User talk:KJP1/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey there! I was just wondering why you had created the page KJP1/sandbox2. Did you mean to created it in your userspace? If so, I'd be happy to move it, as long as you tell me what to move it to. Considering you've made 25,000 edits and have pending changes reviewer, new pages reviewer, autopatrolled, extended confirmed, and rollbacker rights, you probably know that sandboxes should not be in the mainspace. However, there could easily be some exception that I don't know about - if so, sorry about this message. Thanks!--SkyGazer 512 talk / contributions / subpages 17:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SkyGazer 512 - aarrrrgggghhhhh! No, I'm a techno-idiot and I meant to put it as a second sandbox, as I don't want to delete the content of the one I have. Hugely grateful if you were able to make it a subset of my sandbox. KJP1 (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, could you clarify what you mean by a subset? For now (temporary) I just moved it to User:KJP1/sandbox3 just so new page patrollers don't get confused (I hope that's okay).--SkyGazer 512 talk / contributions / subpages 17:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely fine, and many thanks. I was experimenting to try to give myself a second sandbox, but I obviously didn't get it quite right. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem at all, I'm glad I could help. I make the dumbest mistakes ALL the time when editing wikis - we've all been there! Regards, --SkyGazer 512 talk / contributions / subpages 17:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Laurence Scott Zimmerman[edit]

Hello, thank you for taking time to review the bio I contributed. I am happy to inform that the majority of the links provided in the bio contribution were from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which are two of the most prominent regulatory bodies in the United States. So I do not quite understand the basis for declination based on being completely unsourced. Further on guidelines of being notable, Laurence was the first telecom executive to use broadband equipment over cellular licenses at a time when the equipment ecosystem was solely voice and text (no data) and he had to get vendors on-board to build such broadband equipment which did not exist in the 1990s. The spectrum bands he aggregated are the same foundation for 5G data moving forward today in the United States by Verizon and AT&T. Please advise as I am re-submitting as a novice contributor but highly knowledgeable in matters of wireless infrastructure. Further I am happy to say, Laurence is once again pioneering in the 600MHz spectrum band with a 5G B2B business model which will be the first of its kind in providing free mobile data to consumers. Please advise. Bridge600MHz (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)User:Bridge600MHzReply[reply]


Hey, thanks for reviewing Draft:The Neon Wilderness on its first day. The banner saying it'd take 8 weeks was pretty disheartening. Thanks again, (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brannavan Gnanalingam[edit]

I will try to add a few more citations. He isn't well known but looks promising. He has reviews in well-respected outlets. Many thanks for your encouragement. I think I know what to do for the Trafic entry, but it will take a little time. Your assistance has proven invaluable. Yrarendar (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yrarendar - Appreciate that. I thought you might be able to help. I think some of the problems around sourcing are similar for French journals and New Zealand authors. Give me a shout if I can do anything. Happy to review Trafic as and when. KJP1 (talk) 11:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have done quite a bit of work on the entry about Brannavan Gnanalingam. I hope that this is what you have in mind; I also hope that the original author will not be offended. This author should receive credit for highlighting such an interesting young talent (for a novelist, under 40 is young). I do very much understand the frustration of that original author's experience. I actually am not certain how to write to the original contributor because there is no user page attached to the signature. I have kept everything that was originally included but moved it around a bit to impart a sense of flow. I added quite a few references, including a list of the author's novels. BG definitely seems someone worth watching, very talented if somewhat controversial and uneven. I will get back to the Trafic entry at the end of the week - so that at some point there will be a live link from the "Raymond Bellour" entry. Again thank you for your continued support. Yrarendar (talk) 05:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request on 06:57:43, 20 April 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Justin Wabscott[edit]

Hi KJP1, thanks for reviewing the Draft:Studio3T so quickly. Could you give me an idea why the citations that I've added since January didn't satisfy you that the subject is 'notable'? I also asked the previous reviewer MadeYourReadThis but got no reply. Could you perhaps suggest what you class as 'notable' in the world of databases at the current time?

Justin Wabscott (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Justin, happy to have a look but it will be in a couple of days as I’m away from home. KJP1 (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Justin Wabscott - Have now had another look but I'm not seeing Notability. The sources look connected (i.e. not independent), niche, blogs, user-generated, or how-to guides. I'm just not seeing significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. KJP1 (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request on 17:05:00, 24 April 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Nick-drozd[edit]

Hello. I am wondering why the following page was declined a publication.

I believe the issue was due with the notability? As in: "Completely unsourced advert/resume with no indication of Notability."

The person who the article is about is a significant figure in scientific medical research and medicine in Germany and worldwide. I believe the list of highly referred books and publications that is on the wiki page as well as the list of Honors and Awards should provide a significant indication of Notability. Here are a few: Francisca Skorina Medal, Georg von Hevesy Medal, Bavarian Order of Merit. I would like to know what else I should provide as a proof of Notability and as a source, since the page in question is full of it.

If youd like some links with info on the subject, here are a few: (526 Research items; 11,281 Reads; 11,332 Citations) (There is already a page on him in the specific wiki domain. I wonder how that was Notable enough?)

I would like a PM or a reply. Thank you very much.

P.S. do you have to be a youtuber nowadays to get a page? Nick-drozd (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nick-drozd - No, having large numbers of YouTube followers isn't a requirement. But sources are, as per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Citing sources, and you haven't got any. You also need to declare a connection to the subject, should you have one, as per Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. I should also say that the content/tone reads like a resume, rather than a neutral survey of the relevant sources. Hope this helps. KJP1 (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
p.s. I'm afraid I've no idea as to the Notability requirements of the German language Wurzburg wiki.
p.p.s. I see the photo was taken by the subject. Please see my earlier question re. a Conflict of interest.
p.p.p.s. Of the medals you cite, one is to a link that appears not to mention him, one is to Wikipedia, which can’t source itself, and one gives me a 404 error. Sourcing will need to be stronger than this.

Request on 22:01:22, 24 April 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Kmehta9[edit]

Okay first of all, you guys have Wikipedia articles up that literally talk about nothing of any relevance. How are those good enough to be published? Secondly, I've clearly marked conflict of interest, there's no need to be sassy about it. The first person that reviewed this was honestly the most clear and polite. I fixed the issue with the references, now your problem is that I cited my own reviews? Why does that even matter? Everything I've put on here is the truth. This film has toured 10 festivals and won 3 awards, yet you won't let it be a Wiki page? At least I TRY to fix the things that were asked of me and resubmit in hope - however futile! Kmehta9 (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Kruti Mehta Kmehta9 (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kmehta9 - I'm afraid the problem is you just won't take advice. You've been advised about what Wikipedia is, and how it isn't an advertising platform. You've been advised about why citations from reliable, independent sources are essential. And you've been advised about the need to properly declare a Conflict of interest. But you've not acted on any of this advice. Which makes it impossible to help you. KJP1 (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
KJP1 - I have cited it as you asked with references, they have some weird date thing which I am not able to remove. I don't have any more sources to add that are online. Hello Pakistan Magazine and Women's Own Magazine were in print in another country - I don't have links available to that. I declared my conflict of interest per what I understood from the COI page on Wiki. If there is something I have to do to declare that other than adding the box at the bottom, then please inform me. I have acted on all the advise that was given to me, do not falsely accuse me of not listening. (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request on 15:47:21, 25 April 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Kmehta9[edit]

I have cited it as you asked with references, they have some weird date thing which I am not able to remove. I don't have any more sources to add that are online. Hello Pakistan Magazine and Women's Own Magazine were in print in another country - I don't have links available to that. I declared my conflict of interest per what I understood from the COI page on Wiki. If there is something I have to do to declare that other than adding the box at the bottom, then please inform me. I have acted on all the advise that was given to me, why are you falsely accusing me of not listening? Also, I put this message in 2 places because I clearly do not understand how talk pages work. Kmehta9 (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Kruti MehtaReply[reply]

Per the chat room help, I have added my company affiliation on the talk page. I would like to edit the deleted article to remove the offending material. Can you restore the article? Sherald44 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC) Sherald44Reply[reply]

Sherald44 - Hi, I didn't actually delete the draft, I proposed it for deletion. You'll need to ask the administrator who did, User talk:RHaworth. They may be willing to let you have a copy. KJP1 (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

06:48:36, 26 April 2018 review of submission by[edit]

Dear Reviewer, I believe the article refers to outside sources only including The Straits Times which is a highly respected Singapore newspaper. The tone is also neutral, and makes no attempts to give biased views on the quality or standing of Cocoon Capital except for what is written in the referenced articles. Could you let me know which parts you find to be in an unsuitable format? (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] - All of it. An advert doesn't need to be overly promotional in tone to be an advert. What the subject wants is presence on Wikipedia. Look at your sourcing. It is almost completely PR-placed "interviews", sometimes with the same, Cocoon-provided, photo, (1,3,5,6). Source 4 is the company's own site. Which leaves Source 2 which is paywalled. KJP1 (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request on 15:37:32, 26 April 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Hbaizan[edit]

Hi, I hve written an article that was declined by you about a Software Company (Belatrix Software), with this comment: "Completely unsourced advert by an author with an undeclared Conflict of interest. Tagging for deletion." I wonder if you can help me with some insights or examples of how can I make it better. Thanks! Hbaizan (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hbaizan - Hi. I can only talk in general terms as the draft's been deleted, but the key points are:
  • Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - if you have a connection to the company, you need to properly declare this. And you are discouraged from writing the article, as you really will struggle to maintain objectivity.
  • Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) - companies should only have an article on here if they are Notable. The link shows you what that means, which is basically do they have significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject? Your draft didn't.
  • Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources - Sources are the lifeblood of Wikipedia. They are how we establish Notability (see above) and how readers Verify the content. Without sources, you haven't got an article.
The bottom line is, if you want to help build the world's biggest online encyclopedia, great, there are millions of articles you can work on. But if you want to use the world's biggest online encyclopedia as a marketing platform for your company, then find another platform. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your response. I DO NOT want to do marketing with the company, I've been editing lots of articles both in english and spanish to contribute with this great encyclopedia, but never created a new one. I strongly believe the organization it's notable enough to have an article in here, I just need to provide the reliable sources to verify that. Regards. Hbaizan (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for your comment at WP Public art. Just wanted to make sure you saw my reply. I invite you to move the article into main space, if you're willing. I think it would mean more if someone other than me made the move, but hopefully you don't get any backlash from resisting editors. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I admit, though, I'm not sure of the best way to move the draft over the current redirect, whilst preserving the histories of both. If you know how, that's great! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm afraid that technical bit is way beyond my paygrade! But I can just go and Accept and see what happens? KJP1 (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's no simple mechanism for "accepting" the draft, since Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo already has a history. I think we'll need to go the Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_controversial_and_potentially_controversial_moves route, but I understand if you're not interested. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Another Believer: if you can wait til later today when I can get to my PC (on a tablet atm), I'll have a look at this. I think it just needs a quick use of admin tools but it's complicated enough that I don't want to attempt it on a touch screen. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HJ Mitchell: Thank you! ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request on 23:14:54, 26 April 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Vicki.olds[edit]

Dear KJP1; THX for your review & suggestions. Yes, I'm a novice at this wiki page content development, programming and publishing stuff, so it's a bit of a struggle between what TDin wants and his editors (former PR employees of one or more of his companies) are pushing. *sigh*

I am a friend of Tom's since 1993, and we have mutual close friends, so I'm not the most "objective" writer/editor. I'm a designer and media producer dba Studio Reflex, since 1991.

I'll do as you suggest ... I will CHOP-chop the copy and make changes to the existing "Tom Dinwoodie" wiki entry.

We believe he is notable because: in the West of the U.S., many people in today's successful Renewable Energy industries worked for one of his concerns in the early 1990s. Most notably, some of his Powerlight company employees went on to found some of the biggest and most profitable solar, biomass gasification, etc. enterprises operating around the world and hundreds of others can trace their dedicated "world beyond fossil fuels" careers back to one of TOm's initiatives and/or his generosity (volunteer high-level biz and scientific white papers advisor, personal support, financial donations, etc.), and continuing thought leadership.

Anyway, suggestions and any support for me would help. I'm new to chat forums, and I don't understand abougt "too many" internal wiki ref links. Darn! I LOVE the internal wiki REFs!

  • sigh*

Anyway, I hope to address this project, again, next week. I wish I could work with a more experienced wikipedia editor/programmer yet I don't know if that's allowed. If you're "watching" this development ... wish me luck.


Vicki.olds shibumi2 23:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

shibumi2 23:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Vicki.olds - What you're experiencing, with Mr Dinmore saying "what TDin wants" and his PR people "pushing", is a textbook case of why trying to edit/create Wikipedia articles when you have a Conflict of interest is a bad idea. It's also why I won't help, I'm afraid. My view is that conflict editing goes against a key principle of Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Which is why I won't work on developing articles where I am aware of a Conflict of interest. Anytime you want help with an article where you don't have a Coi, give me a shout. KJP1 (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear KJP1; THX for your quick and clear response. I understand. Maybe next time, yet wish me luck with this one! v shibumi2 23:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicki.olds (talkcontribs)

Hi, you declined my draft of Judge Graham. I've already explained to someone that I'm not his client and don't have a vested interest. I've been following his work for some time. This is frustrating. Can you please tell me how to get this approved? The guy is well-known around here. He deserves his own page. Thank you! JasonLWriter (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JasonLWriter - OK - you've said you have no connection with Judge Graham and I'll take you at your word. It's actually not that difficult to write an acceptable article. You just need:
  • Notability - has he received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject?
  • Reliable sources - see above.
  • A Neutral tone.
Now, on sources, yours are weak. Take the first. This is Graham's article! Yes, it's published in some online channel but read the disclaimer at the top: "Information contained on this page is provided by an independent third-party content provider. Frankly and this Site make no warranties or representations in connection therewith. SOURCE Judge Graham". So, every time you have used that source, and it's your main one, you are telling the reader "here's what Judge Graham says about himself". That's about as far from independent as you can get. Source 11, your second most-used source is the same, it's Judge's blog. And the rest of the sourcing is almost as bad. Apart from the Bloomberg, and that's just a listing, not a single strong media source and loads of PR-placed "interviews". If he is Notable, as you say, there must be better sourcing.
On tone, it's just way too promotional. Look at any halfway decent article about a businessperson on here. We just don't write articles in the tone you've used.
Hope this helps. By the way, it helps to put your new messages at the bottom of a Talkpage, rather than buried away in the middle. That just makes them hard to find. KJP1 (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much for your help. I understand completely. I'll do my best to dig up better sources. Your information helps a lot. I really appreciate you taking the time. JasonLWriter (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again. I'm wondering if you could take another look at my draft? I took out all the press releases and cut it down to just the facts I found on the prominent third-party sources. I know you're busy, but was wondering if I could count on you to help me approve it? I want to start editing other pages, but I want to have the process down first. Thanks!!!--JasonLWriter (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, this gets 800-odd views a day, has hardly changed since 2013, & is now plastered with "citation needed" tags. Most of the text seems fundamentally ok, but it all looks sad and overgrown, with much of it by User:Wetman back around 2005, who knows his stuff. I don't have access to my books at present. I suspect with the right books it could be quickly spruced up. Any chance of that? Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Johnbod - Hi Johnbod. By an odd chance, I found Eastlake's Gothic Revival in a bookshop in Ross-on-Wye last weekend. I've got the CUP reprint, but this was quite a nice 1900's hardback. I'll happily have a look at Gothic Revival, but it's a huge topic, as you know, although I've got quite a lot of the books. My big problem - aside from time - is that I'm very anglo-centric in my knowledge and the article, rightly, attempts a wider focus. That will limit what I could do. Just one personal matter - I had a bit of a set-to with User:Wetman a couple of years ago over who built Cronkhill. It matters not to me, but I'd hate to tread on his toes twice! Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's great! Wetman hasn't edited the article since 2009, so I'm sure that won't be a problem. Just shifting those cn tags would be great - the tagger didn't actually get much further down than the early Anglophone sections. It's 58k crude bytes, with various sub-articles, & seems a decent length to me. Johnbod (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Johnbod - Well, the cite tags are gone. I had to sfn it, as I can't manage anything else, but I've done them all for consistency, rather than just the sources I added. You're quite right, the content and the prose are high quality. But it needs some more work to meet current sourcing standards. I'll return to it as and when. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many thanks - great job! Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, fantastic stuff. Ceoil (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, thank you for reviewing this rapidly. Regarding my conflict, I added a disclosure. I've also replaced the image, and added more sources. Also, how would I get rid of this? Much appreciated. PS: My apologies for not having placed this at the bottom earlier. EGinJP (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EGinJP - Hi, I've asked for some advice from people who know more about Conflict of interest. When I hear from them, I'll post again. KJP1 (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
EGinJP - And a colleague has kindly stepped in to Accept. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC) KJP1 (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19:20:32, 29 April 2018 review of submission by RoomfulofEchoes[edit]

Hi there, For the record, I am not affiliated to Matthew J Saunders in any way — I am doing a Phd on the music scenes in different UK cities and during my research on Birmingham, I noticed that the Magnétophone page wasn't linking to his name because a profile didn't exist, so I made one because I love their/his music — no conflict of interest.

There are many varied references to his significance in the article already, such as the BBC (the UK's largest tv and radio broadcaster), The Wire magazine, Self-Title magazine, Visionaire arts publisher, 4AD Records, Wikipedia and so on (I have also added an IMDb link to his entry there, plus new references on and others). These wide ranging references alone are enough to warrant his inclusion in Wikipedia.

To further bolster these, here are the reasons why he should have an entry on Wikipedia, with a note of where I've since added verifiables sources and information to improve the quality of the article.

1) Matthew J Saunders is very definitely of signficance because he was signed to one of the largest major independent record labels in the world, 4AD Records (owned by Beggars Banquest and Sony), home to The Pixies, Cocteau Twins, Scott Walker and many others — anyone who has released music on this label is a significant artist, and he has released two albums, two eps and two singles on it. There are several links in the reference section to his work and the relevant web pages on the 4AD site.

2) He wrote music with American rock legend Kim Deal (The Pixies) and Kelley Deal (The Breeders), Scottish folk legend and Mercury Music Prize nominee, King Creosote and Scottish folk singer songwriter James Yorkston — I have added this information to the text with links to verifiable sources such as the international music review site and the UK music festival, Green Man's website.

3) He has an artist profile on — the international movie database, as a composer in the music department of the feature film 'Valentino: The Last Emperor' — I have added this information to the text and in the references.

4) He was part of an arts project curated by New York publishing house, Visionaire and appeared on record as Magnétophone with A list artists such as Yoko Ono, Michael Stipe, U2, Liza Minelli, Lalo Schifrin, Ryuichi Sakamoto, Pet Shop Boys, Courtney Love, Laurie Anderson and many others — I have added this to the text with two verifiable sources in the references.

5) He recorded two Peel Sessions for BBC Radio 1 — the publicly owned national radio station — they don't get any bigger or more prestigious than this. The DJ John Peel gave bands 'Peel Sessions' from the early seventies and these are highly presitigious medals of honour for any musician — perhaps this is a UK thing, but a Peel Session is very highly thought of here. There are links to the two sessions on the BBC's website in the references.

6) Seems incongrous to have Wikipedia entries for Matthew J Saunders's band Magnétophone, and his album 'The Man Who Ate The Man' (I have added these to the references) and not to a personal biographical entry.

7) In the interests of wider media coverage, he did a music mix for UK music magazine The WIRE (one of the very few actual print music magazines still in circulation) which is a highly sought after accolade — there is a link to an article about this on the publishing house's website.

8) In the further interests of wider media coverage, he did a music mix for American music magazine Self-Titled which again, is a highly sought after accolade — there is a link to an article on the magazine's page about this.

9) There are four sources which show Saunders's music being played by three different DJs on the UK national broadcaster BBC's radio station — each DJ's page shows the music played that day, and you'll see Saunders's solo act, 'The Assembled Minds' is listed on them all. The BBC is the number one tv and radio broadcaster in the UK — these national radio plays alone should secure his significance.

All of these are properly cited in the references, they are verifiable, prestigious companies and represent a broad range of different media. I hope you can now publish the improved version of this article. Many thanks.

RoomfulofEchoes (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RoomfulofEchoes - thanks - I'm sure, if you've strengthened the sourcing, another reviewer will take a look. KJP1 (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. RoomfulofEchoes (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With due respect, your opinions on my article Draft:Morgan K Orioha concerning '...the worst example of journalism...' and 'weak sourcing, and promotional language...' are ridiculous, ambiguous, and discouraging to me. I have provided third-party reliable and verifiable sources to support my article but you rudely tagged them 'worst' and 'weak'. While the first draft of the article may be promotional in language, I have taken time to rework it, thereby producing this one you now condemned. Instead of trying to discourage me, perhaps vandalizing my creativity, I would advise you choose your diction properly because we are all learners here. On the question of your alleged 'COI', I would say nothing in this current draft justifies that. I have no close or any relationship, paid or not, with the subject about whom I wrote. I just came about him while researching online, so I deemed it necessary to give him an article on Wikipedia as a volunteer. Even the first draft , which is now reworked, though uses a primary source, but the reference can be sourced via hard copy. Based on the question raised by one of the editors here, I quickly removed it. I think you should advise me on way forward instead of accusing me falsely.Nwachinazo (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nwachinazo - The sourcing is weak and Source 10 is among the worst I've seen. It's also a 75% copyright violation. KJP1 (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What now makes it '...a 75% copyright violation'? Anyway, I have made some fresh edits to make it acceptable. Be of help to me to make acceptable and publishable?Nwachinazo (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nwachinazo - the material you were clearly able to identify and have now removed. It's not an article I'd want to work on. KJP1 (talk) 09:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noted. But with these new edits of the article, can it still be reviewed?Nwachinazo (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not the Artist who's editing this page, but his PR, Sophie. I've seen all your comments and I'm currently working on it to improve this entry. Thank you for letting me know those precious comments! Will re-submit with all the corrections needed to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZacScarf (talkcontribs) 23:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ZacScarf - As his PR, you have as strong a Conflict of interest as he does. This needs to be declared and the guidance on editing with a conflict followed. KJP1 (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request on 04:53:12, 1 May 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Vnk414[edit]

For the Draft:Sam Chui I've tried my best and spend all most my all the time to check for the best references for the article and added those 7 reerences. As for the ref1 I will remove it but please accept those 6 references Sam Chui is not an actor or has some of his own company so i needed for advert. He is a common person but had done great achievement in aviation sector he is not doing a business so he doesn't needed his advertisement. Sam Chui is world renown in Aviation Sector and as for Wikipedia it is a free encyclopedia where everyone will quickly gain information of a person. There is so many persons who just have their Youtube channel have their wikipedia article, so isn't that promotion? sam Chui's Aviation is his interest and hobby not his business, so strongly oppose your statement for advertisement, and I kindly request you to please allow this article for publication, and I will make sure that I will remove ref1. Please kindly publish the article,kind regards Vnk414 (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vnk414 - We won't agree on what promotion means. You can resubmit the draft at any time and another reviewer may take a different view. KJP1 (talk) 05:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great to see the work you've done to improve this article. About four years ago, shortly after joining the project, I began working on articles relating to the Twyrwhitt-Drake family, adding several prominent members to the project (Charles Drake Garrard, Thomas Tyrwhitt-Drake and Thomas Drake Tyrwhitt-Drake) whom I came to via the Barne family of Sotterly, MPs for the notoriously rotten borough of Dunwich (e.g. Miles Barne whose article I also created). I encountered the Stradling/St Donat's connexion in the process and had intended to add material on the family, perhaps as an article covering its earlier members. But, to be honest, I found gaps in sources and got bogged down in detail, and then got distracted entirely, and so the whole thing never came together. It's therefore great to see what you've done. If it's any use (you may have already seen it), the Dictionary of Welsh Biography has a whole entry for the Stradling family here: Anyway, best of luck taking it to FAC. If I have the time, I'll pop by there. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Noswall59 - Really glad you enjoyed it! It's always nice to know someone reads the stuff we write on here. And I shall certainly take something from the DWB, a very useful source. I'm planning to roll on to FAC and I'll drop you a note when I do. Your contribution would be much appreciated. And all the best with your own endeavours. KJP1 (talk) 05:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, thank you for your recent comments on my draft of Grey Wolf Communication. As a new user/contributor on Wikipedia, your feedback is very much appreciated. Your comment inserted that I had taken material from elsewhere, and copied it to my article. However, I assure you that I did not copy and paste, and did not use any outside information without citing its references in my article. I revised the article in an attempt remove any statements that appeared to be copied. I was wondering specifically why the article appeared to be "taken," so that I may continue to make revisions. Again, thank you for your feedback, it is certainly helpful. (Shaeleestn (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Shaeleestn, Robert McClenon - Shaeleestn, first no offence was meant by the suggestion that the material may have come from elsewhere and my apologies if any was caused. It was just that certain features of the draft puzzled myself and another reviewer. On the wider issue of acceptability, I think the fact that the Grey Wolf article already has a section on communication means that your draft would probably be better worked into that, rather than created as a standalone article. Perhaps you could discuss this on the Grey Wolf article talkpage. Lastly, please don't delete comments on the draft - they're designed to help authors and other reviewers. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21:37:47, 2 May 2018 review of submission by[edit]

I'm not necessarily requesting a re-review but aside from some poorly chosen words I'm not sure how I can make this sound less like a resume, considering the nature of the page is to document her notable work. I don't have a conflict of interest (not that I can prove that) except that I live in the St. Lawrence neighborhood and I happen to be aware of her. Should she create the page herself? (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] - The thing is, is her work notable? We have detailed guidance on the Notability of persons here, Wikipedia:Notability (people), with lots and lots of subsidiary guidance. Have a look and see whether you can see a Category that would apply. I can't and if you can't either, then a page probably isn't warranted. And it would be no better, indeed worse, for her to undertake the draft herself, as per Wikipedia:Autobiography. Out of interest, where did the photo come from? KJP1 (talk) 05:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can you please explain to me which language in this article is not neutral? I am having a hard time figuring that out. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jxstylez (talkcontribs) 19:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jxstylez - the entire tone of the draft is promotional. KJP1 (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

06:09:45, 4 May 2018 review of submission by Vnk414[edit]

I have stated my reason before, i kindly request you to please allow this article to publish by yourself, because it will take more time for another review,regards Vnk414 (talk) 06:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vnk414 - I've also stated my view, which is that it is an advertisement. For that reason, I won't be Accepting it. KJP1 (talk) 06:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Thanks for reviewing the Max Rose politician page. I was hoping you could explain a bit more what you mean by "unless they've achieved notability in other areas." Max is getting significant national attention, was profiled in POLITICO, and is drawing some national news coverage. So I figured it was time for him to have a wikipedia page. As for the conflict of interest, I don't have any connection to him, other than that he is running in the district where I live. I tried my best to keep the article neutral and factual, and not promotional of his campaign or policies in any way. --Shouthshoredem (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shouthshoredem - Sure. The Notability criterion for politicians specifically covers candidates as follows: "3.Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Post the military, he was a staffer for the state attorney-general and a CEO of a health foundation but even that coverage primarily focusses on his running. I'm not seeing Notability beyond his run, at present. As I said, the article's very well put together and you can, of course, seek another review just by resubmitting. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shouthshoredem, any article about a person who is running in an upcoming election and who is not already notable per WP:POLITICIAN, is almost certainly to be rejected as promotional. That said, it does look very possible as if the page were written by someone close to him, or by his campaign agent, or by someone who supports him or his party. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request on 04:48:27, 6 May 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Ghostmozind[edit]

I was creating an article under the title "Clamsys Consultancy Services Private Limited" but its been declined for the reason "Complete Advertising" which I believe is not fair at all. I took days together to take references from all the so called wikipedia articles and there wouldn't be any such information that these guys claim to be advertising. I think they only encourage big giants to be listed in their list, but not any small companies. There's no substantial point to tell the article is looking advertising. Can you tell me which information looks advertising? Ghostmozind (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ghostmozind - Hi, I'm afraid the issue was the entire draft, in that it was all advertising. Drafts don't need to have promotional language to be advertising. What the company wants is presence on Wikipedia. Re. your point about "giants", they'll have articles because they have received "significant coverage from reliable, independent sources". KJP1 (talk) 05:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request on 07:17:18, 6 May 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Joyce801[edit]

The Wikipedia page "Sersic_profile" refers to the "core-Sersic profile", the "de Vaucouleurs profile", and the "Einasto profile". The "de Vaucouleurs profile" and the "Einasto profile" have their own Wikipedia page, while the core-Sersic model does not. However, the "de Vaucouleurs profile" is just a reduced version of the "Sersic_profile", while the "Einasto profile" has exactly the same function form as the "Sersic_profile". Unlike these two profiles, the core-Sersic profile cannot be derived from the "Sersic_profile". It therefore is appropriate for the core-Sersic profile to have a dedicated page. As can be seen from the draft, the amount of information related to the core-Sersic profile would swamp the "Sersic profile" page. Joyce801 (talk) 07:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joyce801 - Thanks for getting in touch. I'm not competent to judge, and while you very probably are, you do have a declared conflict of interest. I've raised a query at the Maths project and hopefully someone from there will comment shortly. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request on 04:49:32, 7 May 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Saket87[edit]

Hello KJP1 I see that you have declined the page I created for the company tdsmaker. Sir, I have tried to follow the guidelines as much as I could. I have already declared that I am being paid to write, I have also specified who exactly is paying me. After that, I have tried to make sure that none of the things I wrote can anyway be an appreciation of the company or its product. Kindly provide me some guidance as to how I can make the changes which will get the article an acceptance. Also Sir, it a good product for an upcoming company and yet I have not written anything in detail which might make it look like an advertisement. Looking forward to receiving some guidance from you. Thank you. Regards, Saket Saket87 (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saket87 - I indicated the problems in the Decline notice. First, it was an advertisement. The tone/content of advertisements doesn't have to be promotional, what the guys who paid you wanted was for their company to be on Wikipedia. Second, it had very weak sourcing. Third, the sourcing didn't show that the company was Notable. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, there are loads of ways you can help but writing a poorly-sourced advertisement for cash isn't one of them. KJP1 (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request on 11:07:33, 7 May 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Yashodhan0216[edit]

Hi I am replying to the source reference for Wilson Louis Page. Source 3 is not Wikipedia Source, but a source from a reputed Bollywood Website which reviews and gives trade information about Bollywood Films and personalities. yash0216 11:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Apologies - there was something a bit odd, that's why I put the query and the ?, but it looks fine now. KJP1 (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

06:37:33, 9 May 2018 review of submission by[edit]

{{SAFESUBST:Void| Hello. If Bitcore draft is pure advert then please let me know what really differs from bytecoin article Thanks. (talk) 06:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Hi - Wikipedia’s a constant work in progress, and all articles that exist are subject to revision/deletion. So it’s never a good argument to say article X should exist because article Y exists. You should base your arguments on the merits of the article you’ve submitted, not on the merits or demerits of others. Have a look at this essay, which covers the issue in more detail, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. KJP1 (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In this case delete the whole Bitcore article for I don't care. But please also select for speedy deletion all the other cryptocurrency articles except bitcoin, as they are spin off of bitcoin and those articles promotes their features and differences from bitcoin just as the bitcore draft. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Yah gotta find a way to not include teh CSD tags in teh AfC declines/comments. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dlohcierekim - Can, and will, do. I was experimenting with trying to save time by including the CSD within the review. Shalln’t pursue it! KJP1 (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:07:33, 10 May 2018 review of submission by Hs3058795[edit]

R singla 20:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what the question is? KJP1 (talk) 06:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:51:50, 12 May 2018 review of submission by ADB2017[edit]

Hi KJP1, Thanks for your feedback on Draft:Tilottama Barooah. Seems like my submission couldnt get your approval as it seemed to be an article in memory of a distinguished educationist from Assam, Tilottama Barooah. I would like to request more information and suggestions from you on how I can modify and change the format of the contents to satisfy the conditions required.

- My effort is with an objective to preserve the work and contribution of some people in our small community and society. Even though the community may be small the life, works and the impact of these people are big and should be acknowledged and passed on to generations.
- Apart from that, I believe, after a decade it will be sad if users like me looking for information on her are left with disappointment without much of it.
- I am guessing wikpedia is such another place with categories like "People from Assam" where users will search or expect to know about famous people like Tilottama Barooah of Assam to know more about her as an educationist. I am not sure how submission like , renu saikia is different from mine

- Also to add to this , currently users have very limited to no information available on her works. This is another reason why I believe I need to make a sincere effort to keep her life and works alive before people like her fade away from us.

Hope you can guide and enlighten me in this regard, Thanks ADB ADB2017 (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ADB2017 - Hi and thanks for getting back. The issue isn't whether her life was important, which I'm sure it was, but whether she received the "significant coverage from reliable, independent sources" through which we assess Notability. Millions of people live very worthwhile lives, but don't warrant a page on Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. What it isn't is a memorial site, Wikipedia:NOTMEMORIAL, and the problem with your draft is that it is written as a tribute and it doesn't have any sourcing. I'm sorry, but I really don't think the article can be rewritten to meet the criteria. As I suggested, there are many memorial sites where you could publish it. Sorry I can't help. KJP1 (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That said - if you do have a few more sources like the first given above, you may be able to show Notability. I can't read the second and the third won't do. But you would still need to tone down the language; we just don't write content like "Her story is one of triumph, a lady who had courage in her heart". I'm sure it's true, but it's not the Neutral tone we use. KJP1 (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:Cpass[edit]

Hello KJP1. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Cpass, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional to the point where it can't remain in draftspace. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GorillaWarfare - No problem and thanks for letting me know. The service is actually yet to launch, which may make it Too Soon. KJP1 (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO borderline. Typical issue where a DraftPROD would be useful. If the creator doesn't react (and they probably won't), send it to MfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kudpung - No worries, Kudpung, it's a judgement call and I'm fine with that. To me, it's an advert and a COI one too, but I quite like "it was lunched in London"! I'll take it to MfD in a while but it can get pretty sticky there if you try to say it just might not be notable. Hope you're keeping well. KJP1 (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request on 05:44:26, 14 May 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by ADB2017[edit]

KJP1 , I have made some updates to the page declined by you earlier. You can request for deletion if you still disapprove. I will submit it later once I have the required information for you. Thanks ADB ADB2017 (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

07:18:06, 14 May 2018 review of submission by Sdfish78[edit]

Hi there! I saw you declined my submission for OurPath. I have no conflict with the company - I'm a student journalist. I emailed the company founders for some details & also a high resolution copy of their logo, but I do not work for the company.

Could you help me understand which elements you see as poorly sourced? From what I can see, links to the NHS website and various respected news outlets are not poor sources.

If you could also help me understand the difference between this submission, and this: - I used Lexoo's page as a starting block as they are a company at a similar stage. This page has obviously been accepted so it would be helpful if you could outline what you see as the differences that would allow one page to be accepted, and another rejected.

There seems to be an element of inconsistency that it would be useful if you could clarify

Sdfish78 (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sdfish78 - Hi thanks for getting back. A couple of points, and then I'll get to the sources. You state you have no connection to the company and are interested in it as a student journalist. I shall, of course, assume good faith, but I note your userpage says you're a recent Physics graduate now working in startups, and that this draft is the only article on here that you've worked on, to the extent of obtaining a digital copy of the company logo from the company and publishing it, presumably with their permission. Second, as Wikipedia's a constant work in progress, with articles being created, amended and deleted all the time, it's never a strong argument to argue for acceptance or deletion of one article by referencing another. This essay gives more details, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. It's always best to argue the merits or otherwise of the specific case. So, to turn to the sourcing in yours:
  • Source 1 - Crunchbase which is not reliable;
  • Source 2 - Fine as a source, but it's a mention of one technology being trialled among a number;
  • Source 3 - A PR release from the company's partner and thus not independent;
  • Source 4 - Wired is a news site not a medical journal and the content is primarily an interview with the company founders, which could be considered Primary;
  • Source 5 - An appearance in a Forbes list;
  • Source 6 - a 404 error. If it worked, I think I'd see a mention among 50;
  • Source 7 - YouTube pitch by the company and neither reliable nor independent;
  • Source 8 - I can't see mention of the company, but if I've missed it, it's a mention in a list of 23 from a not particularly reliable source;
  • Source 9 - fine as a news source - although not a medical journal. But again content is quotes/interview with one of the founders and the primary focus is on another product;
  • Source 10 - Another mention in a tech source not a medical source.
In brief, I don't see the "significant coverage in reliable, independent sources" necessary to establish Notability. In particular, the sources are mostly tech publications, not medical journals. I'd suggest looking at Wikipedia:RS/MC which gives detailed information on reliable sources for medical articles.
You can, of course, resubmit your draft at any time. KJP1 (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK thank you - I'll work on improving the sources. I referenced the Lexoo article because I saw that as a benchmark - rather than as a direct comparison. If you were to re-review that now, would you subsequently reject that?

A medical journal shouldn't be a relevant to listing a company on Wikipedia - even if they're in the health space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdfish78 (talkcontribs) 16:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:07:46, 15 May 2018 review of submission by StacyGildersleeve[edit]

Thank you for the review. I am new to Wikipedia and learning the process. You mentioned in the review that I needed to include references to known sources on the subject matter however, Concrete Block Machines are not something that there is much information on inside Wikipedia. How am I supposed to get supporting references in place when there is little already in Wikipedia on the subject? I look at entries related to things like 'Tractors' or 'Cars' and imagine that I am trying to do something similar for Concrete Block Machines however, I can't say I find much direct information in Wikipedia supporting this new entry.

I have gone through and removed the external links to companies that manufacture the equipment as you suggested and am adding Wiki-links to support the general concepts mentioned in teh article however, I would appreciate more advice on how to get things resolved and moved on to published. I'm willing to invest the time to make sure it conforms to Wikipedia's standards, I would like advice on how to accomplish this. More pictures? Better formatting? What types of external links are acceptable and where?

StacyGildersleeve (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

StacyGildersleeve - Hi Stacy and thanks for getting back. First, congratulations on the draft. It is well-written and well-researched. As to getting it published on Wikipedia, I can certainly help with some things, but not with others. So, the things I can help with:
  • Reliable sources - first and foremost, you need some reliable sources. These are our lifeblood. They're how you show a topic is Notable and they let readers Verify the content. They shouldn't come from Wikipedia as it can't source itself. So you find some articles in newspapers, magazines, journals, online sources, anything respectable that has a decent editorial reputation for fact-checking (not blogs! and not commercial companies advertising their own products), that writes about the topic. A quick Google search doesn't give me much - has nobody written about these things! - but something like this [1] would probably do? You know what you're looking for so you should be able to find more.
  • Citing - having found your source, you need to cite it properly. We don't use embedded links and the source needs to be cited inline against the fact it supports. So, taking the example above., suppose I wanted to say, "there has been a resistance to prefab construction in Africa"(ref name=""/), I'd put the cite at the end of the line. It's a bit tricky at first, but if you can find a few sources, I'd be happy to walk you through it. This, Help:Referencing for beginners, is a helpful guide.
  • Lastly, some of your language is a bit technical and you may have to simplify it for our general readership. As an example, the lead paragraph should make very clear what the article's about. Now, I'm dumb re. engineering, but I'm not 100% sure from your description what the machine does. It makes concrete, right? Or does it make "things" from concrete, e.g. blocks? It needs to be clear.
Now, what I can't help with is any content-specific stuff as you could put what I know about engineering on a very small postage stamp. But drop by the Talkpage here, Wikipedia:WikiProject Engineering and you should find an editor or two who would be able to suggest links/connections to appropriate Wikipedia articles. Hope this helps and give me a shout if you want any assistance with the formatting. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! Sorry about the conflicts, I just had some time and wanted to get things done, didn’t know you were trying to edit as well. I’ll try to find proper sources to add citations and then try resubmitting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StacyGildersleeve (talkcontribs) 13:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review of ZebraPizza zine.[edit]

Thank you for the notes on the wiki page draft. What would be sufficient references from independent sources I might be able to add. Any specific examples, like newspaper publication or 3rd party sources? Pizzajono (talk) 06:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would you consider honing your burgeoning source-reviewer skills at the Burgess FAC? The article is making its glacial progress through the system; it's got a few supports, a partial and possibly abandoned prose review, but what it most needs is a sources review. I'd be most grateful if you can oblige. Brianboulton (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brianboulton - It would be my absolute pleasure. I shall begin tomorrow. KJP1 (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, You were totally wrong in this statement "The almost single-purpose author certainly has an undeclared Conflict of interest. Their Talkpage is a replica of this". I chose to use my Talkpage to work on the first Draft of the article there is nothing wrong with doing that, it is easier for me writing on my Talkpage and then pasting it in the Draft when I am comfortable with the outcome. Tagging it for deletion is complete stretch, it was reviewed and rejected, I worked on it to show that I have no ties with the company and submitted again for review but you chose not to even read the edited version instead you went to the original draft I previously wrote which is still on my Talkpage to use as your reference. That is totally wrong and unfair. I suggest you read the article (the edited copy) with an open mind and if you still feel it's a form of advertisement then I will be interested to know which area you exactly point out as your proof. I will be looking forward to your response. 27nonso (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

27nonso - The whole draft is an advert. The sourcing is very poor throughout. And I read the draft you submitted. KJP1 (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

KJP1 I respect your opinion but i still think you should remove the deletion tag and i will keep working on the draft to have it done perfectly. 27nonso (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

27nonso - There is nothing you can do to make it suitable. It is a very poorly-sourced advertisement. KJP1 (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AFD nominations[edit]

It's a pain to list AFDs properly as it requires 4 edits. But Twinkle gives you a button that allows you to do it all in one click by using the "XFD" option. Let me know if you don't understand anything there. SmartSE (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Smartse - You're not wrong! And I never thought to use Twinkle. Many thanks for your help. KJP1 (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi KJP1. Thanks for reviewing my article so soon. This happens to be my first Wikipedia article and I have tried my best to follow guidelines. I believe that the education company, Jamboree Education, given its reputation, makes a strong case for an entry, within its category. The submission has a neutral tone and contains verifiable facts. I would appreciate it if you could point out the parts that you consider as 'blatant advertising'. Further, I don't have a COI with the subject and no, I am not doing this as a paid work. Calling a first timer (who is looking to contribute meaningfully in a specific field) a 'single-purpose author' is presumptious, not to mention unfair. I would request you for a re-review.Mchov 21 (talk) 09:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)MchovReply[reply]

Mchov21 - I’m afraid I don’t agree. To me it was a clear advertisement as it was to the administrator who deleted it. KJP1 (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

14:30:30, 19 May 2018 review of submission by[edit]

Hey, all the references that are given are independent of this person. His department's webpage is not made or run by him, and it verifies his identity. Library of Congress lists his publications, his books get reviewed in international peer-reviewed journals, including Language. These reviews are not written by him himself -- all of these sources are independent of him. Secondly, I don't see why webpages of other scientists/linguists such as are acceptable, which show the same kind of sources (departmental webpages, reviews of books, etc.) and who have the same level of notability.

I have read This person has long been editor of a major, international journal, as noted and now referenced in the article. This alone should be sufficient to achieve notability. I'll check the other criteria. (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For obvious reasons, neither his faculty or listings of his books are independent of him. You need some secondary, independent sources that give him significant coverage. KJP1 (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reviews are not "listings of his books". They are peer-reviewed articles in international (SSCI) journals that discuss his work, written by others.

Second, again, This person has long been editor of a major, international journal (The Linguistic Review, which also has a wikipedia page and on which he is listed as editor-in-chief), as noted and referenced in the article. This alone should be sufficient to achieve notability. (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, KJP1. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hunter & Bell[edit]

In this diff, you added a reference to a file on your C: drive. Is there an online location for the file, or more detailed information as to its contents? power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Power~enwiki - Hi - nothing on my c: drive. Both sources I found online. I could probably find it again if needed. KJP1 (talk) 05:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

06:46:59, 22 May 2018 review of submission by Timmylegend[edit]

This is not an attempt to advertise or promote the organization "zinox". The organization Zinox technologies is very notable. It is one of the few ICT organizations in Nigeria and Africa that are truly stepping up to the game and are developing and manufacturing tech locally. And all my citations and references are all independent (Bloomberg, Thisday, Punch newspaper) these are all credible sources. Timmylegend (talk) 06:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Timmylegend - I'm afraid we won't agree. I've analysed the sources on the relevant page. And I note you're sidestepped my Conflict of interest question. KJP1 (talk) 06:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not promoting the brand as regards the conflict of interest. I have removed all weasel words and I didn't give undue weight, neither did I promote puffery. I will work on getting more credible sources. That their hosting doesn't expire Timmylegend (talk) 07:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Timmylegend - It's a simple question, which you've again not answered. Do you have a connection to the company and/or its owners? KJP1 (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not related, neither do I have any connections with the company or it's owner. I'm a student who's just a volunteer editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmylegend (talkcontribs) 08:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

07:30:36, 22 May 2018 review of submission by Paki news[edit]

The article i posted is very much neutral as this is information from various outlets in pakistan. this article has been asked for by alot of people as abi has been going through controversy lately. i provided the links below and made it as neutral as possible Paki news (talk) 07:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paki news - I'm afraid I don't agree that the article is neutral. In my view, it contains a number of highly libellous statements including allegations of murder and extortion, for which you haven't provided sources. It shouldn't be here, in this state. KJP1 (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, KJP1. You have new messages at WT:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation.
Message added 08:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Apologies for not pinging. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

jmcgnh - Many thanks. Now done and an admin can take a look. He may well warrant a page, but it needs stronger sourcing than YouTube for those kind of allegations! KJP1 (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like it was deleted and revdeleted in very short order. Not even a log entry left visible to us commoners. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
jmcgnh - Probably for the best. But I shall expect a reappearance shortly! KJP1 (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

22:44:41, 23 May 2018 review of submission by Liz Coleman[edit]

Hi! I'm under contract with the writer of the book, Seeds of Change. He needs a wikipedia page. This page contains that information and only some of the text from his Amazon page for the book. Can you help me better understand what needs to be changed -- as well as how, i.e. citations, etc. -- in our draft that was rejected?

Thanks for your help. Liz

Liz Coleman (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Liz Coleman - Hi, not quite sure what your query is? I don't think the draft's changed since I reviewed and the problems with it remain. KJP1 (talk) 05:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Liz Coleman - Ah, sorry, you'd put the text with your query in the section above. The issues with the draft are broadly those I outlined in the review:
Conflct of interest - As you're being paid by the author, you need to declare your very clear conflict and edit in accordance with our conflict editing guidelines;
Notability - You say the author "needs" a page, by which you mean an article on Wikipedia would help the marketing of his book. But Wikipedia's not a marketing platform and we decide whether articles are warranted on the basis of Notability, not the wishes of an article subject;
Sources - We determine Notability through coverage in reliable sources. Without such coverage, there's no Notability and no page;
Copyright - We don't permit material copied from elsewhere and your draft is 60% copied.
In short, if the book warrants an article at all, you're not well placed to author it. KJP1 (talk) 05:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:49:45, 24 May 2018 review of submission by Maria ch gr[edit]

This is an article referred to a doctor in Greece. He is also the author to the book mentioned. There is no link to his job activity but a mention to his accreditations is listed because of the importance in the field of Hair Transplantation. Also I tried to link the ISHRS and ABHRS societies which are non-profit medical societies and I could not place external links. As I am new to the community I do not know how to write it differently please kindly advice! thank you Maria ch gr (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maria ch gr - It's a completely unsourced advertisement for a guy who doesn't meet our Notability criteria. It's not suitable for Wikipedia. I also assume you have a connection, as you took the photo, which you should declare as a conflict of interest. KJP1 (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear KJP1, I do not understand your comment about the photo, I did not took the photo. Could you please guide me through the notability criteria you mention? Also please allow me for saying so but the word "guy" is not very polite to use. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maria ch gr - So:
  • Who did take the photo?
  • Who uploaded the photo?
  • What's your connection to the Dr.?

KJP1 (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear KJP1, I do not understand the interrogation tone of your message. I was under the impression that you are helping new members not interrogating them. I set a question on the notability criteria and I did not get an answer. Fyi The photo belongs to the doctor, he happily gave it when I mention that I will try to write about him and I uploaded it. I do not mind the rejection if it is not biased, I try to understand what an article referring to a living person should be like or not and I regretfully see that I do not get an answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria ch gr (talkcontribs) 13:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maria ch gr - No, and I didn't get an answer to the question as to your connection to the guy. KJP1 (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unless we keep a proper language to this conversation it is useless to continue.... "as to your connection to the guy". I am not payed to do so if you imply that. Thank you for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria ch gr (talkcontribs) 13:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maria ch gr - Absolutely agree, so I just note that you've still not answered the question. KJP1 (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that you fail to answer my question on Notability criteria and you come to a conclusion regarding my answer which offends me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria ch gr (talkcontribs) 14:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:56:14, 24 May 2018 review of submission by Parkingtech[edit]

KJP1, Thank you for considering our company's page to be included in the wiki-verse. While its unfortunate that you declined our submission, I do understand the press release references and being written by a single-purpose editor with an extremely obvious conflict of interest that hasn't been declared. This was submitted by an intern who did not declare their affiliation, but has now been assigned to me to get it completed since it was declined. You are correct that one of our core values addresses clear, open, honest communication, so lets get to it. I will declare the conflict, but need some assistance with your perspective. I am curious as to how to change the language so that it doesn't appear as an "advertisement" with no "promotional" language (your words). A lot of the subject matter was modeled after Park Jockey's and Parkwhiz's wiki pages. I understand that there is a fine line between promotion and education when it comes to public awareness, but all that was discussed was the history of the company, the products and services, and awards and accolades. We were careful to stay away from marketing verbiage, sales language, performance metrics, competitive analysis, and wanted to keep this very much a reference piece and an ever evolving historical document. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance, Parkingtech (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Parkingtech - Hi, as a general rule, I don't knowingly work on paid-for articles, as I don't think they benefit Wikipedia. That said, I can give some general advice:
  • Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - As you say, you need to properly declare your conflict and edit in accordance with our guidelines. They're in the link;
  • Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) - We deliberately have quite tough guidelines for companies, as so many want to use Wikipedia as a marketing platform. The criteria are in the link. Have a look at them and see if you honestly believe your company meets them. On the basis of the sourcing you've currently got, I don't believe it does;
  • Promotion - This is a tough one to explain to new editors, particularly those with a Conflict. Your article doesn't have to be full of overtly promotional language to be an advert. What you really want is presence on Wikipedia, for the kudos and the Google hits. That said, sticking in your "Core Values, Core Focus and Mission", which are just "marketing verbiage" (your words), doesn't help to create a Neutral article;
  • Wikipedia:Other stuff exists - It's always tough to help new editors understand that comparisons with other articles are rarely strong arguments. This essay has a good shot at explaining why. Wikipedia's a constant work in progress and articles are created, amended and deleted all the time. I see both of the competitor articles you cite are tagged as Conflict contributions. A quick look suggests to me that at least one of them is very weakly-sourced. Neither may survive. Or they might. But, in the end, your draft will be accepted on its own merits, or declined on its own flaws.
I know you won't accept it, but my advice really is to let someone else create your article. You can request that, here, Wikipedia:Requested articles. It may never happen, but if it does, you'll have a better, more Neutral, article than any you could write yourself. KJP1 (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article feedback - Draft:John Steven Novak[edit]

Hey JKP1! Thanks for the link to TeaHouse I have just joined and asked the question below too just as you mentioned as I'm seeking feedback :). I was wondering if you could please help give advice, one of the other editors gave guidance before and I worked on it, but clearly still need a bit more amending!! I have submitted the following page John Steven Novak. The comment was it was paid advertising [I'm not getting paid, and I know that John also doesn't get paid through online channels - I know he runs via referrals only in his line of work]. Just for context, I met John at function for the organisation I sponsor and had a following conversation that was very inspirational which can be listened to on my podcast here = As you’ll see, I’m a writer for my own blog. This is why I put up the COI even though I don’t work for John and had the one interview. Listeners have been contacting me for his profile hence the wiki. I put this in the COL not sure if it comes up though. Ok I'd like to delve into the specific detail - as it's my first wiki I'm keen to get it right and could you point me in the right direction? Can you outline exactly where I've gone wrong and what you think I should do? Appreciate your feedback. Rebecca Rebecca J Mason (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rebecca J Mason - This will have to be brief, I'm afraid.
  • Wikipedia:Notability - first, you need to demonstrate Notability. You do this by showing "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject";
  • Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources - this gives more on sources;
  • Promotion - and you need to avoid a promotional tone. Your source 31 is an example of the problems this draft has. It's an article by Novak, so plainly not independent; what it is, in fact, is "Novak tells us something positive about himself, sourced to himself";
  • Multiple ref.s and embedded external links - you don't need the former - 34-39 are supporting one statement - and we don't use the latter.
You can of course resubmit your draft at any time and another reviewer can take a look. p.s. New queries go at the bottom of Talkpages. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for confirming and the direction, really appreciate it. I'm working on the next draft taking your comments on board!! Thanks a million, Rebecca — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebecca J Mason (talkcontribs) 00:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. I've added a number of sources to the Draft:ThaiCupid. Is it suitable for Wikipedia now? --Pim Connection (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 22[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sandringham House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Country Life (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]