Shi_Zhengli for further discussion with other editors and you can place sources there for others to review.

Slywriter (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

You missed the point. The conspiracy is about the point that the coronavirus has been used as a bioweapon. The controversy is about the source of the 2019-2020 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. The controversy is about where the pathogen comes from but not about a weapon. And this scientist, is right in the center of that national debate. This should be reflected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGeorge1977 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@DavidGeorge1977: I understand you but Wikipedia takes BLP very seriously and isn't a breaking news or speculation forum. Take it to the talk page, provide sources and plead your case. If you just try and edit it in, you will be blocked by the admins. They use black and white rules and will not care how valid your argument or cause is, disruptive editing is disruptive. Slywriter (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

True. But tens of thousands have been infected in the Wuhan outbreak, hundreds died. There is a debate with this person in the middle of it. This should be known. Also, she tries to profit from it, using somebody else' invention! This needs to be made known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGeorge1977 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I am trying to move some trucks here. I wonder if I could get you to take a look. I believe I am clear but it's just the same old people and positions. I can't get any "new eyes" to look at it objectively. I would really appreciate it if you would. No reply needed. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

		The WikiLoop Battlefield Barnstar
		Congratulations, Slywriter You have been recognized as the weekly champion of counter-vandalism of WikiLoop Battlefieldseeking new name, a crowdsource counter-vandalism patrol and label tool (http://battlefield.wikiloop.org) for the week ending at 2020-02-23. On behalf of the team and community of WikiLoop Battlefield and as Wikipedians, we like to appreciate your contributions, and look forward for more in the future. Also don't forget to bring your Wikipedian friends who you think are also passionate of keeping Wikipedia protected. Cheers, xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 00:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi I see that you reverted my reinstatement of the text on Carl Anderson in the KoC article. This had been in the article previously and was removed by what appears to be a sockpuppet of the editor who was recently TBANned from the page. I'm not understanding why the brief reference to Anderson's background is any less significant than his name, or certainly his title, for the lead? SPECIFICO talk 12:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Because being a Republican staff has zero to do with him being a Knight. Certainly doesn't belong in the opening sentence of the article especially when there is a link to the person for anyone who cares to learn more about him.

Also, Wikipedia is for the Long haul. I'd argue even further that we shouldn't even have the Grand Knights name in the lede as it is information that will change and is a snapshot of a moment in time rather than having lasting value.

Feel free to revert or bring to talk but like I said here and in edit summary, I don't understand the relevance of his previous role.

Slywriter (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Specifico: new ping because autocorrect is overrated Slywriter (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: thirds times a charm? Usernames are case sensitive? Slywriter (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Well I am not going to edit war on this and re-revert. We constantly update information, for example we say that Donald Trump is president of the US even though he will not be president in 10 years. Your removal is basically validating the removal by a banned editor, which I think is unfortunate. The background in a different line of work is significant because it's unusual for a religious organization and it relates to the varied roles of KoC and its diverse missions. SPECIFICO talk 12:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Not all edits by banned users are bad edits. And I don't see it as unusual line of work. The Knights are a large business and a large religious organization, which are views these days that tend to lean towards the Republican end of the spectrum. I'll bring it to talk, I am not married to leaving it out, just fail to see the relevance. Slywriter (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

You may not be aware of the history of that editor in this article, but nearly all of that account's edits were aggressive, promotional and undue. SPECIFICO talk 13:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the gentle first rejection! :) Miikegill (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Miikegill:No problem. it was refreshing to not be dealing with a pure vandal. If it wasn't your own assessment, you can go to edit history and undo my reversion. But add sources, otherwise someone(could be me lol) will still tag it with citations needed. Slywriter (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

You don't need the rollback right to revert multiple edits in a row. Twinkle does the same thing and can be used by any autoconfirmed user. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@SpicyMilkBoy: Thanks, but unless I am doing something wrong, Twinkle doesn't seem to work on Mobile, even in desktop mode. Unfortunately, i do 99.9% of my editing on mobile. Slywriter (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

		The WikiLoop Battlefield Barnstar
		Congratulations, Slywriter You have been recognized as the weekly champion of counter-vandalism of WikiLoop Battlefieldseeking new name, a crowdsource counter-vandalism patrol and label tool (http://battlefield.wikiloop.org) for the week ending at 2020-03-01. On behalf of the team and community of WikiLoop Battlefield and as Wikipedians, we like to appreciate your contributions, and look forward for more in the future. Also don't forget to bring your Wikipedian friends who you think are also passionate of keeping Wikipedia protected. Cheers, xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 04:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

		The WikiLoop Battlefield Barnstar
		Congratulations, Slywriter You have been recognized as the monthly champion of counter-vandalism of WikiLoop Battlefieldseeking new name, a crowdsource counter-vandalism patrol and label tool (http://battlefield.wikiloop.org) for the month ending at 2020-03-01. On behalf of the team and community of WikiLoop Battlefield and as Wikipedians, we like to appreciate your contributions, and look forward for more in the future. Also don't forget to bring your Wikipedian friends who you think are also passionate of keeping Wikipedia protected. Cheers, xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 04:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

can you be more specific about how the Machine Girl page fails notability so i can improve it? i'll do whatever it takes to have it stay up GrantyO2 (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@GrantyO2: All sources cited are either blogs or music sites also sharing the music. The group nor it's members have no coverage in Reliable Sources. Wikipedia is not for making a name, it covers artists once they have become established and meet Notability WP:N. While this group may be up and coming, it is unlikely they will meet the bar for Wikipedia at this time. Slywriter (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

What exactly counts as being established, considering that this band is already tied for being the biggest act in its genre? We're talking about an artist that is extremely influential at this point. I'm not here to argue over Wikipedia's conditions for inclusion (those standards are being ridiculed by most hobbyists and I won't beat a dead horse), but it's obvious that digital hardcore isn't a genre that will be included on pop music networks mentioned in the inclusion criteria, like being on the radio or on a rich person's label. What methods does Wikipedia employ to counter the pop bias created by 10 out of 12 inclusion criteria being about overall popularity and not notability? Rikataan (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Rikataan and GrantyO2:Welcome to Wikipedia. Hope both of you stick around for more than this article.

On the article itself, a list of members and a list of tracks is not an encylopedic entry. Even if the Notability threshold was met, this would not be an acceptable article.

On Notability, all we have are two blogs, which granted appear to be more than fan sites (Brooklyn Vegan and TinyMixTapes), covering the music, nothing about the group or artist themselves that can be sourced to make an article. And the reviews don't quite reach the bar set in WP:Band for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Nor can I find any proof of the extraordinary claim you make here that they are tied for top of their genre. What's the proof? Is there reputable charts somewhere that can be referenced?

Surely if they are incredibly influential then someone would look to write a piece in a trade magazine or music section somewhere.

Finally, you may wish to consider writing this article in WP:Draft where it won't be immediately reverted and has the potential to receive wider feedback and input. Slywriter (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I want to clarify that I don't really mind the revert of this article since I think it's beyond the scope of an encyclopedia to discuss music like a music database would. We have sites like Discogs for that reason, to list album metadata for listeners and vinyl owners. With that in mind, as both a member of the hardcore community, which I've been an insider of for almost a decade now, and as a music hobbyist, it just feels very strange that secondary sources are considered more important than primary sources in determining the importance/notability of music. I think insiders have a much stronger claim to understanding their own scenes, genres, cultures etc. than magazine owners and award show organizers do. Electronic music suffers from this secondary source prioritization because electronic music is abstract and isn't usually meant to be written about. For example, Mount Eerie's "A Crow Looked at Me" is a folk album, it's lyrical, and it's about someone's death. It's very clear that the amount of reviews you'll find online will be much higher for an album like this than for an abstract release of the same popularity. Machine Girl is literally syncopated drums and someone yelling at you; most digital hardcore is. There's really nothing to write about at times.

Machine Girl has been touring North America for two years now, but I have no way of finding out what their ticket sales are. They have several million views on YouTube, their Spotify songs have hundreds of thousands of plays despite two of their albums being recently removed, they're moderately popular on Last.fm, and they consistently chart as one of the top digital hardcore artists on RateYourMusic, and as one of the top hardcore artists.

This is not really meant to be proof that this artist should be on Wikipedia. I spent part of today reading through Wikipedia's guidelines, finding out in detail how submissions and edits work here, what articles should/shouldn't be used for etc. and you're definitely right. This artist doesn't seem to fit what Wikipedia is looking for. If anything, it seems my issue lies with the way Wikipedia itself thinks of music, not this specific article.

Thanks for taking the time to respond, by the way. I appreciate it. Rikataan (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Rikataan: So, I spent some time looking at it from the other side and seeing what musicians of the genre have Wikipedia pages. After finding several that should be deleted for sourcing issues, I realized the most notable were already listed in the Digital hardcore article. Comparing the sourcing of those mentioned, its virtually impossible for me to see a path for Machine Girl at this time. If you added them to that article, they would likely be immediately reverted for lack of a page and it doesn't appear that Wikipedia ever created a listicle of digital hardcore groups where they would find more success in being listed.

Democratizing music has its downsides and one is sourcing. :Primary sources aren't explicitly barred. If you can establish notability through other sources, primary sources can be used for non-controversial facts. One of the reasons for preferring secondary sources is that editors aren't allowed to do their own research. We can't connect the dots. Someone else has to.

If you want to pursue a larger conversation about music, notability, and the issues you perceive with the wikipedian way, can always head over to the WP:village pump. Can't guarantee a positive response but the beauty of am encylopedia that anyone can edit is that anyone can also raise an issue to the community. Slywriter (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I'm interested. Honestly, I just saw a good opportunity to talk to someone that's involved in the Wikipedia process, and went for it. I think the current standards fit what Wikipedia is trying to do, which is provide information about culture that is relevant to the mainstream. I don't think anyone would want to use Wikipedia to find information about music releases and artists as a whole (as opposed to music personalities and history), and there are other sites that do that job very well in its place. There's IMDB and LetterboxD for films, MyAnimeList for anime, etc. so it's really fine.

I'm more worried, really, that Wikipedia's focus on outsider sources reduces its accuracy. I think it's just a case of outsider media having no way to find reliable information on music genres and music as a whole. You really can't obtain primary sourcing at all, I mean, what do you do? Ask people on forums? Yet really, that's what music databases do (for example, RYM votes on all its genres, and to gain access to voting you just need to be an active member). I think music (and culture, really) is just inherently incompatible with an encyclopedia. Rikataan (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

		The WikiLoop Battlefield Barnstar
		Congratulations, Slywriter You have been recognized as the weekly champion of counter-vandalism of WikiLoop Battlefieldseeking new name, a crowdsource counter-vandalism patrol and label tool (http://battlefield.wikiloop.org) for the week ending at 2020-03-09. On behalf of the team and community of WikiLoop Battlefield and as Wikipedians, we like to appreciate your contributions, and look forward for more in the future. Also don't forget to bring your Wikipedian friends who you think are also passionate of keeping Wikipedia protected. By the way, we currently have no different barnstar image for different level (weekly / monthly / annual) champion, if you are interested in help designing, please help us. Thank you! Cheers, xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 22:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear Slywriter,

Thank you for your interest and contributions to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is held at m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.

xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedians and contributors, the open source Wikipedia review tool, previously "WikiLoop Battlefield" has completed its name vote and is announcing its new name: WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Read the full story on the program page on Meta-wiki, learn about ways to support this tool, and find out what future developments are coming for this tool.

Thank you to everyone who took part in the vote!

xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 18:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Slywriter/Archive 1,
you are receiving this message because you are an active user of WikiLoop DoubleCheck. We are currently holding a Request for Comments to define trust levels for users of this tool. If you can spare a few minutes, please consider leaving your feedback on the RfC page.
Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts. Your opinion matters greatly!
María Cruz

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
If you would like to modify your subscription to these messages you can do so here.

Thanks for checking that. It was first thing on my list to attempt to verify when I got back. Meters (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

HI Slywriter/Archive 1,
I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users.
Thanks and see you around online,
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

...Just wanted to let you know that I liked (and agreed with) ""MOS is a niche realm of wikipedia dominated by over enthusiastic editors that are at odds with how everyday wikipedians write articles", and that I've quoted it here (at the end of the section). Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Please strike the portion of your comment where you refer to me as an "American politically conservative editor." I hope this doesn't require much explanation, but I briefly addressed it on the same noticeboard. Thanks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Already done Slywriter (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'm going to go ahead and try clean it up. I expect I will step on quite a few toes.

Do you have any suggestions as to how to escalate this when someone inevitably objects? I'm not certain what the correct avenue is. Kylesenior (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm now taking a look through it and have no idea where to start. There's so much BS here I'd end up cutting most of it out. Kylesenior (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

RFC or DR for the inevitable fighting

As for the article itself, a flow that doesn't center on the conspiracy theories. As in, the fact that the conspiracies exist may be relevant but should likely be a closing section.

I'll take another look at article now. Slywriter (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kylesenior: On second look, most of the conspiracy section is sourced to the Parliament hearing which is a Primary Source.

The conspiracy is touched on by discussing how its disproven in the follow up section.

So, most likely to provoke outrage but the simplest is wiping out (or perhaps a brief rewrite) of the conspiracy section and the profile of Richard Sealy. Sealy might be notable enough for his own article but certainly too much detail there in an odd spot that doesnt help the reader

Slywriter (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you please explain this revert? I don't see why changing a tag from ECP to semi for an article that has had its protection lowered to semi is inappropriate. Why do you believe the ECP tag should remain when the page is no longer ECPed? Also, I don't know what you're insinuating with your questionable vandalism claim comment. You'll have to take that up with the protecting admin, who wrote in the protection log that they protected the page due to vandalism. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Didn't see the latest protection adjustment in edit history, so thought you were editing the tag merely in response to editor changing the picture and escalating a content dispute into a behavioral one. Happy to have been wrong. Slywriter (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Slywriter, alright, thanks for explaining. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tartan357: ping since not likely you are actively staring at page awaiting a response

Were the edits vandalism/factual errors, or was I being a fool and edit-warring? Steve M (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Steve M: It's vandalism. Check the admin boards about tik tok. Huge amount of notable people/mayor vandalism being encouraged on social media. I believe one admin said its averaging 1 in 150 edits. I'm sure some admin will get around and tell you not to worry about EW but figured I'd save you some stress and just piggyback since no source on Edit Slywriter (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Slywriter, Adrianna muise is back with an Ip Steve M (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I rolled back the vandal's edits not taking into account that there the signature bot edited in between. Sloppy. I should have double-checked. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I can't say I have no sympathy with this; but really, it does not belong on an article talk page, whose content should be about the article, not about its vandals. I invite you to self-revert. -- Hoary (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Understood and will do. Slywriter (talk) 04:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

As you have discovered, posting in capital letters is the equivalent of SHOUTING!. If you wish to add emphasis to certain words in a post, do it by putting them in italics. Best, Mjroots (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear editors, developers and friends:

Thank you for supporting Project WikiLoop! The year 2020 was an unprecedented one. It was unusual for almost everyone. In spite of this, Project WikiLoop continued the hard work and made some progress that we are proud to share with you. We also wanted to extend a big thank you for your support, advice, contributions and love that make all this possible.

Head over to our project page on Meta Wikimedia to read a brief 2020 Year in Review for WikiLoop.

Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia using WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Your work is important and it matters to everyone. We look forward to continuing our collaboration through 2021!

María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

My edits are seldom "just c/e" – that's why the summaries are clickable. Anyway ...

Please elucidate (surely several ≠ all). --Oblio4 (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Oblio4 if you just leave "c/e", others do not see your reasoning behind editorial decisions. You removed several wikilinks with unclear rationale of why. The copyedit of his quote about Revelation and Beast may have made sense to you, but another editor already challenged such changes hence the simpler "sic" placed. High School football, I thought linked to a specific article on HS football but looking again, I see you were just removing redundancy since it's not a standalone article. Slywriter (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I browsed the article's revision history and talk page [recte diff pls]. --Oblio4 (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1016109006 Slywriter (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

sic [recte damifino] --Oblio4 (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear SW,

Thanks for pointing out the need for sources. It helped a lot in adding to sourcing.

Blessings,

Yaakov W.

p.s. Do you have hebrew language skills? If so, can you help transcribe certain hebrew texts? Yaakov Wa. (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear SW,

Thanks for your using your technical expertise. I really appreciate it!

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Slywriter,

Just a few reminders if you are going to be tagging pages for deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/CFD/TFD/etc.). First, please state what you are doing in an accurate edit summary. Secondly, you need to post a notice on the talk page of the page creator every single time. Sometimes there are problems that the page creator can fix and, maybe more importantly, if they don't receive a talk page notice, they may not even know that their page creations have been deleted or why. I recommend using Twinkle because once you set up your Preferences to "Notify page creator", the program will automatically post these notices for you every time you tag a page for deletion.

Please adopt these customary practices if you intend to tag any more pages for deletion. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Liz, Thanks for catching the no notification, normally I do drop a template. (FYI- Template says 'should' not 'must' which maybe should be changed).

Also, for future reference, is there an issue with the edit summary, thought it was brief but clear. Anyway, talk page of primary article has further insight into other editors concerns that prompted me CSDing. Have a good day Slywriter (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)\

Hi sir good morning

You have removed my edits on Rasha Kelj's page because they contain lack of neutrality..... Can I restore the edits and delete everything that contains amplification, please..... Thank you very much Yellowjoe (talk 09:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC))

@Yellowjoe:As was suggested by another editor, you should use Talk:Rasha Kelej to suggest edits and provide sources so other editors can review whether the edit is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Additionally, uploading a photo you did not take and/or posses the rights for as "own work" is a violation of wikipedia policies. Wikipedia had a number of WP:FAIRUSE exceptions but the photo must be properly attributed to the copyright owner and meet several other criteria. Slywriter (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello sir good morning

Can i ask you question

I have revised my edits And I chose the appropriate ones. Can I add it to the article immediately? Or is there something I should do in advance to review my edits??? where i can show my edits to see if they are suitable or not?? Yellowjoe (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I suggest you place your edit on the talk page so others can discuss but there is nothing stopping you from editing the article and trying again. Anything promotional or improperly sourced may be reverted. Slywriter (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Alright sir thank you Im going to make the right editing to this article and remove any thing wrong Yellowjoe (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Gain of function experiments must be done in live infectious viruses. The Journal of Virology work was performed in pseudoviruses and has absolutely nothing to do with gain of function. Even the Nature Medicine paper doesn't meet NIH's definition of gain of function.

Doug Weller talk 15:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller talk 11:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Anarchyte (talk • work) 13:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, there is currently an Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion ongoing about User:Clemper regarding Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic. If you wanted to add your two cents there, go ahead. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Prefers to reverse correct information instead of leaving the true information published. Backed by the original source. Copyright linking case Google vs copiepresse in copyright aspects of hyperlinking. Bad editor, should not be allowed to edit/reverse. Unless it is wikipedia policy to publish blantantly wrong information.

• VLSEd (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Peter MacDonough (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Slywriter. Firstly, thanks for your feedback on the above draft article. Muchly appreciated. So fast too — I wasn't expecting to hear anything for months! I've edited the draft article to address your comment about external links. I do have a query though about general consistency in relation to referencing, which was the primary reason the draft got pinged. I totally understand where you're coming from. The subject was telling me I was taking too long to dredge up references for the article and I informed him that without half-decent references, he was completely wasting his time. I wasn't quite sure whether we had enough there. We currently have a submission for a much broader expansion to his AllMusic page in for consideration but that might take months. I was hoping that might go through before the Wiki review did, as that would give him a much better-quality and well-reputed independent page to draw on as a reference. You were a bit too fast for us!

But my query re consistency is this. In just looking through random articles for a bit of minor editing practice before starting to draft this page, I found pages on individuals with far less content and even fewer references of any quality, so it seems that there's a bit of inconsistency in this regard. After receiving your feedback, I went through random articles again to find a couple of examples for you. Here are two. One subject I would definitely agree is more notable for Wiki purposes than the subject of my article, but his article has only one reference, which doesn't really substantiate a great deal. The second example article subject I would say also isn't particularly notable, and once again, has only one reference. Even though some aren't fully independent, our article at least has several references to substantiate the statements made, with some independent reviews. I'd argue this is more than what the others have and they've been allowed through. Both do have flags at the top of their page saying they need more citations/references to substantiate content. Given this, I thought I'd just query why our article in comparison couldn't similarly be allowed through with a flag similar to one or both of the ones on this page?

Example comparison articles: Thomas W. Merrill and Marcel Manoel

Just trying to get my head around how Wiki works. TIA for your time. It's certainly been interesting tooling up on Wiki drafting/editing. And sorry if my message here is funny in formatting - I don't quite understand the coding on this template talk/response page. :-) Kind regards, VLSEd (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC) VLSEd (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello VLSEd, so when a review happens is somewhat random as some editors review chronologically, others stick to specific subjects and some like me just press the random button and see what we get.

That aside, first thing is please review WP:COI as you admit to a relationship with the subject. Also, use of we/our is problematic on wikipedia as accounts must represent one person.

As to Allmusic, a larger bio there will not neccesarily impart notability, as the source is not considered definitively reliable (nor is there any consensus that its unreliable). As it stands there's no information there about the subject, so a moot point.

Wikipedia is looking for WP:RS (reliable sources) so generally for a musician WP:Music, that would be 2 or 3 in-depth articles published about the subject that are not mere interviews. Press releases do not count either (Berkley source)

As to the articles you referenced, they are both very old and come from a time where the standards were less stringent to get an article to main space. They likely would not make it today and it's quite possible an editor will see them and open a discussion on removing them.

Take a look at higher profile musicians to get a feel for the standards wikipedia is looking for. Creating an article isn't easy especially if the subject is marginal or known locally but has not achieved national fame.

Any other questions, feel free to drop a line here

Slywriter (talk) 04:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for taking the time to explain all that, Slywriter. Have a great rest of the weekend.

VLSEd (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Slywriter,

Thank you for reviewing this draft. I spend much of the day deleting hundreds of G13 stale drafts and I rarely find them in this good shape so I thought I'd submit it to AFC for review. Looking at it a second time, I thought there was better sourcing than there actually is.

After over a year of reviewing expiring drafts, I've probably submitted 7 or 8 drafts so that gives you an idea of the quality of the drafts that are being deleted. Lots of unsourced autobiographies and company spam. Thanks again for the work you do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Liz, I am still torn on this one as the editor appears gone and there's some real effort put in. I'm not much of a content creator but may see what I can do with it.

As to the promo material, my AfC stats are quite lopsided towards decline because sadly alot of junk is floating around. It's my hope I can clear some of the junk so other reviewers can focus on the articles worth saving. And it's more interesting than straight vandalism patrolling. Slywriter (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hpknoxtn (talk · contribs)
  • User:Hpknoxtn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Reviewer Slywriter, thank you for your time and effort to review my submission the article Galactic Spirals. I am confused that I am the author of the two papers in the references. I copied my own works, how does this violate the copyright? Please advise.

Thanks.

Hongjun

Hpknoxtn (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Slywriter,

I wanted to check in regarding a recent article about TurnKey Lender (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:TurnKey_Lender) you reviewed and rejected. Tried to keep it as dry and encyclopedic as possible, could you please elaborate what seemed promotional about it in particular so I can work on a new version that would best fit the Wiki's tone of voice and get accepted.

Appreciate your help.

Best, --EMekheda (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

EMekheda, You need to find sources that are independent of the company. Not self submitted profiles, not reprints of press releases. Wikipedia does not care what the company has to say about itself. Wikipedia is not where a company comes to find notability. Also, if you have a WP:COI, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Service to declare it. Slywriter (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Slywriter,

I appreciate the quick feedback on the Yonder page. I want to improve upon my first submission (and as a Wikipedia participant general) and would appreciate any specific details you could share.

Thanks,

--RLS19003 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

RLS19003 looking at your sources, we have

1. T&L- Possibly decent source but article reads like writer visited website and wrote about it

2. Gartner is an interesting source but not much to establish notability and real possibility they are writing about a client.

3. Interview - doesnt count for notability

4. Partner site. Not a reliable source.

5.Investor Advice, not a reliable source

6. Interview, can not establish notability

7. Passing mention.

8. Advertisment by subject

9. Interview

10. Literally says sponsored at top.

So we have multiple issues. First is WP:N, we want two or three WP:RS that cover the company in-depth and show a reason the company should have a page. Second, most (all?) of the sources are connected to the company so they can not help establish notability. Third, the actual prose of the page reads like what Yonder wants people to read, not what an encylopedia entry should be. Finally, if you are involved with Yonder in any way, please review WP:COI.

Hopefully this helps you find the sources you need. Slywriter (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding editors that you can make relevant comparisons to other articles, which is something they repeatedly ignored on the WSJ talk page. That is why I voted for option B, which was to only include the claims in the body, since reliable sources rarely discuss the issue and therefore it cannot go in the lead when similar issues are no where in any other major newspapers' lead. Bill Williams 15:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Bill Williams, I try and stay away from media and AP articles because I just get angry at the entrenched views and over-reliance on non-scholarly sources. WSJ does not appear to deserve the treatment its getting but as a Murdoch property, heightened scrutiny and negative opinions abound on wikipedia. Slywriter (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but unfortunately a number of people are voting to keep it in the lead. It is crazy how so many editors ignore basic logic and instead of looking at what reliable sources normally state, they go and cherrypick a few that agree with them. Bill Williams 14:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Slywriter -- Thanks for tagging this; I declined it as there are some claims in the article, but the more I look at it, the more I think it's very borderline and the sources show signs of reference stuffing; testing it at Articles for Deletion might be appropriate. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Espresso Addict, thanks. I'll do some googling and then head over to AfD. At least now I know where the bar for A7 is set :) Slywriter (talk)

Great, thanks. I suspect I'm a great deal more stringent on A7 than most admins who patrol the speedy queue! But a decisive deletion after proper investigation & AfD is always useful in handling repeat creations. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Slywriter,

I have edited and submitted for review Samsung Developer Conference, an article you declined last time. I think this version will be suitable for Wikipedia as I have erased all press releases and added independent sources to prove topic notability. I would appreciate feedback. SDC3021 (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello Slewriter, I appreciate it that you are pointing out my mistakes for improving on, the problem with the draft Light Party is it does not have legitamite sources right, It would be helpful if you could suggest some reliable sources. Thanks. Breata 12:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breata (talk • contribs) 23:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Breata, Do newspapers talk about? Has it been covered on tv news? What Wikipedia wants is evidence people beyond those directly involved are interested and talking about the subject. Slywriter (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello Slywriter! I am a bit surprised about your comment regarding the Old Skull Games studio. A few months ago it was the studio of choice for the French Minister of Culture to represent her visit to the video game industry (^[1]), and much, much smaller studios with 5 times less references have got approved articles in Wikipedia. What kind of information are you looking for when you review the article? I would be happy to provide it to you. CMartinNieto (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Looking for a few independent reliable sources that cover the company in-depth, not just a passing mention. The Cultural Minister visiting is nice but the company is passing mention there and notable people visiting doesn't make a company notable.

Almost all your sources are affiliated with the company, that is they submitted the information for the source to use. Government/Association registrstions, app pages, business profiles are not reliable sources when determining notability.

In sum, provide more coverage of the company that doesn't involve the Culture Minister or interviews. Slywriter (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Would something like an article from the National Center of Cinema and Animation work ? ^[2] CMartinNieto (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

CMartinNieto, That is an interview, so no. Have they been covered in major newspapers or magazines? Have they been covered in major video game websites? And those questions are specific to the company, not one of their games got a review Slywriter (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Good morning, Slywriter! I found an article covering the creation and importance of the studio in a French newspaper (ToutLyon) ^[3] as well as a couple of game reviews. If it helps, the studio is also listed in IGN (although it has no reviews yet) CMartinNieto (talk) 09:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey Slywriter,

Thanks for having a look on my first article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Passage_Grave_Wangels_LA_69 You said, "style implies Original research mixed with sourced statements". Before, another user said, "This reads like it was copied from a research report on the topic". Well, I think that might be because I am used to writing research articles. So it is not taken from an existing article, just written in a similar way. Is this really a problem? I would like to write some more articles on research from my area as it is underrepresented on Wikipedia. However, I can not give secondary sources as they do not exist in the English language. Do you have an idea what to do about that? I am looking forward to your answer. SebSchul (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

SebSchul, non-english as well as offline sources are acceptable for wikipedia. What is important is that any statement in a wikipedia article is verifiable by a source. Any knowledge, explanation or analysis can not be using your personal knowledge of the subject or field. Slywriter (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

SebSchul, ignore this line, fixing ping. Slywriter (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Dear fellow editor,

I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.

All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.

Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.

I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).

The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.

Piotr Konieczny
Associate Professor
Hanyang University
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Bennair (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Union Coop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Greetings, thank you very much for your kind assistance but I am not able to understand how the article I am trying to submit seems like an advert. I am citing sources that I can find from reliable media. Is there any writing in particular that sounds like a promotion? Help appreciated.

Bennair (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

How has the notability criteria not been met? I've included multiple independent sources from the largest media organisations in the country, including both radio and TV on numerous stations. These show significant coverage as they are entire interview segments with the artist, they are clearly published as they were broadcast on the largest media stations in the country, they are reliable because they are from highly reputable national news networks, they are secondary sources as there are multiple of these influential news figures talking about the artist and clearly they are independent of the artist.

3 primary examples are listed here (and there are 17 more in the entry, please actually check all the sources before rejecting an article)

Appearance on TV3 morning news, the largest morning news show in New Zealand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COku_X3FqBQ

Appearance on The Hits with Jono and Ben, two of the most famous comedians in New Zealand hosting a radio show on one of the most popular radio stations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypeEtvPpzz4&t=17s

And another TV appearance from nearly a decade ago, proving a long history of significant media coverage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjCI8ZgT2Fg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citylimitsoflife (talk • contribs) 12:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Citylimitsoflife Wikipedia is never a source. Interviews generally do not establish notability nor do pages that exist to promote the subject. Perhaps another reviewer will see it differently, but you are yet to show WP:THREE independent, reliable sources covering the subject. Slywriter (talk) 12:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Citylimitsoflife, pinging. Slywriter (talk)

Slywriter I agree Wikipedia is never a source, nor is it listed as one in this article. Section 2.2 of the reliable sources page covers news organisations as a reliable source and is very clear that they do in fact count as sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations

"News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact"

All three pieces of news I linked above were from very well-established news outlets. You are yet to explain why you don't consider these highly reputable news organisations to be both independent and reliable.

Citylimitsoflife Actually I did. You have provided interviews. Those are not generally considered notable coverage. So, again can you provide three sources that independently cover the subject? Also please use ~~~~ to sign your posts. Slywriter (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

<Citylimitsoflife>:Slywriter Where is your source for interviews not being considered notable coverage? Please see source above where the guidelines clearly state that news organisations do count as reliable sources towards notable coverage </Citylimitsoflife>

Citylimitsoflife, Interviews are a WP:Primary source. Secondary sources are needed to establish notability. Primary can be used for limited content once notability is established. Slywriter (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Mkwal914 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Chagrin Valley Times (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mkwal914 (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

All of the sources are from CNN, The Guardian, The Library of Congress, The Society of Professional Journalists, and the Ohio Newspaper Association. I am failing to see how that is “excessive and low quality.” This is a legitimate newspaper, as very thoroughly cited, and is of public interest, which is what a Wikipedia page is for. “No need to review closely” is not a sufficient response. Look again or send it to someone who will please.

Mkwal914, You have 67 sources. Over 50 of which are primary, self sourced, or awards. The sources you are burying under mentioned are the actual relevant sources and what the articles content should be based in. Wikipedia doesn't care about the fluff and you are burying what might be a notable article in citations while writing fluff. Trim the sources down, write about what's covered by reliable sources (lawsuit, editorial). Slywriter (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Which sources do you believe are self-sourced because none of them are? Self sourced would be from the website of the company which is only listed in external links. The piece has been updated to speak first about the editorials and the lawsuit. Let me know if that's better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkwal914 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Mkwal914, The first twelve sources are either self reported or self sourced. They are not independent wp:reliable sources especially for establishing wp:notability. Same goes for relying on the newspaper association as a source.

I have also removed the countless awards which should not be included unless secondary sources are covering them.

Finally, I do think the article is notable but the 'See Also' section is inappropriate and should be removed and converted into references or prose before the article can be accepted. Slywriter (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I have fixed the "see also" section. Let me know if that is better. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkwal914 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Mkwal914, there's no reason for a mentioned in statement. Either it's a source for a fact stated in the article and should become a reference or it is useless fluff. Slywriter (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

okay it's been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkwal914 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, regarding the article on Draft:Salvatore Ambrosini could you please tell me where I went wrong? Or could you correct it yourself? 158.148.196.255 (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@158.148.19.6.255:, Can't fix notability. They are a YouTuber who ran for office, yawn. Need to find actual reliable sources with bylines that don't read like they were handed the content and pressed print. Slywriter (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you fix the draft yourself? Are you or are you not an administrator? Aren't administrators also tasked with improving Wikipedia? Then do it...

Bye bye. We are all volunteers here and no it is no ones job here to help you promote yourself or your friend. Slywriter (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Slywriter, thanks for the comment. But I believe you missed to see that there was an Independent Resource for that - an official press independent of him and featured him because he bought a private aircraft from them : https://businessaircraft.bombardier.com/en/experience/profile/family-man . This mishap from your review is not really fair! How do we ask for a reviewer to be reviewed as well? Ensuring to avoid power tripping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecirual1 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Ecirual1, It is a promotional piece for the airplane manufacturer and does not establish notability. Wikipedia requires multiple independent reliable sources to establish notabilty. WP:THREE quality sources is a good rule to go by. As for reporting reviewers, I guess WP:AFCH would be the venue. Knock yourself out. Slywriter (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Slywriter, thanks for taking a look at the Draft:Shiji Group article. I know you can imagine how frustrated I am by now, having trimmed, searched, talked, trimmed and searched some more on this. Please help me.

I just know of this company, and dozens more, that are huge corporations or entities employing tens of thousands of people, and they are somehow not here on Wikipedia. The problem with many of these entities is that their "news" is just not that interesting.

As a journalist who writes for over 50 media outlets, and a publisher, I know the news cycle too. Shiji, and many other entities just don't get much in depth press. And this is true of tens of thousands of subjects already existing on Wikipedia too. I guess we all know that. Another problem and point of frustration for me is, I still get the "contributor" comment when people like Russell Flannery, the Senior Asia Editor at Forbes, are hardly freelancers. And the "press release" notation on the several refusals is another. These companies flood the digital landscape with releases.

Most of the stories you see are just regirgitations of press releases. On the "contributor" aggravation, it took me exactly 30 seconds to find a freelance writer Nancy Trejos' cited article at USA Today on W Hotels. HotelNewsNow, Yahoo!, Travel Weekly, and others of the same outlets I cited stood to validate this hotel chain, which probably uses Shiji tech, by the way.

Sorry to appear curt here, I know the guidelines are pretty strict, but I am ready to give up on this one. Nobody, so far, has offered much help for a well intended (albeit novice) editor. Seriously. Please help Slywriter. I have scoured the English internet looking for that in depth Vogue article about a Chinese tech behemouth. The story just does not exist. Anyway, no need for me to run on, and on. I can trim more of the stuff from Shiji, but none of this is my opinion. Personally, I just wanted Wikipedia readers to see a Brittanica-like reflection of a big company, and not a stub. Again. Help please. Philbutler (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the welcome. I have not been paid to create the voice "Salvatore Ambrosini", I am not even a friend or relative of him, I simply contributed to publish a new voice. Also, I don't know of any IP who have made any changes to the entry. Nonna Angelina (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Slywriter, Thank you for your advice. I transformed all (so I believe) the external links into citations. I hope my understanding is correct and this will make the draft acceptable. Any suggestions are very welcome. vpolinger (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Slywriter, Thank you very much for your help. Have a Nappy New Year! vpolinger (talk) 03:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello Slywriter! Thank you for your comment. I agree with you that the proposed article has still limited content. However, the aim is precisely that myself and the wikipedia community would further populate the entry. I do not think that the specific article on competition law proceedings against facebook can be merged into the existing general article at Facebook. The aim of the specific article covering all competition law proceedings against facebook is to have a wikipedia article equivalent to the article on the proceedings against Google ^[1]. So Wikipedia would treat in the same way the different 'GAFAs'. Once the article regarding the proceedings against facebook will be online, I would be available to draft similar articles on the EU proceedings against Apple (today there is only a summary of a judgement by the court of justice ^[2]) and Amazon. In the meantime, I will continue to expand the article on the proceedings against facebook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hocepch (talk • contribs) 18:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Goodmorning Slywriter, I just got to see your comment on our wikipedia project about AmadeoLab, do you have any suggestion to help us? Thanks a lotLIUCgre02 (talk) 08:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• Paperkyoko (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Akemi Dawn Bowman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. The article I submitted for review was declined with a comment saying the reviews were self-sourced and therefore not valid. I was wondering if you could please help explain what this means, as all the reviews I submitted were not written by the subject and were all from independent sources (Kirkus, School Library Journal, Booklist, Publishers Weekly, and BCCB). Thank you very much for the help.Paperkyoko (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Paperkyoko (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Paperkyoko, setting aside the book reviews, which may be notable though still suspicious they are flagged similarly as starred reviews, there is no indication the subject meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR. Slywriter (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• Tommiskun (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Baltic Innovation Prize (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Need support on article decline reason "Need independent secondary sources".

Dear Slywriter,

thank you for your efforts and time to review my article submission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Baltic_Innovation_Prize). The article was rejected with a reason "Need independent secondary sources". I tried to keep sources independent, secondary and notable as much as possible. My article is about the Baltic Innovation Prize from non profit organisation called "Baltic Assembly" Baltic Assembly www.baltasam.org. I've used sources of Seimas the Parliament of Lithuania Republic https://www.lrs.lt, Saeima the parliament of Latvia Republic https://www.saeima.lv, other media outlets which are listed below. My used sources are European Union countries parliaments, I am confused why countries parliaments are not independent and secondary sources? Please advice, your help is very appreciated.

Used sources: Seimas https://www.lrs.lt Parliament of Lithuania Republic Saeima https://www.saeima.lv Parliament of Latvia Republic The Baltic Course http://www.baltic-course.com/ Tommiskun (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

{u|Tommiskun}}, None of the sources appear to be acceptable to establish notabilty. Seimas is just reprinting the subject's text and the governments are involved parties. Need independent media or scholarly coverage. Slywriter (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Slywriter, Thank you for your help, the feedback was very helpful, I've updated article according to your instructions, if there still will be lack of notability with updated media coverage, I will continue to work on the article. Happy New Year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommiskun (talk • contribs) 16:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Slywriter, thank you first for stepping in so quickly, I saw that you refused my draft on musician Guélis, I understand your point of view, because I am a little inexperienced with wiki, but I had to hard to differentiate between a biography and the encyclopedia style, because when I read in wikipedia biographies of musicians I find more or less the same rhetoric, birth, studies, precision on the style of music and enumeration of works; I give you two random examples of composers who seem to have done less than Guélis: /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Benjamin_(composer)/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Carnevale . the sources I have cited for Guélis are verifiable, BNF (national library of France, IMDB press articles Figaro, concertonet.Com, Cannes festival etc ... hitromilanese an examiner had defined this potentially notable musician, so help me if he please change what is wrong,maybe is it too long, too detailed? or on the contrary not enough? And above all, tell me which paragraphs should be removed and added to make this an encyclopaedic article rather than a bio so that I can rework the article. I will be happy to listen to your valuable advice. AMPYTRION (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

{u|AMPYTRION}, all of your sources are basically primary sources. A video of the subject performing is meaningless for establishing notability, same goes for anything sourced to his website. BNF is just a record that his music exists. IMDB, Cannes and festivals are also useless for establishing notability. You need to find reliable sources independent of the subject.

Find WP:THREE good independent sources and work from those. Slywriter (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello Dear Slywriter I come back to your remarks concerning the notoriety of the musician A Guélis, really sorry for my insistence but you say the videos do not prove anything about the notoriety of the subject, I completely agree a video in itself does not prove anything because it can be filmed by anyone and anywhere, but I wanted to bring some precisions anyway, Maybe you haven't seen it but all the videos are broadcast on national French TV channels TF1 Fr2 in emblematic programs of the time like the RDV du dimanche of M Drucker  [20] https://www.alaingueliscompositeursiteofficiel.com/ecoute who is an extremely well known presenter in France according to the information I had and in the program where Guélis played there were stars like the Bee Gees, the Eagles, Simone Signoret (world famous wife of Yves Montand) Jane Birkin or jean Rochefort all announced at the beginning of the credits (links listening site of the artist 5th row of the videos) etc certainly these videos are in the site of the musician what is not ideal I understood well but they come in fact from the INA (archives of the French TV) and are available in via a subscription; the INA broadcasts on youtube a certain number of old videos which can be fully consulted like the link [1] but not all of them of course which would be impossible, this one n°1 is a broadcast of a very famous daily program at the time "midi première" on a national channel TF1, (also visible on the site of Guélis same line in company of Dalida the singer), other programs also as a composer interpreter and as a very young actor [2] there are various films and TV films of which A Guélis wrote the original soundtracks of which some in parallel with Michel Legrand  [7]https://www.loc.gov/item/jots.200157731/ French musician star who is not any more to present, in a film in particular with Catherine Zeta Jones (42) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1330340/reference otherwise all the rest of the reviews in the FIGARO[3]https://www.alaingueliscompositeursiteofficiel.com/presse?lightbox=dataItem-kn1nm2ri 1st French daily newspaper appear in the draft article I know well still in the site of the musician, unfortunately one does not find old press articles in internet except concertonet. com[5]http://www.concertonet.com/scripts/review.php?ID_review=3815 however in  [17]http://www.tce-archives.fr/document/9370-marc-laforet is on the net the programme of this concert at the theatre des champs élysées in PARIS; he is quoted among others in "le portail de la musique contemporaine"[12] https://musiquecontemporaine.org/portail-mc?disp=all&query=Gu%C3%A9lis&so=dd Dr by Bo Musicology Univ.of Illinois (4) https://www.siue.edu/~aho/discography/Discography.pdf etc...all this to try to draw your attention to the notoriety of this musician, as your colleague Hitromilanese seems to be saying, and just to underline these elements that you may not have had the time to see I have difficulty with the balance between having enough fame to try and prove which implies a lot of references, if there are a lot of references it leads to the criticism that it is becoming too public...and I can't understand why these elements are not secondary sources? TV festival de Cannes(8) https://www.festival-cannes.com/fr/artiste/alain-guelis (thesis university Sorbone paris 3)https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01488940/document Figaro review etc...unfortunately I can't really find any other sources than all those mentioned on the internet concerning this musician.

Having said that and to conclude I still can't understand why some musicians whose cv is much less abundant than A Guélis' benefit from an article on wikipedia contrary to his, I quote some examples from different nationalities among many others: :https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konrad_Boehmer      https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Quinet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Benjamin_(composer)     https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieter_Acker    https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Verbraeken and to speak frankly I find it rather unfair... since the principle of an encyclopaedia would be, in my opinion, not to favour some and not others. It seems to me that someone who has been on national channels with stars, who has made TV series and cinema films, who has had rather laudatory reviews in the Figaro and concerto.net has a certain notoriety I would be happy to have your opinion on the points raised, very cordially to you and above all a good year 2022 and especially good health.

AMPYTRION (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

AMPYTRION (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

AMPYTRION, first please reply here on my talk page, directly under this comment and not on my user page.

Second, French Wikipedia has different standards and can not be compared to English wikipedia which has some of the strictest standards.

Third, Any website that is connected to the subject is useless as a reference to establish notability.

Fourth, any source that is just a list of music also useless as are IMDB, Library of Congress and the french equivalent. Records of music being produced do not establish notability. So in the end you have zero secondary sources that are independent of the subject to establish notability.

Finally, long winded posts and complaints of unfairness are not a good strategy. Please keep your responses brief and focus on providing WP:THREE independent reliable sources that prove notability. Slywriter (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your review of this draft, as per your recommendations I have replaced all but one reference with appropriate third party sources and removed the self-sourced section you highlighted. The one remaining reference to the radio station's own website refers to basic historical information. I believe I can source this from a secondary source in print so will find this and replace it if/when possible, but I'm hoping in its current state the draft is fit for publishing.

Thanks! -- Omnipax (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and feedback. Sorry if it was PR fluff but I literally added the two latest mentions that our company has had this year. The mentions were independent of us so I assumed I can mention it as a reference/source. Thanks again for your help and feedback. Ayo wpgm (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Ayo wpgm, You added two utterly useless awards while ignoring the significant feedback left by previous reviewers.Slywriter (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. I will continue to work on the draft and remove the references and others as well, thanks again Ayo wpgm (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• Iti67 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ronetix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, Could you tell me please what I should modify? The article is written from neutral point of view and there are 4 references.

Regards

Iti67 (talk) 09:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Iti67, None of your sources are valid references. Business directories, product listings and press releases are not used to establish notability.Slywriter (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I am writing for more specific details regarding the rejection of this page. If I have over-referenced the details, I can reduce them, particularly the Discography section which would reduce the reference by 14 (~30%). The content is written to be neutral, but demonstrate his importance in the current world of opera, his accolades speak for themselves. They are as reliable as possible for the fine arts (opera venue sites, Chicago Tribune, New York Times, recording labels, etc.) They are not from blogs or PR. However, they are there to demonstrate the breadth of work and importance of this artist. He was literally on the cover of Opera News last month and performed on CBS for the most recent Kennedy Center Honors. I modeled his page after contemporaries such as Quinn Kelsey, Christine Goerke, and Nicholas Phan.

You wrote,"Worry less about awards and PR pieces and focus on what makes subject notable". But the awards, performances, reviews, etc., are what make him notable. You do not achieve this level of success without being an influential artist.

--Mikeycav (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)mikeyacv

Mikeycav, being briefly mentioned in a review of an opera is a passing mention. Any source affliated with a show is a connected source. Neither of those can be used to establish notabilty. As to awards, they look pretty but none of them are useful to establishing notability. While the Met Award has a wikipedia page, it is also clear from that page that the award does not create automatic notability as most current recipients do not have a page. The other award is debatable whether should even have a wikipedia page.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is the wikipedia response to modeling article after someone else. In short, doesn't matter and not a factor in considering whether this article stands on its own.

So, where does that leave things? I would suggest posting as a comment to the draft article listing which WP:THREE independent sources you believe establish either general notability (WP:GNG) or pass WP:NMUSIC / WP:PERFORMER.Slywriter (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Can you please define the metric for notability that would satisfy your requirement? I can establish notability, but I'm not sure beyond awards, performances, recordings, and appearances how to measure notability for an artist. I have reviewed the other artist pages I referenced and cannot put my finger on notability. Mikeycav (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)mikeycav

MikeyCav, Wikipedia's definition of notability is found at WP:NOTABILITY and details are also available at WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. For GNG, the general rule is three non-trivial mentions by independent, reliable sources. NMUSIC lists several other criteria that can be met. Three sources is the easier route, as its fairly black and white. Either the sources discuss the subject in-depth or they don't. NMUSIC is less direct and you would need to identify a criteria met and what sources prove.

It may be worth leaving a message at the Opera project talk page for more specific guidance in the genre. :https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera Slywriter (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Mikeycav, I am terrible at pings. Slywriter (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, you declined my submission due to all sources connected to the event and no independent or notable sources. Can you expand on this? My sources were long established local and regional news and/or entertainment media companies, and an international publication by American Express.

None of the sources are connected to the event in any form or fashion. Every source listed voluntarily, and independently, chose to produce their coverage, publications, or articles with no encouragement or financial incentive from the festival.

Would you please help me better understand your explanation?

Thank you Douggainey (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I pulled this from one of the explanation pages. My sources fall directly under this description.

"A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter." Douggainey (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Douggainey, reprinting a press release is not independent coverage. There are no sources provided that are independent and provide in-depth coverage.Slywriter (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, none of these sources were contacted, encouraged, or paid to produce their coverage. Drift Jam has never sent out a single press release. Not one.

I'm curious to know why and what makes you assume as much... had I sent out a press release, all of the sources would have verbatim text from the release. Simply a copy and paste by the sources. If you take the time to look at the sources you'll see that is not the case at all. Any of the sources that contacted Drift Jam did so on their own volition, to obtain more information for their coverage. Douggainey (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Douggainey, You are welcome to re-submit the article and see if another reviewer sees differently, however I do not see coverage that meets the notability standard. For something billing itself as the "World's Largest Floating Musical Festival", the coverage is sparse and does not appear in-depth. Partnership with 9/11 Foundation is the bulk of reliably sourced coverage, which is not enough in my eyes for notability even if the coverage was obtained organically.

Even if were to accept all your sources as reliable, they still amount to routine information promoting an upcoming event, not a single source actually discusses the event.

6 years, "World's Largest"... if you can't findWP:THREE reliable sources that actually talk about the festival then its not for Wikipedia.Slywriter (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

If I send you a few more sources through here would you be open to reviewing to see if they satisfy what you are looking for? I listed those sources simply because I thought they would suffice for third-party sources based on the criteria listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douggainey (talk • contribs) 09:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Douggainey, yep, just drop your best 3 or 4 sources here and I'll take a look.Slywriter (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Slywriter,

Thank you for reviewing my Draft. I read your comment on the page of this Draft. I then continued to investigate the best I could through the internet and re-edited the Article based on your recommendations. To establish notability, I added additional citations from reliable sources (WP:THREE - ScreenRant, Wired, Macomb Daily). I also reworded the article to be in a neutral point of view. Hope this new version best fits the Wiki's tone of voice. Thanks! RandomBetty (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

RandomBetty, Wired fits the bill but the other two are passing mentions. There's nothing in-depth about the subject in those articles.Slywriter (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for speedy reply Slywriter. The ScreenRant article had two paragraphs dedicated to the subject, so thought it was reliable. How about these articles from Eclipse Magazine and PETA? Do these fit the bill? RandomBetty (talk) 07:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

RandomBetty, whoops, ScreenRant and Wired do have more than a few lines. I had looked at Eclipse instead of Screenrant yesterday and Eclipse is just a passing mention. PETA is no use, there website would only be reliable for discussions about PETA. See if you can find one more source like ScreenRant and WiredSlywriter (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter, found this news article from Zap2it. Plus found this Book called Fan Phenomena: Supernatural (ISBN 9781783203284, Pg - 92 & 94). Hope these satisfy the requirements. Thanks. RandomBetty (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

RandomBetty, I've accepted the article. Hope you stick around, a willingness to dig and find better sources is always a trait the wikipedia community can use.Slywriter (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter, thanks for accepting the article. Will stick around and help improve the article further. Thanks again for guiding me in finding better sources and for helping me become a better Wikipedian. I hope to see you around too. RandomBetty (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey! Not too sure why this article is up for deletion... not every source is from the Air Force Academy, and the content is relevant for all cadets at USAFA, grads, prospective cadets, and their families.Airportexpress (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Airportexpress, the dissertation, published by RAND, is the only non Air Force reference and looking at the sections where the position is mentioned does not show me that the subject is all that notable outside the halls of the Air Force Academy. Also, The AfD itself is a better place for this discussion. Slywriter (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, this is Intelligence Addict, and I would like to reply to the recent decline of my submission proposal, I believe my proposal was rightly declined as you assumed futurism and futurology were the same things. In fact, even though Futurology and Futurism do share commonalities, declining my request because there is already a developed article on the recognized field of future studies is wrong as futurology is a field of study and futurism is an ideology. With this logic, this would mean you'd decline a proposal for Environmentalism(an ideology) as there is already a developed article on ecology (field of study). I am fairly new to Wikipedia so I don't know if you could revise and accept it but if not, I would like to state this. — Preceding undated comment added 02:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Intelligence_addict, I'll leave another reviewer to decide if that distinction actually makes a notable topic. I am unsure the sources provided show the subject to be notable and in wide use.

The article has several additonal problems including lack of citations, and not written in an encyclopedic form. Statements need to be shown they are supported by independent reliable sources.

Also, be careful not to remove declinations or comments from draft. They are part of the record. You can re-submit(and it is already resubmitted) without touching the previous records.Slywriter (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Slywriter!

I would like to thank you for taking the time to review my article about emdha Trust Service Provider a business in Saudi Arabia. However, I added the sources as requested and I was hoping you can take another look. I would really appreciate your help with this! Have a lovely day ahead and take care!

Yara M. Mesallam (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Heyworld GmbH

Hello,

Thank you for editing my draft.

I understood your reasons behind the first rejection, but the second rejection and your comment on it, I consider unfair and rude. The article is now written from a neutral perspective, looking also on time:matters or Lufthansa Cargo Wikipedia pages - aren't they also 'regular business, nothing notable'? Then why are they published? The references we have added are the only ones we have on hand now, and I believe they are more than enough as it covers a wide range of publications. I would kindly ask for the review again in a fair manner. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bo6dan at heyworld (talk • contribs) 10:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Slywriter,

I have edited and submitted for review Draft:JamesAllen.com, an article you declined. I do not understand the criticism that it is too much like an advertisement as I modeled it after multiple similar entries that are already on Wikipedia and I only stated basic facts about the company. Can you please tell me specifically what I need to do in order to resubmit this article successfully notability. I would appreciate feedback. User:BruleeOle (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

BruleeOle, business listing would have been a better description. Basically, you have shown the company exists but not shown any notability for why it should have an article. Wikipedia is not a business directory.Slywriter (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

So would you recommend I add something notable about the company in order for the submission to be accepted? Can you advise how to add something notable without it sounding like an advertisement? User:BruleeOle (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• NMDann (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, @Slywriter, I am trying to create a wiki page for a 10-year research program that has ended (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gulf_of_Mexico_Research_Initiative) as a legacy to it, at their request. I was part of the organization while it was active. My first two attempts were rejected because of copyright issues. I used the program’s website as the main reference and my wording was too similar to what exists on the website. The program’s website is copyrighted. In my most recent draft, I wrote using my own words based on my knowledge of the program. But it was rejected because not enough documentation to support what is stated. There are no major news outlets that describe the program other than announcing the program. There is one peer-reviewed publication that describes the program; however, I am a co-author on it and have been told not to use that. I was told not to use a YouTube video that has the two founders talking about how the program was established (or any YouTube videos). I looked at NSF wiki page as an example and they do not have a lot of references to back up its program description. The NSF wiki page references its website, which is not copyrighted. How can I proceed? Should I ask the owner of the organization's website to change the copywrite status of their website (to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License) and if so, after it is changed, would I be able to use the website as a reference to back up my statements? I appreciate any help or advise you can give me. NMDann (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)NMDann

NMDann (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

NMDann, Its always tough when something lacks Wikipedia's traditional expectation of sources. My best suggestion would be either head to WP:TEA and see if any other editors can help find sources or consider adding a section to Deepwater Horizon oil spill where the question would shift from WP:NOTABILITY to WP:DUE. It would wind up significantly shorter but appears relevant to the article. Can also start a conversation on the talk page there about whether a section or separate article is appropriate.

Also, be sure to review WP:COI and make any necessary declarations. I haven't looked so if this is already taken care of feel free to ignore. But will save you headaches in dealing with other editors.Slywriter (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter, thanks for such a quick reply! I will try the WP:TEA. The suggestion to add a section to Deepwater Horizon oil spill is very interesting and, perhaps, the easiest route. What if I added just the text that is in the Summary of the existing draft? Would that be acceptable? Who decides if something added to an existing page is ok? NMDann (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)NMDann

NMDANN, WP:BOLD says anyone can but given the COI, be better to use an WP:EDITREQUEST on the Talk Page. Can place the summary with whatever sources support it. Ideally, some reliable source has at least acknowledged its existence, so that its not only primary or connected sources supporting the Summary. WP:ABOUTSELF gives some guidance on how to use sources connected to the subject.18:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter,

I appreciate your feedback on the submission of the One Knoxville SC article. You stated that the team will likely become notable once the season starts. However, there are already multiple teams yet to begin their season in USL2 that have a Wikipedia page. See Ballard FC and Vermont Green FC. Surely teams in the same league with similar sources, references, and stages of club development should all be eligible for acceptance? Any suggestions for improvement are appreciated, I have already obtained a vectorized SVG image of the crest to add to the infobox, pending article approval. Thanks, CGSize (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC).

CGSize, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is the wikipedia way of saying just because someone snuck a poorly sourced article in, doesn't mean more of the same should be allowed. Both of those articles are not ready for main space with even less reliable coverage than your draft. As for your draft, just need something beyond local coverage that shows notability is met.Slywriter (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter, are sources from the official League Website and Ballpark Digest not beyond local coverage and notable?CGSize (talk) 05:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

CGSize, league website is connected source so won't establish notability. Ballpark Digest might satisfy, depends what article says.Slywriter (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

And thank you too, Slywriter. Valetude (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for editing my draft.

Hi Slywriter, Thank you for your review. The submission was declined for not having significant coverage. Before the submission, I added several 3rd party links that covered Hinako’s rewards and achievements. Should I also include some Japanese news coverage? Could you please share some advice on how I can improve this article? Thank you! The world of modern music En (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The world of modern music En, award aren't very useful. Need significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources. News articles would be good, but if they say is they won an award that's not meaningful coverage. Hope this helps Slywriter (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice! I added more news articles (English and Japanese) to the page and submitted for another review. The world of modern music En (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey! You rejected the Skeleton Technologies article for not answering the COI inquiry - however I believe I added the notices everywhere that was needed prior to submission? Could you please help me out and see what's missing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaanus K (talk • contribs) 06:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Jaanus K, notice should be on your user page(where the red link for your name in the comment above links), not talk page. Mobile users can't see the notice when you place on talk page. Slywriter (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I need more people to help me editing as I have too much to do myself. I see that you responded to me on the teahouse page. Could you please make infoboxes for these articles Betty Lalam and Duan Weihong. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Why was this article approved, as it also pointes out only the specifications?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_C2_(2020)

Even worse, it repeats the same specs which are already stated further above.

Your comment "Need more thank Nokia sources" does not make any sense. WikiPate (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

WikiPate, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for why pointing out other crap articles is not a justification for allowing more crap to come into existence. per WP:GNG, subject of articles need coverage in independent reliable secondary sources.Slywriter (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Please dear sir/mam, may you please review and publish my draft as no one is giving any response from several months and its review is still waiting. I am fully sure that my draft is 100% eligible for publication and it follows all guidelines of our "Wikipedia". Kindly, help me and publish my draft.

Draft link: [1]

Thank you so much in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by TriMain182681 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Shiji

Hi Slywriter, Thanks very much for your comments on the Shiji page I am suffering over. I am continuing to search for more references, and chopping unnecessary information per your suggestions. So you know, I used as a template another Wikipedia page or two in order to make this one complete. But, I want to get the process down for future pages too, so. TYVM for your help. Philbutler (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Philbutler, instead of dozens of routine non-notable references, focus on finding WP:THREE good independent references that discuss the subject in-depth. If you can't find three then its likely not a subject that merits inclusion in wikipedia.Slywriter (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter, thanks very much. I have and am looking. The problem is systemic. The draft you see is cut back from what was an almost exact clone (template) of one or more major hotel brands on Wikipedia. I don't want to waste your time, but those brands are far older, but still lack the same criteria Wiki experts are telling me I should find. The problem is that this company is a lot newer (digitally) in English. Even in Chinese, by comparison, Shiji just came onto the scene. Another problem is, these technology companies are simply boring for journalists. I know, they have bored me in about 50,000 tech articles I've written about them. It is no so pertinent, but I was one of the early evangelists/analysts of Wikipedia, and my interview with Jimbo (who is not boring) led me to where I am typing right now. This is supposed to be the repository of the knowledge of humanity, or in his exact words, “the sum of all human knowledge available to every person in the world.”

I am about ready to give up on this one and do some reverse media engineering (find the inclusion criteria, then write the page) to place other subjects in Wikipedia. I only did this one because I am a travel writer who thought it strange Wikipedia did not have a company with this reach within the encyclopedia. Sorry. There are tens of thousands of Wikipedia entries that do not exactly meet these stringent criteria. This company employs an army. It serves almost every hotel in Asia, and half the hotels in the west. The President of the United States (Trump) sanctioned the company in a move that was unprecedented. But, ironically, I was advised to remove that as unnecessary info. If all Wikipedia editors followed such advice, Wikipedia would be a cookbook. Read the page for Cristiano Ronaldo and see if that contributor did a "play by play" for the page. This is what I was chastised for. Too much color and superfluous info.

As for Wikipedia articles with similar referencing, it took me exactly 10 seconds to isolate Palo Alto Networks, a newer company that does not employ an army. The first reference in this article seems right, since it is via Fox News. But, in reality it is a regurgitation from PC Mag, which in turn uses the Palo Alto Networks texts, which were PR campaigned (syndicated) to Enterprenuer. The second reference is Palo Alto Networks, the third (you guessed it) Palo Alto Networks, and the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth references are either Palo Alto Networks, press releases, scant mentions, or Tweets. I won't bore you by going on, and on, and on. The Palo Alto Networks page suffers from the exact same "problems" my Shiji page does, only worse. With a week and a new keyboard?? Well. All I am asking for is some help here. My intentions are only to make Wikipedia a tad more complete. But wrestling over the pointedly obvious for hours on end is not in my retirement package.

Please, help me. Meanwhile, I am still looking for the novel about the Chinese technology company that was boring. Philbutler (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Reply to your AFC comment = This cannot be incorporated/merged into a city or district article, because this article is for the Municipal Government Organization of Karnal which officially is Karnal Municipal Corporation just like other municipal corporations in Haryana and India. For example Panipat Municipal Corporation. You are requested to allow to create this page. Keshavv1234 (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Keshavv1234 Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indian_cities#Civic_Administration. You can create a section named Karnal#Civic_Administration and add relevant information there. Venkat TL (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey! Comment: Need better sourcing. 2nd source does not appear useable. First source looks good (notwithstanding its overly agressive ads) Slywriter (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC) There are no sources , only that one. Also, same source is provided in russian version of this text. I can remove it, but I can't replace it, as there are no similar sources .

Slywriter In regards to your comment "Editor mentioned at ANI that high costs are addressed but they are not as no context is provided and editor expects reader to go to the source for more information. (memorializing concerns I have from AFCHD and ANI for future reviewer)"

I have updated under "Researchers" already the the sentences which addresses this claim. It is inaccurate to state that I "expect reader to go to source for more information." Please review the text under "Researchers" as it provides the relative cost of the technologies, showing Electreon's is the highest according to the Swedish Transport Admin research report. (Jacobariel91 (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC))

Jacobariel91, Please stop posting comments in multiple places, its inefficient. The ANI thread is moot at this point unless you wish to pursue the behavioral complaint, no one will discuss content further there.

To the substance, I see nothing showing anything in the draft article like you claim above. Its just a rambling of costs and the CEOs hope of a lower price but zero context exists and one is left wondering what else is omitted from the sources.Slywriter (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter Apologies, I will keep the conversation limited to here. Your comment says: "Editor mentioned at ANI that high costs are addressed but they are not as no context is provided and editor expects reader to go to the source for more information."

This is not true, and I ask you modify this statement.

This sentence in the draft text addresses high costs relative to other assessed technologies - no need for any reader to sift through the source:

"...its February 2021 interim report estimated Electreon's infrastructure cost, per kilometer both ways (two lanes) at mass production, at 19.5 million SEK (about 2.3 million USD at the time of publishing), compared with 12.4, 11.5, and 9.4 million SEK of the other road technologies [in the report]."

Further, under "Electreon's" cost estimates, the language indicates the projected cost assessments are continuously increasing and will therefore be much higher than current estimates. (Jacobariel91 (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC))

Jacobariel91, I see the line now but I don't see how you are getting it from the source. Best I can tell the only mention of ElectReon is a passing mention in a footnote to a diagram and the report is about the general technology, not the company. WP:SYNTH and WP:OR are the relevant policies that say we can not make assumptions based on the source. Slywriter (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Jacobariel91, you seem very knowledgeable in this area and well you should be after studying and researching the article, however, our reader may not be extremely knowledgeable in these subjects and Wikipedia is not an academic encyclopedia otherwise we would never just allow anyone to edit but only those providing academic credentials. Because of Wikipedia's libre mission, articles need to be written with this in mind. One of the issues that stands out to me in this draft is the change from euro to usd at varying points. The common reader would need to have a conversion table in front of them to even remotely understand what you are saying and even then may not fully understand. It is important not to just repeat what the sources say but to summarize what the sources say in a way that the common reader can understand. There may be a great article written in this but its very difficult to follow and therefore difficult to verify the information provided. We should be able to take your summary, not assumptions, and go to the source and be able to match up the relevant facts information that supposedly makes this company notable. --ARoseWolf 19:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter In page 59 of the Trafikverket (Swedish Transport Admin report), there is a table with the 4 assessed technologies. Electreon's technology is the in-road inductive charging, this the 4th technology in the table, where the cost is given. The report is in Swedish and I coordinated with a translator, as well as online translation tools, to verify this information. There is also a summary report on the Trafikverket cost table that can be found here (in English): https://thereaderwiki.com/en/Electreon#cite_note-trafikverket-2021-02-01-4

ARoseWolf Some sources are in different languages, and I have provided adequate summary of the key points to support the article's claim. I have also indicated changes in currency (i.e. SEK and USD vs, Euro) at points which are relevant. I can make the same edits to show the conversion between km and miles, where its noted. I have also reviewed the text of the article with non-EV enthusiasts to confirm adequate understanding, this has all been taken into account in the language drafting. (Jacobariel91 (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC))

Please let me know, if there are further edits I can make to support adequate summary and explanation - happy to make further necessary changes.

Jacobariel91,Swedish Transport Administration electric road program is the article on wiki that the chart was borrowed from for that website. I've left a source assessment on the talk page of the article. Another reviewer may see it differently, but as it stands I can not approve the article for main space. Please note, a review may take awhile as the queue is extensive. You are free to work on the article while review is pending or just sit tight. Slywriter (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Jacobariel91, knew i was having too good a run of properly pinging. anyway, ignore this, relevant content above Slywriter (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter The chart on that article is sourced from the Trafikverket report - this report is the original source for all the related costs on these technologies. I've pointed you to table on page 59 and explained the translation and understanding of the electric road cost technologies, relative to each other. If you review the Trafikverket site on the report, it also underscored the four companies addressed in a clear video. Electreon is the inductive road technology (the fourth listed technology) in the chart on page 59 of the report. (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kzb-VlZa-w, starts at 2:18).

Your original comment claimed: "Editor mentioned at ANI that high costs are addressed but they are not as no context is provided and editor expects reader to go to the source for more information." I have provided you with sufficient details and explanations proving otherwise. Please, I kindly ask you do not divert attention from this point and the fact that I have addressed it.

I also ask that you elaborate as to why the article can not be approved for main space at the moment - we have established non-promotional language and notability of sources (I do not want to refer you back to the recent thread with the other editors going through each of these claims extensively), and I have addressed your original comment as well above that I "expect [the] reader to go to the source for more information" as a point which is completely inaccurate (in order to present an accurate status of the draft article to any future reviewers, this comment needs to be modified).

Jacobariel91, I laid on the talk page my concern with each source. And while you have shown the cost to be mentioned, it lacks any context and is useless to a reader unless they load up the source. And as far as I am concerned, the article remains a promotional piece unfit for main space. ANI established nothing beyond "Reject should be reversed", so there is no extensive review by other editors to look at. You can continue to insist your page be accepted as is, but absent meaningful change, it will not be accepted by me. When another reviewer gets to the article they may see it differently.Slywriter (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter Your original comment was that I did not explain the high costs of the company relative to other technologies. I provided the sentence that I did. You then said, it is not clear from the source, I provided explanation that I did and how I did. it lacks any context and is useless to a reader unless they load up the source.

ARoseWolf said above "It is important not to just repeat what the sources say but to summarize what the sources say in a way that the common reader can understand....We should be able to take your summary, not assumptions, and go to the source and be able to match up the relevant facts."

That's entirely the purpose of the write up here - an article should summarize what the sources say. You're saying that my summary is not adequate - please, how would you summarize the sources? How would you summarize the sources so that the users don't need to go to the source? You need to make up your mind and not contradict other editors. There needs to be a consistent standard on the review of draft articles.

"And as far as I am concerned, the article remains a promotional piece unfit for main space" - please provide examples of how this article is a promotional piece? I have continuously asked for this feedback from editors, but none are able to provide adequate examples of such. This goes back to my prior comment that editors need to be fair arbiters of fact vs. promotion. There is no promotional language here, it is al fact son the company's history, technology, and current projects. You need to be able to apply a fair standard of review, otherwise you are detracting from the value of Wikipedia. Please, provide examples of promotional language in the piece. If you have none, that's fine, but then don't call it a promotional piece for convenience sake because you have no other critiques. (Jacobariel91 (talk) 07:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC))

Hi Slywriter,

Thank you for your feedback on the Suade Labs draft. I have made some changes to the draft. Could you please take a look and let me know if it has improved?

Thank you MaxD231291 (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

This is the page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Suade_Labs MaxD231291 (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

MaxD231291, I've left a quick assessment of the sources on the talk page of the draft.Slywriter (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Slywriter, could you explain a little bit more why the article over this American Designer was declined? Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Mencke (talk • contribs) 07:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Max Mencke, none of the articles are in depth coverage of the subject. Being mentioned in articles is not enough to establish notabilty. Please review WP:N and WP:BIO for the requirements. If you can't find WP:THREE independent relIable sources that discuss the subject, there is little chance of an article being accepted. Slywriter (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)